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

[Kalle Vahlman <kalle vahlman gmail com>]

The wrong-reply-epidemic strikes here too, I see


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Kalle Vahlman <kalle vahlman gmail com>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 19:51:29 +0300
Subject: Re: [Usability] Double-click in notification area?
To: daniele levorato infocamere it

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 15:13:44 +0200, Daniele Levorato
<daniele levorato infocamere it> wrote:
> 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 :-)

Good point :)

> 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.

Yes, I was mostly thinking about the new users. After all, old users (like you)
probably never switch since they are used to double-click and hate change.
Especially when it can produce errors at the beginning.

> 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!

Heck, if all the problems for a novice would be to learn how to use a mouse
it would be all peachy.

> We are talking of clicks! really which is the difference between one or
> two... we're giving really too much relevance to this difference.

Change to single-click and see if it makes any difference ;)

> > 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?

Yes, and have experienced them too. That's why I recently bought an ergonomic
mouse for 60€ to replace the basic model I had (temporarily) that you
get for under 20€.
And I have not had a second of regret for that money (I'm a student so
it is a lot to spend on
a single thingamajig).

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

Double-click is mouse usage and mouse usage causes injuries. Reducing mouse
usage reduces the possibility of injuries. Hence, single-click would
be an improvement.

I do admit that RSI by mousing is not a problem when we are talking
about casual use,
but for 8h/day users it is an issue. What I have in mind with all this
nonsense about RSI
is that if the required amount of mousing is reduced, this would
decrease the overall and
long term RSI injuries. I understand that this is something not
commonly thought of, and
even somewhat far fetched. But these are my opinions. You may think otherwise.

> 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.

My example was to stress the point of RSI, and a half-joke, but you
are of course right.

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

It probably is a matter of opinion, but I think that both single-click
and double-click
activate an action. And single-click on an object does nothing.
(here's another thing I'd like to get data on, how many times do
people single-click an object
when in double-click mode? If this continues, I'm forced to conduct a
UI test myself... ;)

> > 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_ ....

Never hurts to set your goals high, I think. Just don't promise to get there :)

> > 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.

Well, this is what makes OS so wonderful, if I were the Boss, GNOME would be
single-click by default already ;) But here we are, fleshing out the
opinions and
seeing what is the consensus. So please, others too give your ideas.


> > > 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"

No no, I was just pointing out that I have not even mentioned MS here, nor do I
have any arguments that would even relate to them.

> > 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

That's a whole different area compared to usability... :)

> 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...

Well, that doesn't really say much about the usability differences in
my opinion.
Habit is a bitch to fight against.

I think that I've made my arguments clear and will try not to make up
new ones :)



--
Kalle Vahlman, zuh iki fi



-- 
Kalle Vahlman, zuh iki fi