On 29 Jun 2009 at 11:06, dhbailey wrote: > David W. Fenton wrote: > > On 28 Jun 2009 at 9:21, dhbailey wrote: > > > >> David W. Fenton wrote: > >>> On 26 Jun 2009 at 21:00, Kim Patrick Clow wrote: > >>> > >>>> I have several friends that are graphic designers, and I'm in awe of > >>>> watching them work in Photoshop or Illustrator without having to use the > >>>> mouse at all. When I asked about it, they told me their productivity > >>>> would > >>>> shrink by 3/4 if they didn't have the keyboard shortcuts. > >>> And yet, the actual research on this subject completely contradicts > >>> that user perception. That is, Apple and Microsoft's usability labs > >>> have run the tests many times and mousing is faster than keyboarding. > >>> > >>> It's counterintuitive to me, but them's the facts. > >>> > >>> (BTW, those who think there's no keyboard equivalent of RIGHT-CLICK > >>> on Windows are wrong -- there's an entire key devoted to it on any > >>> standard Windows keyboard, including laptops) > >> > >> Of course, Apple and Microsoft had a vested interest in the > >> research proving that mousing was faster. > > > > They do? How, exactly? > > They sell mice.
They sell keyboards, too. > They sell machines with user interfaces > based on mousing. And that support full use with keyboard only, as well. > They tout the use of the mouse as the > best user-interface. Where? When? Please cite examples that are publicly accessible somewhere. > What could be more vested than that? Finding research to > support what you are already marketing is high-stakes aspect > of modern marketing. Why would they intentionally skew their research to reach a predetermined conclusion that might very well be wrong? That is, why would they specifically choose to design their software to work poorly? This is just absolutely idiotic. You're suggesting the stupidest possible type of conspiracy theory. There is no logical justification possible for the motives and actions you attribute to Microsoft (and you seem to have forgotten that Apple got there first). > > That is one of the unspoken assumptions behind > > much of the criticism of the reported results, yet nobody that I've > > ever seen has ever bothered to unpack that and explain exactly why > > Apple and Microsoft would benefit from misrepresenting research > > results. > > I'm not saying they misrepresented any research results. ???? Then what's the problem? > I > would never accuse them of that, but I will suggest that > they may have set up the research in a manner which would > more likely result in one conclusion over another. In terms of study design, that's far worse than misrepresenting their research results. That's intentionally setting out to skew your research to reach a predetermined conclusion. Is that what you're willing to accuse them of? Why would they do that? How could they benefit from designing their software using principles that they don't know are correct? > It's one thing to misrepresent results, but it's quite > another to skew the tests to favor one response over > another. Pollsters do that all the time. I beg to differ. If you read the main polling websites (pollster.com and fivethirtyeight.com) you'll find that the fact is that most variation in polls is due to random noise and incidental issues of question wording. Almost never is a poll intentionally designed to produce a particular result. So, no, pollsters do *not* do it all the time -- they almost never do it (and no reputable pollsters *ever* do it). The question remains: How would Microsoft benefit from skewing the research results? > > Sure, in the early days of the Mac (in the 80s), when Apple > > was promoting the first mainstream GUI, there was resistance and a > > need to promote the utility of the mouse. But that's long in the > > past, and Microsoft has always maintained full keyboard compatibility > > (e.g., all menus are keyboard accessible and always have been -- it's > > built into MS's development tools and always has been). If they were > > so all-fired devoted to mousing, why would they offer that? > > Because they need the support of power users to show the > non-power-users that a particular program or UI is worth > investing in. Power-users will memorize keystrokes, > non-power-users will mouse. They can use the same software, > making its marketability much greater. Huh? This sounds like something everyone should be for. Why would they need to skew research results to "prove" what everybody should agree is good design? Again, you have no case here. The actions you attribute to Microsoft are not logical, and you cannot explain that away. > >> Has any truly independent research verified their results? > > > > I can't cite chapter and verse, but I believe so. > > > >> For many users who get comfortable with the mouse as a way > >> of avoiding memorizing all sorts of keyboard shortcuts, it > >> truly is faster. But for those who have memorized keyboard > >> shortcuts, for many applications (I would put Finale when > >> used in Speedy Entry without a midi keyboard attached into > >> this category) every time the hands have to leave the > >> keyboard to move the mouse, time is lost. > > > > So you say. > > > > The research says the opposite. > > > > Until you can demonstrate that the research is flawed and produces > > unreliable results, I'm going to believe those who've actually taken > > the time to design mechanisms for testing the proposition, rather > > than going with the gut feelings of individual users. > > And that's fine -- I'm not trying to convince anybody to > adopt my point of view. But just as I don't accept > Republican-sponsored polls which show that the vast majority > of Americans espouse Republican Ideals and I don't accept > Democrat-sponsored polls which show that the vast majority > of Americans espouse Democrat Ideals (they can't both be > correct, can they?) I also don't accept mouse-vendor > research which shows that using a mouse is the faster interface. If the research were coming from Logitech, you might have a point. As it is, you have no point whatsoever. If what you've posted is the best you can do in unpacking the crazy assertion that MS would intentionally skew its research results in favor of the mouse, then I have to say you've failed miserably. You haven't raised a single compelling point, nor cited one bit of evidence. The behavior you attribute to MS would be completely illogical, yet you find the idea that they would behave that way believable. I can't explain it except through the usual knee-jerk resort to irrational hatred of Microsoft. Reason and evidence have nothing to do with the belief. But I guess that's the nature of most beliefs, isn't it? -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
