So what does everyone think would suit a clickable button, (default) arrow cursor or finger-pointer cursor?
(For now, let's forget the fact that Microsoft invented the convention of a default arrow and that we all tend to give in to the default attributes to prevent breaking conventions.)
So they'll get confused on every site that uses a button. You then change it just on one site, which only reinforces their confusion "oh, on this
site
it turns into a hand, so that means I can click it, but on these other sites it's dead".
If you have ever conducted a usability test, you will know that users will also voice their opinions on things that effect all websites (like buttons not having state changes). This is where we (as designers) will respond with "well err, that's the default so we left it like that". Incidentally, if I flip my Windows XP settings to the XP theme, my default buttons are highlighted on hover (google search button is best example) - whereas before (with Windows Standard theme) they are just grey and have no hover state. Please bear this in mind when talking about "breaking the default behaviour". Note: as soon as you change the background color of a button, you have broken the XP themed hover state. Regards James On 1/11/07, Barney Carroll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Patrick Lauke wrote: >> James Crooke > >> We have conducted usability testing on 100's of sites and my argument >> is that when you hover over a button and nothing happens, users >> sometimes think "oh the button is dead" > > A counter argument to that: > > So they'll get confused on every site that uses a button. You then change > it just on one site, which only reinforces their confusion "oh, on this site > it turns into a hand, so that means I can click it, but on these other > sites it's dead". > > It's about consistency in browser behaviour/UI feedback (which, I'd argue, > is different from making design choices for the visual presentation of > information per se). This is an interesting philosophy. I personally believe that Microsoft and the awful IT education in this country (UK) have created a terrible culture of people who are so steeped in the logic of Microsoft's very worst user interfaces, that they perceive and value objects akin to these systems ahead of innately intuitive interaction processes. A massive amount of common culture must be used on any document for it to be legible, and in the domain of websites there is also a lot of convention to follow. However an integral part of my job is producing 'outside-of-the-box' solutions that don't depend on a user's knowledge of computer systems convention, and instead rely on innate human psychology. This sounds pretentious but good designers do this (or at least they try) all the time. Another aspect includes 'branding' sites. There are those weirdos who want their site to look exactly like a Windows desktop, but most people want a look and feel and way of doing things that is unique to them and their site, which can then be incorporated into their corporate identity. By the way, I'm not a corporate identity or particularly commercial designer, most of my projects are for government and non-profit organisations. Regards, Barney ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
-- James ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
