I'm not talking about dialogs that accept Yes/No responses: in this
case, it's better use the standard WM-provided dialogs with the
standard glyphs and labels in the correct language. For most apps it's
ok; however, when you develop ERP-like applications, often you have
dialogs with more complex questions, where Yes/No is not enough. In
these cases, the text labels of the buttons are FAR more important
that having glyphs at all. There's no consistency to follow, as these
labels don't appear elsewhere.
We tried to rephrase some questions to accept Yes/No response, but it
was worst - many operational errors were made. After some
investigation, it became clear that the users were just pressing the
Yes/No buttons without actually reading the question. This kind of
automated response is avoided when you write the verb in the label of
the button (several usability tests confirm this). I provided some
links about it in a previous post.
Alex
2005/9/7, Marc Weustink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Alexsander Rosa wrote:
> > IMHO the glyphs are *less* important than the text. A simple version
> > of this function could accept text-only buttons - following the modern
> > human interface trends - and optionally an array of glyphs, if they
> > are needed at all.
>
> Consistency in the userinterface is IMO more important. If a widgetset
> has [Yes] buttons with a green checkmark, we should do it aswell. And
> from the the word [Ja] we cannot decipher that it is a [Yes] button.
>
> Marc
>
--
Atenciosamente,
Alexsander da Rosa
_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe" as the Subject
archives at http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailarchives
