Not if Lind, Johnson & Sandblad are correct. In fact, I rmember being in a situation many moons ago in which I was failing a third semester calculus class (working my way up from an "F" to a hoped-for "C").
As I had eventually noticed that my instructor tended to just take exam problems that were in the text, I all but memorized the textbook and, when the final exam (which I aced!) arrived, as I saw each problem, I could pretty much tell you the following about it with relationship to the textbook: *roughly where in the text it was *whether it was on the left page or the right page *whether it was near the top, middle, or bottom *what color ink it was in. Part of what makes books (Rev and Dan: are you listening???) more usable than online docs is that, over 600 years or so, we have developed layout and organizational conventions for books that allow us to use them more effectively because we can automatically process some of the task components of reading. BTW, I love HCI threads! Judy On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Charles Hartman wrote: > Yes, but couldn't it be argued that in this sense a tutorial app -- > in effect, just a slicker & thinner alternative to a textbook -- has > requirements-on-the-user's-attention different from a normal, > "productive" app? Even *opposite* requirements? Slow 'em down! Block > that skimming! OK, I know it isn't as simple (or as complicated?) as > that . . . I just keep remembering Einstein, Things should be as > simple as possible, and no simpler. But I didn't mean to start a UI > or HIG thread. _______________________________________________ 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
