Re: [Usability] Re: close icon is misleading

["Seth Nickell" <seth gnome org>]

"non standard" buttons are typically better because they tell the user 
what action will be performed. Use of descriptive buttons rather than 
stock "ok", "cancel", "yes" and "no" buttons is highly recommended. 
Stock buttons force people to read and analyze the dialog's text more 
carefully, and when they won't mistakes are likely. Its slower and more 
error prone.

-Seth

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 12:48PM -0800, Maxwell Terpstra wrote:
> --From: Calum Benson <Calum Benson Sun COM>
> >  The main issue right now is that there are loads of
> >  buttons in dialogs that don't have icons ...
> >  IIRC it's also a bit of extra effort to make the
> >  icons on 'custom' buttons themable
>
> Why are those so many different buttons in the first place?  Why are 
> custom buttons even allowed?  It seems to me, there should be a 
> standard set of buttons that do standard things, and if you want to do 
> something else, you shouldn't use a button (for example, to chose how 
> to handle a cookie, show a radio list of options, plus a standard "ok" 
> button).
> By making a limited set of standardized buttons, you're not only 
> solving the problem of unknown buttons without an icon, but, in my 
> view, providing a more consistant interface which is easier to use.
> Can anyone give me an example of a situation that NEEDS to have a 
> non-standard button? And if the cases are so few, couldn't these uses 
> be standardized as well?
>
> --From: Dan Zlotnikov <dzlotnik perpugilliam csclub uwaterloo ca>
> >  That advantage [of using icons] breaks down
> >  spectacularly when inappropriate icons are selected
>
> which is why it should be a concern of the HIG..
>
> >  ... or a complex concept must be presented. Care to
> >  come up with an icon for "create new template"?
>
> Most of the time, complex actions like this are not handled by a 
> dialogue, but rather by a command structure in the program itself (ie. 
> your example does not really apply, because - taking MS Word as an 
> example - it would be an option in the "File" menu of the program).  In 
> all other cases of which I am aware, the complex action can and should 
> be split into simplier components, which in the end include a simple, 
> standardized button.
>
> >  the problem of finding an appropriate icon, one that
> >  will be appropriate to *all* levels of technical
> >  expertise, as well as *all* cultures and social
> >  context is far from trivial
>
> You're absolutely right. It's something that will take a lot of time 
> and consideration to put together, but I think it's well worth the 
> effort.
>
> --From: Rodney Dawes <dobey free fr>
> >  Perhaps images should be "translated" also. Then we
> >  would have different versions of images, for
> >  different languages, and the proper metaphors and
> >  contexts could be used
>
> ..and with a standard button set this would be trivial to do via 
> theming.
>
> --Maxwell Terpstra
>
> _______________________________________________
> Usability mailing list
> Usability gnome org
> http://lists.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/usability
-Seth