Re: [Usability] Screensaver and idle time

[Joachim Noreiko <jnoreiko yahoo com>]

--- William Jon McCann <mccann jhu edu> wrote:

> Hi Joachim and Matthew,
> 
> Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
> > On Mar 8, 2006, at 8:01 AM, Joachim Noreiko wrote:
> > 
> >> ...
> >> I have been giving this some more thought.
> >>
> >> For the idle time label, how about one of:
> >>
> >> "Treat the computer as idle after:" * minutes
> >> "Treat the computer as idle after this length of
> >> time."
> >> "Treat the computer as idle after this length of
> time
> >> without user input."
> >> ...
> > 
> 
> I'm not sure I like the term "treat" perhaps
> "regard" (in the sense of 
> deem to be) is better.
> 
> 
> > That's still a level of indirection. "Treat the
> computer as idle"? Does 
> > this mean the computer starts criticizing its own
> lethargy? :-)
> > 
> > Perhaps this should all be defined with reference
> to the screensaver, 
> > since it's the most visible thing. So the
> screensaver preferences 
> > themselves can have:
> >     [/] Turn on the screensaver when the computer
> is inactive for: ...
> > 
> > Then either the Screensaver preferences or some
> future Security 
> > preferences can have:
> >     [/] Require password when returning from
> screensaver
> > 
> > And your IM client can have:
> >     Mark as [Away   :^] automatically:
> >     [/] When the scrensaver turns on
> >     [/] When inactive for: ...
> > 
> 
> Interesting.  I suppose it depends on how you look
> at it or perhaps what 
> kind of computer user you are.
> 
> Many of us are lucky enough to have at least one
> working hand.  Perhaps 
> consequently we totally love our switches, knobs,
> levers, etc.  For 
> example, I have a stick shifting manual transmission
> in my car.  We'll 
> always have some type of control in hand.  However,
> what usually happens 
> is that over time discrete low level controls are
> replaced by more 
> broadly scoped high level (for the time) controls. 
> Correspondingly, the 
> details and visibility of the lower level controls
> recede into the 
> background.  We'll likely end up driving with
> computers in our hands 
> before too long.
> 
> I'm not a user interface expert so I'm not sure what
> the state of the 
> art is with regard to using abstractions in an
> interface.  I don't see 
> how we can avoid it though if we are to move
> forward.
> 
> When I left my house this morning I had to do a
> number of really boring 
> things like closing the blinds, turning off
> appliances, and locking 
> doors.  I previously programmed my thermostat to my
> regular schedule so 
> that I wouldn't have to turn it down manually. 
> There are two primary 
> reasons for all this stuff: power saving/management,
> safety/security. 
> And of course there is the internal contradiction -
> it is hard to do it 
> all at the same time - which is why people leave
> lights on when they go 
> away.
> 
> However, might it be nice if I could lock my house
> instead of locking my 
> door?  Or might my house be able to detect when I'm
> not there so that I 
> don't waste energy running the furnace on a
> timetable?
> 
> Some people already have things like this.  Though
> you probably need 
> infrared motion detectors to do it so your lights
> won't go off when you 
> are sitting still reading a book.  And maybe you can
> use some kind of 
> accounting how many bodies enter and exit a room. 
> And maybe you don't 
> want the lights to turn on when you walk into a room
> while someone is 
> watching a movie.
> 
> So, what the heck does this have to do with
> screensavers?
> 
> The one thing that I must tell my hypothetical smart
> home is how long 
> should it wait to regard itself as unoccupied.  It
> doesn't make sense to 
> define this only with reference to the window blinds
> - even though they 
> are more visible than the state of occupation.
> 
> I expect there would be some kind of configuration
> like:
> 
> Regard the home as unoccupied after [30 minutes] of
> inactivity
> [x] Close doors, windows, and blinds when unoccupied
> [x] Lock the doors and window when unoccupied
> 
> 
> Actually is is a little bit more complicated than
> this because of 
> multiple sessions and other details.
> 
> 
> I hope this metaphor doesn't confuse things even
> more.  To summarize, I 
> don't think people should be controlling how their
> screensaver works - 
> but rather how their desktop/computer works.  I
> don't think we'll have 
> succeeded until the screensaver cannot be identified
> as a discrete 
> component.

The metaphor is good, and it makes perfect sense. It
also sounds really cool... to geeks.
Most people don't want this level of faff in their
homes. That's why Bill Gates' vision of
computer-controlled homes and fridges that know when
the food is past its date haven't taken off. Most
people aren't ready for this. What we see as a cool
use of technology, they see as complication.

Some people also want their blinds to close when it
gets dark, even though they're still in the house. Or
their front door to lock when they go into the back
garden. It's not as simple as 'in' or 'out', and the
same goes for 'idleness'.
I still think my use case of the screensaver going
while I'm working with paper or eating my lunch at my
desk, and therefore disturbable by an IM contact, is
valid.

Some people just want to say 'start the saver after x
minutes', without all the smart joined-up desktop
stuff.

I think it should be possible to cater for the
joined-up model, and also the simple 'save after x
minutes' type of user.

It may be that the screensaver slider should *say*
'start the saver after x minutes' even though it is
ALSO the idle time, and that the idle time can also be
set in the session prefs tool. That may surprise users
(good docs help here), but it also follows the rule of
staying in context.
Alternatively, the 'start the saver after x minutes'
could be a different setting to idle time, and a
warning is shown to the user if they change settings
in such a way that the saver would never be seen (OS X
does this: have you taken a look at this?)


		
___________________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Photos ? NEW, now offering a quality print service from just 8p a photo http://uk.photos.yahoo.com