Re: [Usability] Comments about this new paradigm?

[Maurizio Colucci <seguso forever tin it>]

On Thursday 29 January 2004 12:37 am, Nadyne Mielke wrote:
> At 03:55 PM 1/28/2004, Maurizio Colucci wrote:
> >On Wednesday 28 January 2004 06:42 pm, Nadyne Mielke wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > 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.
>
> I wouldn't say that it's boring.  I'd say that it's confusing.  It is very
> easy for the user to get lost in the list of actions.

You haven't tried the program, have you?

> > > 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.
>
> I disagree with the idea of using a verb (or, as I put it, an action) as
> one of the defining characteristics of the interface.  

What alternative is there? You must use some kind of action-based language to 
communicate. And simply double-clicking is not enough to understand what the 
user wants to do.

> There are simply too 
> many ways for the user to think of a single action.  If I want to do
> something with a flat text file, some verbs that users might use include
> 'open', 'view', 'read', 'access', 'update', 'change', 'remove', 'delete',
> 'erase'.  You've just put yourself into a rather nasty catch-22.  If you
> try to accommodate all of these verbs, or even a subset, you're going to
> make the already unwieldy list of verbs unbearably long.  If you have
> several verbs for the same action (say, you can both 'open' and 'view' a
> file), then the user is confused as to whether there is a difference
> between them.

Right.

> > > 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.
>
> How do you know who is an expert and who is a newbie?  Since we're talking
> about something that's supposed to be an interface across the entire
> system, you need to take into account that someone who is an expert in one
> aspect might be a newbie in another aspect.

Right.

> > >  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.
>
> Yes, they are different actions from the system standpoint.  But from a
> user's standpoint, everything looks almost exactly identical: choose some
> files, click a few times, put in a blank CD-R, wait for the finished audio
> disc.  So why should the user have to care about the difference?

I don't understand how, in your approach, a user would be able to burn an 
audio cd from an mp3 using a cue sheet.

> [snip]
>
> > > 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.
>
> Have you done any sort of usability testing so you have some data with
> which you can prove that statement?

I had some people try it.

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

It is explained on the web site. However, two quick reasons:

1) you may want to burn an mp3 but you may not know the program to use; so you 
click the verb first and it asks for the program. If you do know the program, 
you click it first and it narrows the other visible things

2) some actions do not involve files, some do. So there is no right place for 
the file.

there are other reasons, shown in the web site. You may want to read the pages 
"problems solved" and "faq".

> > > 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.
>
> Why clutter the interface with something that you only rarely want to do?

1) If I hide the time panel, the user may not understand times can be changed.

2) the screen is not cluttered since anyone can hide the panels. I just want 
him to do it explicitely, otherwise he may not understand etc etc.

> > > 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 you set a time for it? 

yes. I like to wake up with music.

> When I shut down my computer (which is pretty 
> rare on any of the computers in my household, regardless of OS), I almost
> always want it to shut down now, not in a few minutes. If I do want it to
> happen at some time in the future, I usually want it to happen after some
> other task has completed.  That task might be done in ten minutes, it might
> be done in an hour.
>
> [the 'go' button]
>
> >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).
>
> I don't see any of these 'tricks' as being any less intuitive than having
> to go back to a column in which you've already selected something.  If you
> insist that such a button is necessary, then put it elsewhere in the
> interface to avoid at least some of the back-and-forth motion that you're
> currently forcing users to do.
>
> > > 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.
>
> It's because you're overloading the concept of folders.  Sometimes you're
> using folders as a collection of files (for example, I can have a 'media'
> folder with all of my MP3s in it), other times you're using it as a
> container concept for metadata.  This is extremely confusing.  For anyone
> who has used a computer with a hierarchical file system for more than a
> week, they already have a very strong idea of what 'folder'
> means.  Choosing the 'very good' metadata-folder isn't obvious.

Ok... maybe I'll change the term "folder" to "category".

>
> In most of the other columns, the user only selects one item.  But here,
> they can select two (or more?).  The interaction method is inconsistent.
>
> [snip]
>
> > > 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.
>
> I'm going to guess that my organisation scheme is pretty close to what many
> other people use.

This is besides the point. There is no static organization that is right for 
any situation.

Maurizio