Re: [Usability] Double-click in notification area?

[Kalle Vahlman <kalle vahlman gmail com>]

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 09:34:06 +0200, Daniele Levorato
<daniele levorato infocamere it> wrote:
> 
> > It's better because
> >
> > 1) it is faster and it includes less work
> 
> Less work? a click more? less work... again, would you state that saving
> time from avoiding doing another click could make me have more spare
> time at work... and have a coffe-break more, once a year? wow, this is
> application-ergony!

Nobody mentioned time AFAICT. Work != time (this email even proves it,
I should be working but instead I'm writing this, thus using time but not
working ;). What I'm talking about is the mechanical strain on your finger
and the raise in concentration required to click twice with time constraints.
After all, it must be quick enough to take effect. This can be hard for the
novice computer user (again, as user gets more experience this problem
will somewhat diminish), who are the exact group that uses the default
that they are given. Experienced users can always switch back to double-clicks.

If you are still not convinced and believe that RSI (repeative strain injury) is
not an issue here, try playing some First-Person-Shooter game 3-4 hours straigth
with fire bind to double-click.

Somebody ought to write a panel-applet that counts mouse clicks. I'd
gladly participate
in getting some data on how much clicks you actually save with single-clicking.

> > 2) double-clicking is not too easy to do, until (if) you "master the mouse",
> > and I too (used a mouse since -92) get it wrong every now and then (mostly
> > click-drag-click instead of click-click)
> doing two clicks is so difficult?

Well, yes.

> I've teached gnome to my mother (wich is not able to use a VCR!) and to
> my father... they haven't seen windows before... they had no problem!

If the same would've happened without someone teaching, it would be
a good argument.

A finnish radio station had an questionneer if everybody should learn how
to use a computer. Too bad I was driving (talking without HF when driving
is illegal here, and I don't have a HF), else I would have called them and
said "No, computers should be so easy to use that nobody has to actually
educate themselves to use them".

> > So far the single-click leads 4-2.
> Uhmmm ... again from your viewpoint... from mine single click is still
> at zero.

I did say that this is my opinion, and still is.

> > And these really are my opinions. You think that pros 1, 2 and 4 are not an
> > issue and I think that con 1 is not an issue, since ctrl-click selects
> > an object as usual and because erroneus clicks are something that happens all the
> > time anyway.
> 
> How did you explained to your father and wife the ctrl-click story... is
> it simplier than explining a double click? hmmm....

No, I haven't explained it. They both have been using Windows so far. But
now I don't have it anymore so I'll do some usability testing on my wife :)

> Having a single-click in the desktop to run a heavy application by
> mistake can be really annoiying...

True. But how many times you click on things if you *know* it'll activate?
I don't see how not clicking is more of an effort than double-clicking.

> It's not true that "mistake happens anyway"... you can't solve an issue
> with this fatalistic behaviour I think... one of the poupose of an
> application designer is to limit user errors... they have to be
> dummy-proof...

Ok, then we should probably do activation the apt way. You know, when
you request apt to do something really dangerous it forces you write
the phrase "Yes, I know this could be bad" to continue. Add that to a
dialog that comes after triple-clicking an object and you can be sure
that nobody activates anything by mistake.

Yes, the previous paragraph is sarcasm.

One possible solution for this could be to add a cancel message to the
startup-notification spec (and start using it) so the user could interrupt
the loading of a big program launched by mistake. This actually would
be more aligned with the HIG, since it states that users do make errors,
but they should be forgiven.

> you can't understand the problems and barriers
> that users (usual to certain GUI) can create when you try to change
> it... they don't understand the new GUI is better in ergonomy... they
> only have a "bad feeling".

I have seen terrible things that people do just because they have always
done it that way. There's no way this should be encouraged just because
users don't want to change. This is not even an issue here, since they
can easily switch and I doubt that many (if any) distro's will let this fly
without changing the default to double-click. And still I think it's worthwhile
to promote consitency accross the desktop, even if it is ignored by the
majority of users (at least for a while).

> > I think you mean "not switch to gnome" here. I doubt that a new user would find
> > single-clicking troubling.
> You doubt... ok we can doubt that users would have problems... and we
> can flame Microsoft Windows behaviour all the time...

I haven't flamed anything, and I think someone mentioned that double-clicking
was originally a mac thing (due to the one-buttoned mouse).

> but even Microsoft
> sometimes do some good things, we can't always deny only because it's
> "Microsoft"... they tried to use single click and failed... and
> MS-Windows has a real good influence on users...

I hope you mean that MS-W has a _big_ influence ;)
I have used most of the Windows versions and never really saw the single-click
failure. I can only wonder why, but I have not used single-click
Windows, at least
not regularily.

> we have to learn from others errors, not
> thinking superior saying "but we'll succeed where all the other failed".

So if someone makes a bad implementation, it means that the idea is
rotten? Hardly.
 
> Just look how many mails in this thread... this demonstrate that this
> issue is very discussed! it's not so simple!

Of course not. But I am glad it _is_ discussed.
 
> The best way is to let each one decide! So single-click or double-click,
> with a per-user configuration.

It _is_ an per-user option. I don't know how leaving it as-is will promote the
freedom of choice any more than changing. Actually, if everyone is using
double and they are shown single (which many may not even be aware of)
it promotes the choice even more ;)

> > > There're are so many things in which Gnome can "do something better"...
> > Yes, and this is one of them I think.
> Well, there are things moooooore important, and with clearer advantages
> for all than the "single vs. double", I think.

Minor things can make a big effect.

-- 
Kalle Vahlman, zuh iki fi