Re: [Usability] Media Controls

[Alan Horkan <horkana maths tcd ie>]

On Sun, 30 Oct 2005, Kalle Vahlman wrote:

> Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 12:07:08 +0200
> From: Kalle Vahlman <kalle vahlman gmail com>
> Reply-To: zuh iki fi
> To: usability gnome org
> Subject: Re: [Usability] Media Controls
>
> 2005/10/30, Alan Horkan <horkana maths tcd ie>:
> > On Sat, 29 Oct 2005, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > > > > * Totem uses a firs menu called "Movie" (which is bad, you can also play
> > >
> > > Why is it bad exactly? Totem is a movie player, and can also play audio
> > > files. But it's mainly a movie player.
> >
> > Why is it good?  Surely you had some strong idea to justify not using a
> > File menu like most applications?
>
> People watching movies might not know what exactly a 'file' is, it's

People using a computer might expect the Media player to be consistent
and use a File menu like the other applications they are familar with
and like the other media players which Totem otherwise resembles.

By using a different label you change keyboard navigation slowing things
down.  If you have ever gotten in the habit of using the menu mnemonics
this inconsistency can be particularly annoying.  Using a different label
creates additional work for translators.

I shouldn't need to defend the obvious straightforward anwswer and if you
think doing something differnt is better you should be better able to
prove it really is better and not just different.

It would be quite a different story if Totem were designed specifically to
play DVDs then the File manipulation could be abstracted away in favour of
playing and ejecting the Disc.  However as it is the unsual use of a Movie
menu instead of a file menu in Totem is doing things differently from
applications it otherwise quite closely resembles.

> not 1990 anymore, people might use a computer without using file as
> terminology. Instead they might refer to their file that contains a

If I were a developer this is right about where you would through this in
my face and tell me to prove it with usability tests.

How am I the bad guy for asking people to follow the HIG or have a really
good explanation if they are not going to?

Why choose to have Totem as the default media player in Gnome if you do
not want to follow the Gnome Guidelines?

> Using "File" as the menu name for historical reasons is just silly.

There would be no need to be dismissive and call me "silly" if you had
better reasons to justify the inconsistency.

> Like, how clever is it to have "File" menu with just quit item in
> Devhelp? Which file do I quit there? The one I never opened?

Where else would you put the Quit item?
Why not follow the standard convention?

An application with so few menu items might be better off not using a
menubar at all.

If it is so bad shouldn't you be telling us a better way?  (or asking the
developers at Imendio.)

> One shouldn't be fixed on how things have been arranged in the past if
> there's no logical reason for it.

How is it not logical to put File operations like Save, Open, Close in the
file menu?

How is consistency not a logical reason?  How is giving users what they
are familiar with not logical?

> If you are worried about users getting confused, how many do you think
> look at the nae "File" instead of just opening the first menu? I think
> the placement is more important factor here than the name.

Position may be a more important factor but it is not the only factor.

Why change one application and not follow that logic and make the same
changes in other Gnome Applications?

Sincerely

Alan Horkan

Inkscape http://inkscape.org
Abiword http://www.abisource.com
Dia http://gnome.org/projects/dia/
Open Clip Art http://OpenClipArt.org

Alan's Diary http://advogato.org/person/AlanHorkan/




>
> --
> Kalle Vahlman, zuh iki fi
> Powered by http://movial.fi
> _______________________________________________
> Usability mailing list
> Usability gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/usability
>