Not surprisingly, Apple spent big money on researching this in the 80s: http://www.asktog.com/TOI/toi06KeyboardVMouse1.html
that is a good example: people say keyboard shortcuts are faster, stopwatch (for same users) shows mouse is faster (this was some time ago now - 20 years since 1989 ! WOW !). On May 30, 3:51 pm, Joshua Marinacci <[email protected]> wrote: > That wasn't my intent. Good designers are no rarer than good > engineers. It requires a good mix of talent and skill. What I meant > about ignoring users is this: You must listen to your users but you > must also watch them. People often say something different than what > they actually do. And people will ask for a feature because it seems > logical to them, not because it's actually the best feature. After > all, they aren't the feature experts: you are. Often, once you show > people the right answer, even if it's not what the asked for, they > will love it. There weren't millions of cellphone users clamoring for > multi-touch phones, but once people saw the iPhone most of them loved > it. When to listen to your users and when to ignore them (but still > address their concerns), requires skill and experience, but it > definitely can be learned. Usability is as much about anthropology > and psychology as it is about computer science. > > - Josh > > On May 29, 2009, at 5:24 AM, Reinier Zwitserloot wrote: > > > > > Never thought of it like that, Joshua. Huh, this thread is kind of > > making it sound like being a good designer is a rare feat reserved > > only for those akin to a deity on this world. Eh - practice makes > > perfect, I guess. I do stand by my point that in many cases, people > > weren't even trying, and if you do try, you'll get something passable, > > even if it isn't quite perfect. > > > On May 29, 8:14 am, Joshua Marinacci <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Part of the art of UI design is knowing when to listen to your users > >> *and* when to ignore them. Most of the many UI flaws in Windows > >> remain not because Microsoft's designers are unaware of them. :) > > >> On May 28, 2009, at 9:52 PM, Michael Neale wrote: > > >>> OH, also, and when you fix something, there will be the 10 angry > >>> emails from people who don't like it now, who liked it then, or > >>> don't > >>> like change, or just like to write angry emails. > > >>> You know when Toyota changed the Landcruiser from having a basic > >>> metal > >>> dashboard to a modern one they got death threats ! > > >>> On May 29, 1:09 pm, Ryan Waterer <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> I think that you hit upon a very important aspect of good design -- > >>>> that it > >>>> is consistent throughout the user's experience. If even one part > >>>> of the > >>>> experience is less than satisfactory, then the designers have > >>>> failed. The > >>>> user walks away with a bad taste in their mouth. > > >>>> I'd love to hear Josh's thoughts once JavaOne is over. Best of > >>>> luck! :) > > >>>> --Ryan > > >>>> On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Reinier Zwitserloot > >>>> <[email protected]>wrote: > > >>>>> Here's a fine example of how clearly somebody wasn't even thinking > >>>>> straight. This is linux, doing a major update in ubuntu. Just a > >>>>> few > >>>>> things sprang to mind: > > >>>>> The theme: Every so often I get a dialog box that tells me that > >>>>> I've > >>>>> changed some settings file and now apt-get doesn't know what to > >>>>> do; > >>>>> replace, keep the old one, attempt to merge it. This dialog is so > >>>>> ridiculously insanely stupid that I don't get why microsoft isn't > >>>>> showing this to the world and going: TADAAAAA - linux is an > >>>>> amateur > >>>>> toy that doesn't deserve to play in the real world. It's that > >>>>> dumb. > >>>>> We're using a gui based updater here that's just a light > >>>>> frontend on > >>>>> top of apt-get, which is a package manager that basically knows > >>>>> dependencies and works it all out for you, and can even update > >>>>> packages by taking down the service, replacing the files, > >>>>> integrate > >>>>> whatever changes to the settings files are required, download and > >>>>> install all dependencies, then take the service back up. That's > >>>>> quite > >>>>> a feat, and apt-get is really cool. It's probably the principal > >>>>> reason > >>>>> why debian is cool, and ubuntu ate redhat's lunch (redhat uses > >>>>> rpm, > >>>>> which can't do all that). Now that you know, let's move on to how > >>>>> this > >>>>> fantastic tool turns into unbelievable suck, just because of bad > >>>>> user > >>>>> interface design. Compared to the mind boggling effort that goes > >>>>> into > >>>>> maintaining all those packages, keeping a fleet of mirrors running > >>>>> to > >>>>> serve all of them, and the effort that went into the technical > >>>>> design > >>>>> and development of the apt system, this is small fry: > > >>>>> [ simple stuff that's easy to fix and should assault your senses > >>>>> immediately. This isn't the kind of Joe Nuxoll style thinking > >>>>> out of > >>>>> the box stuff, just general: We need to make sure our user > >>>>> interfaces > >>>>> aren't explicitly out to shoot the user in the foot] > > >>>>> A. it's an enormous dialog box that's totally empty, except for 1 > >>>>> dropdown box. Anyone remember the microsoft shut down dialog > >>>>> drama? > >>>>> the entire screen as real estate, and you hide the important bits > >>>>> in a > >>>>> -drop down box-, that you have to click. WTF? Dropdown box > >>>>> contains > >>>>> the same 5 choices every time. Opening it just opens it across a > >>>>> sea > >>>>> of grey. If you're thinking of user interface design even a > >>>>> little, > >>>>> the first time you as a developer see this dialog box, you should > >>>>> file > >>>>> a 'critical' bug or fix it then and there. You don't let piss like > >>>>> that go out into the world, period. > > >>>>> B. One of the times the dialog box popped up it didn't even > >>>>> have a > >>>>> sensible file name. I had absolutely no idea what I was supposed > >>>>> to > >>>>> 'keep', 'replace', 'integrate'. > > >>>>> Now lets dig deeper. We know that apt more or less forces this > >>>>> situation, if you have any experience with the text output of the > >>>>> apt- > >>>>> get tool. But, even with the way apt works, we can do a better > >>>>> job, > >>>>> even if we're still not in Joe Nuxoll think: > > >>>>> C. Give me the full path to the settings file, show the diff > >>>>> between > >>>>> the old and the new, and offer me an option to manually integrate > >>>>> the > >>>>> files. > > >>>>> And now for the big whammy, let's redesign this entire thing so > >>>>> that > >>>>> it's actually, you know, usable by a mere mortal: > > >>>>> D. There's such a thing as file system hooks. Apple uses it in > >>>>> place > >>>>> of a registry; all applications have a file in them that explains > >>>>> which files they can open, and everything you put an app on your > >>>>> harddisk, a system hook reads this information and makes sure > >>>>> that, > >>>>> when you right click on such a file, that app shows up in the > >>>>> 'open > >>>>> with...' dialog. There's neither a registry (windows) nor a big > >>>>> settings file (linux) to worry about. When you delete the app > >>>>> (there > >>>>> are no uninstallers on os x, just delete it), the file system hook > >>>>> removes that app from open with lists. You can apply the same > >>>>> tactic > >>>>> to settings files: *ANYTIME* I mess with a settings file, apt > >>>>> should > >>>>> be called so that it can inspect what I just did, see if it can > >>>>> automatically integrate that change with a possible future update, > >>>>> and > >>>>> if not, back up the previous version, and send me a mail (or > >>>>> better > >>>>> yet, if we're on a GUI, show as I try to save it) how I can fix it > >>>>> or > >>>>> where I can edit it so that it does integrate properly. Note that > >>>>> all > >>>>> major linux file systems offer this feature. > > >>>>> NB: For many apt-get installed tools, the settings file for that > >>>>> tool > >>>>> is managed by apt, but it 'includes' a special file that you can > >>>>> safely edit without setting yourself up for future pain. However, > >>>>> most > >>>>> manuals on configuring the tool aren't debian/ubuntu aware and > >>>>> point > >>>>> you to the file you're not actually supposed to edit. Often there > >>>>> are > >>>>> some remarks in there by the debian package maintainer that you're > >>>>> not > >>>>> supposed to edit this file, but, yeah, as if I'm going to read all > >>>>> of > >>>>> those! How perfect would it be that, on saving, apt-get runs in > >>>>> the > >>>>> background, automatically diffs my changes, and tries to > >>>>> automatically > >>>>> move them to the right properties file, -or-, mails me this plan > >>>>> so I > >>>>> can confirm or deny it. > > >>>>> E. Upgrading debian or ubuntu takes a day or two. That's because > >>>>> for > >>>>> every conflict and settings problem you get a dialog box. I'm not > >>>>> going to sit and stare at my computer for the 1 or 2 hours total > >>>>> runtime it takes to process all updates, so what ends up happening > >>>>> is > >>>>> that it just sits there, idle, showing a dialog box, and every > >>>>> hour or > >>>>> 3 I check in, turning the process into a long and painful process > >>>>> that > >>>>> I loathe. There's no excuse here: the gui tool (and probably apt- > >>>>> get > >>>>> itself) should figure out all conflicts beforehand, and toss all > >>>>> dialog boxes my way BEFORE starting the actual process of > >>>>> downloading > >>>>> and replacing things. This also allows me to hit 'cancel' midway > >>>>> through, whereas with current apt-get, you can't really do that > >>>>> halfway in. > > >>>>> You could take that opportunity to rethink the design of your > >>>>> dialog > >>>>> boxes, and for e.g. settings files, show a table, with checkboxes > >>>>> that > >>>>> you can quickly mark as replace/keep/integrate, along with e.g. > >>>>> double > >>>>> clicking on any entry to show a diff editor so I can manually fix > >>>>> it. > > >>>>> Is this easy? Well, I just thought of all of that in the span of > >>>>> 15 > >>>>> minutes, and compared to the effort behind the mirrors and apt > >>>>> itself, > >>>>> developing all of that is indeed easy. And yet, its the difference > >>>>> between 'utterly > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
