Re: [Usability] Comments about this new paradigm?

[Maurizio Colucci <seguso forever tin it>]

On Wednesday 28 January 2004 06:42 pm, Nadyne Mielke wrote:

Thanks a lot for your useful comments. :-)

> At 08:24 AM 1/28/2004, Maurizio Colucci wrote:
> >Hello dear usability experts,
> >I was wondering what you think about this new program/paradigm.
> >Screenshots and code at:
> >   http://segusoland.sourceforge.net
> >Does this violate some usability rule?
>
> The only rule in usability is to design for your user.
>
> Personally, I find the initial interface to be overwhelming.  

Touché. :-)

> All verbs
> (I'd make that 'actions', since I'm going to guess that the average user
> doesn't think in terms of parts of speech) looks to be a bloody huge
> list.  How long do I have to scroll until I get to 'view picture'?  

Yes, clicking on a verb for first is boring because you have to
scroll.  But I can find no solution to this.

> And
> what if I'm thinking of 'look at picture' instead of 'view picture'?  

Right. I could add many different names for the same verb, but the
list would become longer... Probably I should.

> How
> do I know that I want to print the picture first?  I want to look at it
> first, then decide to print it.

Yes, these are two separate actions. First view it, then print it.

(In the future I could add a thumbnailing functionality.)

> What if I don't know the difference between burning a disc from ISO and
> burning a data disc? 

Again right. I'll supply different sets of verbs, for newbies or
experts.

>  Why should the user have to care about that
> difference?  Isn't the difference between burning an audio disc and burning
> from audio and a CUE file a rather arbitrary distinction?  

Well, no. These are different actions with different consequences.

> What if I don't
> think in terms of burning a disc, but rather copying a disc?

Right, I must add a verb to copy discs.

> Users generally tend to like moving from left to right (in cultures that
> read that way, anyway).  Your interface lets the user start anywhere, which
> means that they have to do a lot of searching back and forth to figure out
> where they're going next.  There's no meaningful progression.  I see that
> you've tried to add a red arrow to address that issue, but the issue here
> is with your design and not the interface itself.

The problem is that there is no right order to select things.

I don't see this as a problem. You learn to use the system in 20
seconds: just click at random. In 5 clicks you'll have formed a
meaningful action (since meningless things are hidden). So you quickly
grasp it.

It is very important that verbs, files, program and devices be
selectable in any order.

> You spend a lot of time taking about actions, files, programs, and devices,
> but not very much time talking about the 'all times' thing.  That seems to
> indicate that it's not an important part of the interface.  For most tasks,
> most people don't want to schedule them.  I don't want to view a picture in
> an hour, I want to view it now. 

So? what matters is that sometimes you may want to set the time.

> Certainly, scheduling is important for
> some types of tasks, but not for the vast majority of them.  Your example
> of shutting down the computer is probably a bit of a stretch.

Actually I do that every night :-)

> The 'go' button is just odd.  It looks like, for the most part, I don't
> have to use it (say, I click 'view picture', select the picture file,
> select the program, and it's there.  But other times, I have to notice that
> Go button, and then click it.  This means that there are two different
> interaction styles for what the user sees as the same kind of task.  Or am
> I wrong, and I have to go back to the verb column and click the 'go' button
> that always appears there?

yes, it's like that.

>   That's an extra step, an extra click, and it
> just slows me down.

Yes, but there's no better way. How would the program know when you
have finished your selection? (Actually there are some solutions, like
right-clicking the last item, or adding a go button to all files. But
I find these tricks unintuitive and they will be available as advanced
options).

> For your 'very good Tracy Chapman' songs, it looks like I have to create a
> folder for 'Tracy Chapman', and then create a folder (subfolder of 'Tracy
> Chapman'? I have no idea) that indicates that some songs are 'very
> good'.  

no, no. I don't know how I gave this impression. The folders in my
program are not hierarchical, but flat.

> This means that I have to have organised my media files according
> to that kind of scheme. 

You can organize it any way you like.

>  I can't speak for anyone else, but my media files
> are organised in folders by artist, then subfolders by album.

So you can't ask the system for all good songs. You have a static
organization. But there is no right way of organizing things into a
taxonomy.

>   And I'm not
> going to rename the files so that they say 'very good' in them.  

It's not needed...

> What
> happens if I think that 'Fast Car' is a very good song, but my boyfriend
> despises it?  

Each user can assign different metadata to the same file. Metadata are
personal.

Is it better?

Thanks a lot for your feedback, 

Maurizio