Re: [Usability] Media Controls

[Kalle Vahlman <kalle vahlman gmail com>]

2005/10/30, 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.

Or they might not care about the menu name as long as the same items are there.

> 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.

This is valid of course... Although some say that using the keyboard
is slowing down anyway so it's a favour to encourage mouse usage!
(just kidding ;)

> Using a different label
> creates additional work for translators.

This is too, but I don't know if it's something that should be taken
as an optimization of the UI. If I have a button that is somewhat, but
not quite similar in function to a stock item representation (say,
"save" when you mean "export"), should I use the "save" item even
though it's not accurate? It will surely be easier on the translators,
but is it worth it? A movie is a file, but a file is not necessarily a
movie.

> 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.

So you would be fine with all apps having "File" menus and that's
that? Even if the app doesn't write or touch a single file in it's
lifetime? It's good because it was there before?

I guess this is more matter of taste by now.

> 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.

<sarcasm>
Probably the UI should be redesigned to include a messenger
application too then. I've seen it in the most popular media players
and thus think it's unusual for Totem to not have one.
</sarcasm>

I just refuse to accept the "all others do it" excuse for this, but
that's more my problem than yours.

> > 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?

I didn't mean to point fingers at you, if I did, I'm sorry.

But I still think using an accurate label for the "main" menu is
better than using the one all others do, even with the shortcut
changing.

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

Why was it accepted as one if it is in such a tragic violation of the
Gnome Guidelines (or the Gnome Law, as it seems it should be)? The
"Movie" menu is prominently visible in the 2.10 "what's new" page,
surely it cannot be an oversight. I guess it's not that big of an
issue after all.

> > 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.

I meant the fact is silly, not you.

> > 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?

Actually I wouldn't, but something like "Devhelp" or "Program" might
be more in line of the function of the menu (which is what the HIG
recommends btw, keeping menu labels descriptive of the items contained
within). I personally would remove the menu since devhelp has no
editable data and thus no reason for users to be afraid of clicking
the cross. I've noticed that clicking the cross is sometimes
considered a risky when it comes to closing things with editable data,
not sure why though.

> Why not follow the standard convention?

Because it's not consistent with the application?

Because the HIG says so?

From

http://developer.gnome.org/projects/gup/hig/2.0/menus-standard.html#file

"If your application does not operate on documents, name this item for
the type of object it displays."

This applies for Devhelp directly, but with Totem the line is more
blurry. It operates on documents, but also with non-documents (playing
DVD:s and video/audio streams). Thus I think that the call is that of
the developer, and he made it this way.

> > 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 it not logical to put them in the Movie menu in an application
that handles movies (and by sheer coincident, audio)?

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

Consistency is not all about "doing the same". Consistency is also
about having a train of thought that applies throughout your
application, and hopefully beyond where applicable. But you shouldn't
design an app by looking what the other guys did and copying that. If
it makes sense to call your "file" menu "movie", then it should be
okay to do so.

If you always give your users what they are familiar with, you get no
progress. Spatial nautilus wouldn't be here if that was true (granted,
spatial file management is nothing new, but browser nautilus is
drastically different), and I at least consider it progress.

> > 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.

Yeah, true.

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

I'm all for it :)

--
Kalle Vahlman, zuh iki fi
Powered by http://movial.fi