Re: [Usability] triple mouse click behavior

[Nadyne Mielke <nmielke acm org>]

At 07:40 PM 2/19/2004, Maurizio Colucci wrote:
> On Thursday 19 February 2004 12:11, Nadyne Mielke wrote:

[snip]

> > >non sequitur.  They can, by scanning the list with their eyes, or by
> > >narrowing
> > >the list it by keyword (see below).
> > It is utterly trivial for a user to not be able to find something in a
> > lengthy list.  Haven't you ever missed something that was right in front of
> > you?
> this is an inherent problem of humanity, which affects any solutions we might
> ever think. SO is irrelevant

It is a problem when the user is presented with a long list, a cluttered 
interface, or anything else with a lot of elements.  Of course it affects 
any solution that we might ever devise.  That doesn't mean that we can 
simply disregard it because it is an issue.  A good interface deals with 
all issues that the user brings to the table, even when those issues are 
simply that the user is human. :)

[snip]

> > For visually-disabled users that use a screen reader, a lengthy list
> > dramatically increases the amount of time that they have to spend doing any
> > task.
> you are assuming this list must be scanned linearly with their eyes, which is
> not necessary

It might not be necessary, but it's how people read.

[snip]

> > This is nothing more than your opinion, and you have not yet provided
> > relevant research (such as a usability study that you have conducted
> > yourself) to back up your statement.
> I did a usability research. In fact you already know it :-)
>   http://segusoland.sourceforge.net

From what you have on that page, as well as the previous discussion 
regarding that project, you have not done anything in the way of usability 
testing of your project.

> It works very well, although the index is still incomplete.

What does 'works very well' mean in this context?

> > This assumes that the user knows the word that you are using for the task
> > that they want to perform.
> Of course! :-)) This is an obvious precondition that is always met.
> If you don't know what you want to do, why are you using a compter  at
> all? :-)

First and foremost, I didn't say that the user didn't know what they want 
to do.  I said that the user might not know the correct terminology for it.

For example, my mother knows that she wants to send me a picture.  She 
doesn't know how to get it from her digital camera to the computer, nor how 
to send an attachment in email.  (I'm not convinced that she knows how to 
send email, either, since my father is always the one to create the new 
email and send it when she's done typing.  But she's got the typing ba


> > You've brought up the example of burning CDs
> > earlier, which is an excellent example.  There are lots of words that the
> > user may have 'translated for free into English' [or their native language,
> > of course].  They may want to 'burn a CD', or 'create a CD', or 'copy data
> > from the hard drive onto a CD', or 'make a CD'.
>
>
> Yes!
>
> > Your list methodology
> > means that either (a) the user has to learn your term for completing their
> > task,
>
> This would of course be a failure. It ouwld force the user to scan the whole
> list, defeating the purpose.
>
> > or (b) you have to have every single way that the user might refer to
> > the task in the list.  (b) is, quite clearly, an unobtainable goal:
>
> ?? your reasoning is disconcerting to me.
>
> If YOU Nadine are able to understand all these terms, why should a machine 
> not
> be able to? :-)
> Furthermore, in english there are a finite number of words, neaologisms 
> aside,
> so we don't even need real language understanding
>
> > there's
> > always going to be someone out there who comes up with a different way to
> > describe the task in English.
>
> If we don't count neologisms, this is false.
> Futhermore, it is not necessary to have a 100% success in word matching. I'd
> say 90% is enough to have the user not loose confidence in the system.
>
> > >To render the searching time irrelevant, the just enters some keywords
> > > (which he already knows) and the list narrows to show only the actions
> > > that are related to the keywords (syntactically and semantically of
> > > course).
> >
> > Searching time is never irrelevant.  If the user enters the wrong keyword,
> > or makes a typographical error, then the user has to spend more time on
> > their task.
>
> You are talking of syntax errors here. It is equivalent to clicking the wrong
> button. This is once again a problem of humanity. Ah, now you are climbing
> mirrors... :-)
>
> > >Now, the fact that this is not in your schoolbooks does not imply you
> > >shouldn't be able to grasp it at the third attempt.
> >
> > Ahhhhhh.  This appears to be the crux of the issue: you don't trust
> > 'schoolbooks'.
> >
> > I am simply asking for proof of your statements.  It doesn't have to be in
> > a traditional textbook; in fact, I would question its relevance if it is in
> > a textbook, since books very quickly become out-of-date.  A simple
> > usability test would be sufficient.  Until such a time that you have
> > actually conducted a usability test to test your assertions, then such
> > assertions are nothing more than conjecture.
>
> I hope I've given you enough.
>
> > >Your solution (SHIFT+
> > >ARROWS) has obvious learnability problems I won't even state.
> >
> > I can't recall ever using the word 'solution'.
>
> Absolutely right. I apologize.
>
> > I said that shift-arrow is
> > the method that is available to do what the original poster wants to do
> > (and at the level of granularity that he wants, since he noted issues with
> > punctuation and white space).  I asked a few questions about how
> > triple-click to select a sentence might work, since it was unclear to me at
> > first glance.  (Ultimately, of course, a usability study would be required
> > to determine if users prefer sentence+punctuation or
> > sentence+punctuation+whitespace.)  Further, I noted that breaking the
> > mental model for users who are used to the current triple-click behaviour
> > may not be optimal.
>
> This problem is of course always present when you are deviating from current
> practice. Of course we shouldn't interpret this argument stricly. This way
> you would conclude that any innovation is bound to loose against the current
> practice.
>
> > > >  > The consequence of this kind of reasoning is that 80% MSWord users
> > > >  > don't
> > > >
> > > > use styles, but keep formatting each paragraph explicitely.
> > > > Do you have a citation to back up your claim that '80% [of] MSWord
> > > > users don't use styles'?
> > >
> > >Sorry, I don't have many schoolbooks.
> >
> > I'm not asking for schoolbooks.  I'm asking you to explain where you got
> > such a statistic,
>
> > and why you think that this statistic is relevant.  If
> > you're going to quote numbers, it is valid for me to ask where it came
> > from.
>
> You can ask, but I don't want to reply because your tendency to ignore logic
> in favour of notions annoys me.
>
> Maurizio
> _______________________________________________
> Usability mailing list
> Usability gnome org
> http://lists.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/usability