Re: [Usability] Save Icon

[Evandro Giovanini <efgiovanini gmail com>]

2006/1/31, Iain * <iaingnome gmail com>:

On 1/31/06, Evandro Fernandes Giovanini <efgiovanini gmail com> wrote:
> My biggest gripe with some toolbar buttons is that they can actually
> makes it harder to use the desktop, even if it is easier to get to using
> the mouse.

You're now throwing accusations like "harder to use" without any
backup. Remember: Less efficient does not mean harder to use.

I actually backed it up in another response in this thread. And it's not an accusation, it's just my opinion.

If one learns to use Copy/Paste from the Microsoft Word toolbar for example that person might have problems using Copy/Paste in all other applications that don't have toolbar icons for these actions. Because they'll have to learn yet another *new* way of doing the *same* thing for other apps. When trying to make Microsoft Office easier to use, they made their desktop harder to use, because people will have to learn more.

There are always two ways of using these actions with the mouse, the standard way with the Edit menu and the context menu, which is supposed to provide faster access. There are also keyboard shortcuts. You'll notice that these 3 ways of doing it work the same way in all applications, so it doesn't matter what you learn. But all 3 are always available, and that has a very nice side effect; if you teach someone to copy and paste once, that person will be able to use it in any application. If you learn to copy text from a text document and paste into another text document, you'll also be learning how to copy something from a web page inside a chat window in a IM, because it's the same thing. What the user learns in one application can be applied in other places, which makes the learning curve a lot better.

I specifically mentioned the Open, Save, Cut, Copy, Paste, Undo, Redo and Print buttons. These are available in several applications, and in some desktops the way to perform these actions are alway the same. For example I mentioned Apple. I don't recall seeing any of these actions as toolbar buttons in any of their interfaces, but you always use the menu, a context menu or a keyboard shortcut, whatever you learned. And in their case, since the menubar is always in the same place, using the menu means point and click to roughly the same spot on the screen (File->Print always in the same place for example). And it doesn't matter what  application you're using or what you're printing: a chat window, a text document or a web page. IMHO this kind of consistency makes for a better user experience.

Microsoft is known for not having consistent interfaces. That makes it harder to use, IMO. Some people may say it doesn't matter, but I don't agree.

There's also the problem that more toolbar buttons means less space for the actual document (compare Safari and IE). And toolbars with a lot of buttons don't have text labels and look a lot more cluttered, which means they're actually harder to use, not easier.

> > > Sounds interesting. However, let me give an example: Internet Explorer
> > > has a "Go" button next to the URL bar. It turns out some people will
> > > actually move their hands to the mouse after typing an URL, then point
> > > and click at the button (instead of just hitting 'Enter'). You could say
> > > the "Go" button makes people less productive, but in better words it
> > > just makes their computer experience worse and more tiring. The problem
> > > is that grandmas don't realize that, and they'll do what the interface
> > > is leading them to do.
> >
> > The thing you're missing about this is that the Go button was actually
> > a solution to a specific problem: People often typed the url in
> > without pressing the enter key and sat waiting for something to
> > happen.
> >
> > For those people, adding the Go button made their computer experience
> > infinitely better, finally their fancy whizzbang program did
> > something.
> >
>
> The solution they found for the problem was a bad one, because it
> affected some people in a negative way. People that would otherwise not
> be confused.

It affected other people in a positive way.

But they could have affected  these people in a positive way without affecting anyone in a negative way, like I suggested. Instead of creating a Go button, simply add a tooltip for these people.

> Making computers easy for people with zero computer experience and zero
> interest in computers is a very good goal to have because it will lead
> to better design decisions that benefit *everyone*

This goal sounds very very very similar to the goal Microsoft had when
they added the evil Go button do you not think?

The Go button:

1) makes life easier for some people (the example you mentioned), and;
2) makes the user experience more annoying for some people (point and click a small button instead of just pressing Enter after typing a URL with they keyboard).

When they could just make life easier for some people with a tooltip instead of a button.  And IMO this is a pattern for Microsoft, so to answer your question: No, I don't think they're making a better interface for everyone when they try to make it easier for new users. If it's not clear yet :), I think Apple makes easier to use interfaces and they don't have to clutter them with toolbar buttons or create Bob or clippy or whatever

Cheers,
Evandro