> I think Dan was talking about checkboxes that are *enabled* but can't be > unchecked (or checked for that matter). If a checkbox is disabled, it is > expected that you can't check or uncheck it. If I'm wrong, I'll step > back and let you two talk it out.
Maybe I missed this so I can step back as well. I didn't catch this distinction anywhere in the past discussion, but some nice tangents have appeared as a result. :-) [OT RAMBLING FOLLOWS] Speaking for myself, I question such absolutist statements as: > Never surprise the user. > > A surprised user is a confused user is a distressed user is a user who > is not going to be a user one second longer than s/he has to be. IMO, the above statement is valid to a point, but it's a bit nearsighted to proclaim this to be one of the Ten Commandments of UI Design. Yes, there are times when I want to get something done, but there are times when I want to be surprised. I enjoy seeing (and need to see) experiments in UI and interaction, even if the effectiveness is questionable. Experiments lead to new ideas. The past cited example of the Web browser is a good one. Some folks might recall this application brought to light the first mainstream appearance of the "Back" button. I, along with other HI colleagues, rolled my eyes at this ridiculous and simplistic UI solution, and yet it has become commonplace in browser and non-browser applications alike. It's initial meaning was unclear: back where? To the last thing I looked at at? To where I started? To the point I was before I scrolled? But after time, one could argue this button has (generally) assumed a consistent meaning/behavior. A generalized learning took place and now, for the most part, users and developers have come to expect a certain behavior from this control. Of course users have expectations that should be catered to, but users are also willing to learn. In fact, UI pundits such as Jef Raskin are banking on this. Raskin's THE system relies on learning a text-based means of interaction to be effective, and Raskin seems sure this will (or should) be the means of future human-computer interaction. Who knows. So yes, let's try to make computer-human interface effective and useful, etc etc, but I would propose there's room for thinking "beyond the guidelines". PS. OT topic for discussion: is it preordained that we will forever be using buttons, hyperlinks, scrolling fields and draggable windows to display information on computers? 3D navigation appears to have been all but abandoned and most folks I've chatted with think that current voice-control technology is impractical for all intents and purposes. Has CHI gone as far as it can go? Talk amongst yourselves... Regards, Scott Rossi Creative Director Tactile Media, Multimedia & Design ----- E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] W: http://www.tactilemedia.com _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
