On 1/31/06, Evandro Giovanini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And it's not an > accusation, it's just my opinion.
As a side note: The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. > > > The solution they found for the problem was a bad one, because it > > > affected some people in a negative way. People that would otherwise not > > > be confused. > > > > It affected other people in a positive way. > > But they could have affected these people in a positive way without > affecting anyone in a negative way, like I suggested. Instead of creating a > Go button, simply add a tooltip for these people. A tooltip would have annoyed other people: Me for instance...it feels like clippy "I see you've typed a URL...if you press enter, then it might actually do something" > > > > Making computers easy for people with zero computer experience and zero > > > interest in computers is a very good goal to have because it will lead > > > to better design decisions that benefit *everyone* > > > > This goal sounds very very very similar to the goal Microsoft had when > > they added the evil Go button do you not think? > > The Go button: > > 1) makes life easier for some people (the example you mentioned), and; The Go button made "computers easy for people with zero computer experience and zero interest in computers". This was your premise of how to make better design decisions. > 2) makes the user experience more annoying for some people (point and click > a small button instead of just pressing Enter after typing a URL with they > keyboard). Are these people "annoyed"? Do they actually care that they are doing it the less efficient way? > When they could just make life easier for some people with a tooltip > instead of a button. Which as I've pointed out would have made the user experience more annoying for some people... iain _______________________________________________ Usability mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/usability
