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

[Daniele Levorato <daniele levorato infocamere it>]

> 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 ;). 

Well even with this mail you're working... the fact that you don't have
money for this, it doesn't mean you're not working.
You're are working for the gnome-community :-)
So, any way you can see time=work... or the difference is not so
relevant: what I'm argue agaist is that stating that single click is
more effective or simpler because it is only one click instead of two
is... well... ridiculous from my viewpoint.

> 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.

Oh well... if all the problems in using a computer for a novice were to
learn the double click my work in designing GUI would be easier!
We are talking of clicks! really which is the difference between one or
two... we're giving really too much relevance to this difference.
Again, another consideration have to be made talking about "consistency"
rather than "difficulty" or the "phisicall enjury"

> 
> 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.

what an example... did you know that using a mouse itself can bring you
to serious phisical problems to your hands? ... I'm actually using a
joystick...

I'm my opinion talking about injuries caused by double-click is
absurd...

Double-click is not everywhere! It's used only on objects (mails in
evolutions, items on a desktop, files on a file-manager, photos in a
photo album application) not on menus or toolbar because there're not
objects but actions! So, in your strange example, shooting is not an
object but an action so the single-click fits well.

In my opinion there're no inconsistency at all in using double-click

> 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".

only a word... it's an _utopia_ ....
perhaps we should return to real world here...

> 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.

Yes, I agree

> 
> > 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. 

Yes, I agree again... but I was saying a different thing, i wasn't
justifying a bad designed GUI 'cause of the users: simply every change
you make have to be justified. You have to demonstrate that you're doing
things better. In my opinion all you said is not so powerfull to make
many users say "yes you're right"... and again I'm in primis not
conviced at all that single-click is so better.

> > 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).

I haven't said that "you flamed" but a generic "we can flame"... it's
generic, like saying that we're usual to do so with microsoft... perhaps
"flame" is not the correct word... it's too strong? sorry for my
english.

> I hope you mean that MS-W has a _big_ influence ;)

Obvously yes ;-)


> > 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.

I was not saying that... 
"implementing" an idea... is a strange word for me... I only know that
MS pays much attention to client satisfaction... and windows is widely
used... so they took a representative sample of users... and realized
that single click wouldn't be accepted.
OK, they were talking about people used to Windows and to double
click...

> > > > 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.

Surelly defaulting to single click would make a *big effect* ... but
would it be positive? hmmm ... I don't think so.


                                    
________________________________________________________________________
D a n i e l e  L e v o r a t o
InfoCamere S.c.p.A
049/82888681
System Engineer
Direzione Registro Imprese 
Team Middleware