Eric Chatonet wrote:
In a previous post, you asked me what I thought about Win ribbons and
I did not reply :-(
Probably should we discuss about this off list
I'm hoping the folks here find this relevant, though if anyone expresses
annoyance I'm happy to move it offline.
While we're all scripters, we're also all interface designers. And for
better or worse, I think it's safe to say that the Ribbon is the biggest
UI change we've seen in probably more than a decade, and one of the more
comprehensively researched ones, so at very least it's good to be
familiar with the methodology that led to the choice (even if only to
avoid it <g>, though I think it has at least some merit).
here are my first
feelings:
Actually, ribbons seem to be a kind of 'visual' contextual menus eg
buttons dedicated to appropriate tasks in a given context.
If it sounds good from a technocratic point of view, I'm afraid that
users who need to 'recognize' an interface, are finally confused when
all change because you have bolded a word :-)
Fortunately the level of granularity seems less fine. :)
True, the central premise is that they avoid the clutter and cryptic
small icons of earlier toolbars by using larger, more descriptive
labels. To accommodate the much-larger space requirements they employ
progressive disclosure, showing only the set of tools available for a
given set of tasks that make sense in the current context of the workflow.
From the videos and descriptions/screen shots I've seen (I don't buy MS
products myself when I can avoid them), it seems this dynamic switching
of controls in the Ribbon occurs only on major context shifts, like
changing the view mode or adding graphics, rather than in response to
small gestures like selecting text.
Even with that, admittedly there is a risk. Up there with progressive
disclosure on the list of cardinal principles is also consistency, and a
dynamic toolbar may hinder or at least slow the development of muscle
memory in selecting controls.
I don't have measurements offhand for how one should appropriately
weight consistency over progressive disclosure, but when I corresponded
with Tog a while back on a related topic (the placement of dialog
buttons, another story) he seemed to rank consistency very highly, even
above natural reading-order, with regard to control layouts.
So, at first sight, a good idea but, from a cognitive psychology
point of view :-) I'm not sure it's so good.
In addition, I don't like software that claim every minute 'I'm
clever' but I prefer software that make the user claim 'Finally I'm
really good' :-)
From a cognitive psychology point of view :-)
Sure you understand...
I believe so. We've all suffered through Clippy. :)
For those of you who haven't been reading Jensen Harris' blog on the
evolution of Office 12, he now has a video there of a presentation he
did which summarizes the design and its evolution succinctly:
<http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/>
Dan Shafer first turned me on to that blog with a post he made here
shortly after Neilsen wrote about it. I've been reading it since -
thanks, Dan!
--
Richard Gaskin
Managing Editor, revJournal
_______________________________________________________
Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[email protected]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
