DJA wrote:
My opinion is that most UI research is about as scientific as Phrenology
[1]: Given a virtually limitless number of factors influencing human
behavior, we'll look at the first sixteen people who'll sit long enough,
and form our opinion of the inclinations of all humanity, on the basis
of what we think the individual Idiosyncrasies of these few people mean.
And you have a *better* methodology? The majority is not always wrong.
It is not always right, either, but until someone proposes a better
methodology, this stands as the best we have.
Does UI research say that the majority of people read left to right, top
to bottom, using a Latin alphabet?
That defines the vast majority of users of Gnome and KDE, does it not?
Even some of the Asian countries adopt left to right, top to bottom when
using computers.
Was there a universal demand for the mouse?
Apparently, as almost all computers now have it.
Title bars on top, side, bottom?
Top seems to be the consensus. I have seen no other options lately.
Is there a universal expectation regarding colors?
No. Color blindness throws a major monkey wrench into that.
Menu options?
Yes, apparently, the fewer the better. See: The World Wide Web which
pushed aside Gopher and other mechanisms which had more active
flexibility than just displaying a dumb page.
Cursor focus?
Apparently click to type wins as it is the default for almost everything.
Icons vs. text-only toolbars (icons with text above, next to, or below?)?
No clear consensus yet. However, icons with tooltips seems to be winning.
Is the popularity of the GUI a result of universal appeal, or because it
is set as the default, if not only, interface option by the makers of
the most-used computer operating environments?
Oh, come on. That's easy. The GUI had far more universal appeal than
text only did. Windows eventually won in spite of the fact that it
absolutely sucked in its first iterations. Text mode got voluntarily
*trampled*; nobody was installing Windows by default at the start.
Simple != more universal appeal.
Practically every usability test disagrees. This includes things like
tools, kitchen utensils, and everyday objects as well as iPods, DVD
players, and GUIs.
The majority of people prefer things to work in a way which is more
comfortable and reasonable to _them_ (i.e. simpler for them to
understand), which is not necessarily the way the arbitrary designer
insists is better, based on his studies of someone else's preferences
[2]. I suspect even you fall into that camp.
Yes, but what is more comfortable to the majority is quite often
comfortable to *me*. OXO kitchen utensils are built for people with
physical limitations; however, even normal people find them nicer to use.
Or, if we must stay in the UI space, creating conventions which
accomodate color blind people generally makes things easier for me to
view and use. Fonts and antialiasing which make things more legible for
the majority also benefit my eyes. Placing things according to Fitts
law speeds up my usage as well as making it easier for other people.
Given that, what happens when you are presented with a UI design which
does not appeal to you? How do you feel when you are given few to no
options to modify the aspects of that design to those of your own liking?
I find in my old age that I care more about stuff that works *out of the
box* than my ability to diddle with UI preferences. Single vs. double
click; blue vs. green backgrounds; round vs. square buttons; menubar per
window vs. menubar per display, etc. just don't hit my radar anymore.
The amount of adjustment required by the wetware between my ears to cope
with the default is less than the wetware expended getting the UI *just so*.
I care more about major chunks of functionality: OpenGL that works
without magic incantations; peripherals that work without hacking a
kernel; installation that works without root passwords. These burn far
more time when they do not work.
I know how I felt in that situation. And what I did about is was to
switch from Gnome to KDE. If and when Gnome offers me a more comfortable
interface than KDE, I may switch back.
And that's fine. That's the beauty of open source.
However, do not confuse your preference with a majority preference. The
majority seem to stand with me. Make it simple and make it work out of
the box.
Don't believe me? Look at the number of open source hackers who now
work on Powerbooks. They seem to find the interface more enticing in
spite of the much lower level of flexibility.
-a
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
