Re: [Usability] Comments about this new paradigm?

[Sean Middleditch <elanthis awesomeplay com>]

On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 23:55 +0000, Maurizio Colucci wrote:

> > 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.

You just admitted the long list is bad, and now want to make it longer?

> > 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.

This is horrible.  There should never be a concept of "newbie" and
"expert."  Those concepts don't even make sense.  A person is a newbie
at first and then at some point magically becomes an expert?  Also, far
far too many users will just select 'expert' mode because they believe
it will make the program more useful, or simply because of dumb pride.
Further reasons of why this idea is bad are documented in the HIG, iirc.

> 
> >  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.

>From a developer standpoint or a user standpoint?  Sounds like I'll get
the same result (an audio CD) either way...

> 
> > 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.

In addition to copying files?  Why not add a very to copy symlinks?  And
a verb to copy device files?  And a very to only copy files that are
read only?  And a very to copy network shares?  It's absolutely
irrelevant *how* the copy is done - all the user needs to know is that
they're copying.  Only one verb is ever going to be needed for this.

> 
> > 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.

Why?  Is there a need for random access?  Is there a need to show all
columns at once, or could the user add columns on demand in the order
they use them?  You're not giving any reasoning for this.

> 
> 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.

You don't know many real users, do you?  Do you have any real life of
examples of this working, other than yourself and perhaps a couple
friends or uber-geeks you've shown it to?  Certainly anyone who's gone
to the trouble of downloading your app, building/installing it, and then
giving feedback falls into the latter category...

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

Again, why?  I can't possibly think of a good reason to pick the verb
before you do the file, for example.  And I can think of quite a few
good consequences of removing this feature (cutting down the list of
crap the user has to wade thru to get anything done, for example).

> 
> > 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.

You are wasting that much screenspace (and thus causing a huge amount of
both visual and mental clutter) for such a rarely used item?  That's a
horrible waste of resources for something so rarely used.  If the user
doesn't need it, don't show it.

> 
> > 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 :-)

And then out of all the people I know who use computers (that's a lot)
you're the only one who schedules a shutdown manually each night.  So
again, you're wasting that much screen real estate for something *that*
rarely used?

> 
> > 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.

Why?  Why should it be?  Why can't it be fixed?

> 
> >   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).

Or just putting the go button outside the column list, and disabling it
until the right conditions are met.  It's always obvious, always there,
always ready, etc.

> 
> > 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.

Then they're not folders.  User a different term and visual
representation.


> >  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.

Yes you can.  You are assuming your method of organizing (by the
misnamed "folders") is the only one that works.  One could perform a
search with a "only songs rated 3 or higher" tag, for example, without
requiring manual management of virtual folders.

-- 
Sean Middleditch <elanthis awesomeplay com>
AwesomePlay Productions, Inc.