On 4 Oct 2004, at 18:46, Mikael Hallendal wrote:
Sounds a bit over the top to try to guess what client would be best depending on what other IM clients the user has used. And also, imho the usability of ICQ sucks, and presenting the user with something much easier to use might be a better drive then presenting him with something very similar.
I never said I thought ICQ was good, but regardless of how "easy" something is to use, presenting the user with something most similar to what they're used to will always be less disruptive for them than presenting them with something completely different.
Sure I may not agree with ICQ's UI or Psi's UI, but ICQ users will still find Psi easier to use than something like Trillian or Gossip--just because it's similar. I was just using Psi/ICQ as an example because I feel that the Psi/ICQ interface deviates from the norm quite a bit. Kind of like WinJab (or Exodus with one-window style) would be very very odd to an ICQ or AIM user trying to use it like they used ICQ or AIM.
I just think that since we already /have/ all these clients mimicking different kinds of UI, we might as well point people in the direction they'd be most comfortable with.
Yes, it's odd logic, but it's logic that most of my sources of HCI education seem to agree with. It's the same reason that companies try to switch away from Lotus Notes but fail. Unfortunately you can't fight all UI battles at the same time.
And yeah, guessing based on info like that is over-the-top, but it was just an idea. Something that in my perfect world an end-user Jabber site could do.
Julian
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ jdev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
