As someone who has not used a Mac in 12 years, and has never used any system ending in 'nix'...
I have to say that right-clicking is completely ingrained in my thinking. If I want to add a shortcut to the desktop, I right-click on the desktop. If I want to open an explorer window, I right-click on the Start button. And this has translated to my programming. All of my software uses right-clicking all over the place. My spreadsheet objects use right-clicking on the row and column buttons to get row and column options, and uses left-click and drag for moving the rows and columns around. Other folks using my software have not complained about having to right-click - but then, they are all using it on Windows as well, and are undoubtedly used to right-clicking. This sounds funny, but I think I would find it much more difficult to create a convenient interface without using the right-click. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Perry Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 2:22 AM To: How to use Revolution Subject: Re: [OT] Pigs Fly Still, you will have those who are learning it for the first time (e.g., my heart surgeon previously mentioned, children, etc.) for whom a single buttoned mouse is preferrable. Also -- for how many of the 'average' users will right-clicking be well understood? > While learnability is important, learning happens exactly once. From > then on it's all about productivity for the rest of one's computing life. -Yup, which goes on to translate as "if learning doesn't happen..." hence the importance of the uni-button mouse. It is agreed that 2- and 3- and n-button mice are for advanced audiences' and their productivity enhancements... if they don't learn uni-button mice, well, ... you have Chipp's proposition. > > By providing a mouse that people's productivity can grow with, Apple may > indeed be risking the learning curve for a subset of their market. But > given Apple's dedication to learnability I have to trust their judgement > on this. --I agree with this. It functions as a uni-button mouse but adapts for a multi-button mouse user. Very Apple. > > Besides, even if I disagreed with them, would they listen to me? --In singular, I don't know. In aggregate, yes (witness the furor over the 'candy' apple doing nothing in the menu bar in the OS X beta). > > Another issue I have with the right-clicking is that it sometimes > > seriously violates Schneiderman's articulation of the direct manipulation > > paradigm in that the user can sometimes right-click on nothing in the > > middle of nowhere. > > Where in a modern GUI is "nowhere"? Even the Desktop is a place, and > has properties. --That's an abstraction, not a concrete thing. Right-clicking on _nothing_ violates the concept. The articulation is 'visible items of interest' in which nothing is not an item of interest. --And, in any case, the purpose (unless anyone can correct me; corrections clearly sought) is that right-clicking is for a short-cut. The problem is that on Window side, too often it is suggested as the ONLY route. --I have no problems with short-cuts. As long as more conventional solutions are provided. That way, both (or all) camps are provided for. > Apple's new mouse a multi-button mouse in terms of functionality. > Whether Apple succeeds in a cleaner design to provide that > functionality, or instead confuses people by making the delineation > between left and right unclear, remains to be seen. Sometimes they get > it right (the iPod wheel) and sometimes not (the hockey puck iMac mouse). --I sincerely doubt that Apple can make left versus right-clicking any more confusing than it already is. What is important is that it remain a secondary access rather than a primary access to commands, info., etc. --Here's the gist of my argument: (1) You see something of interest; (2) You click on it; (3) Something happens. You (and/or others) would seem to suggest that it's better that: (1) You see something ----Or a void (2) You click on something ----Or the void (3) Something happens ----Or something else happens And, for the user, either what they want happens or they get confused. It is inarguable that, for expert users, anything exceeding 1 mouse button is 'expert' and hence more productive (even up to an 8-button chording device for court reporters). The question is that, where for x = 1 + n, what does "n" equal? For Windows (semi-expert) users, the answer is clearly n=1. But for unix users, it is n=2. For other expert users, it us n=7. Where is the line to be drawn? Clearly as "n" gets larger, so does the possibility for error/confusion. More simply put, how would the legion of Windows users feel about the imposition of a mouse button = 3 feel? My Windows students indicate tha N=1 (thus, x= 1+1) is the correct number of buttons. Less than that is lame, more than that is confusing. Unix students indicate that n should = 2 (thus, 1 +2 = 3) mouse buttons. Less restricts expert usage, more would be confusing. Hence my argument. Judy _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
