[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-look
Subject:    Re: Clipboard
From:       "Steven D'Aprano" <dippy () cosmos ! net ! au>
Date:       2002-08-05 14:31:29
[Download RAW message or body]

On Mon,  5 Aug 2002 04:23, Matt Perry wrote:

> In the sole intrest of usability, I would personally have a problem
> with the changed cut/copy/paste icons -- instead of changing the
> standard icons, (if the application supports it) you should turn on
> the "Icon + Text" toolbar setting.

This isn't in the interest of *usability* at all, because most of us on 
this list agree that the traditional scissors/two sheets of 
paper/clipboard with paper icons are bad choices for icons. Their 
meaning must be learnt, and isn't obvious.

The same is true for almost all icons. I'm looking at the toolbar in 
Kmail, and the only one which is intuitive is the printer icon.

I think what you mean is that in the sole interest of *consistancy*, 
you would have a problem with changed cut/copy/paste icons.

I think it is important to realise that consistancy only goes so far. 
Icons are not identical from OS to OS, or from application to 
application, or even between two versions of the same application. What 
is important is the over-all consistancy, not getting bogged down into 
exact pixel-to-pixel correspondence.

The rule "consistancy is good" has a hidden assumption: it assumes that 
the interface is good in the first place. A bad GUI doesn't 
automatically become good just because it is consistant.

> Changing the cut/copy/paste icon is like changing the shape and size
> of a Stop sign... you just can't do it.

Of course you can. There is nothing intrinsic about a red octagon that 
means "stop". It is a learnt response, and what is learnt can be 
unlearnt.

The question is, is the effort needed to unlearn the existing icons 
and learn the new ones worth the benefits?

Let me ask you this: under what circumstances would you accept the new 
icons? Which of the following would you agree with?

(1) I would never use KDE again if the icons changed, no matter how 
good KDE was in every other feature.

(2) KDE would have to be amazingly good for me to accept the new icons.

(3) So long as KDE was reasonably good, I would accept three slightly 
different icons compared to other GUIs.

(4) I love KDE so much that I'm prepared to put up with a few minor 
differences in the icons compared to other GUIs.

(5) KDE with the new icons rock, the old icons suck.


> However, you can write
> "STOP" on it to make it more effective to those who are unaware of
> what a big red octagon on the side of the road means.

This is a good point. But text labels and tooltips exist because icon 
buttons are a bad user interface. This is not suprising, they were 
popularised by Microsoft in Office.

In earlier GUIs, toolbars were only used for *tools*. For instance, 
drawing or painting programs would use a toolbar for such commands as:

- change to "Pencil Tool" Mode
- change to "Eraser Tool" Mode
- change to "Oval Tool" Mode
etc

Notice two things: a text description of the command is long and 
tedious with lots of redundancy; and the icons in the tool bar are 
intrinsicly related to the function. For Pencil Tool mode, the icon is 
a pencil.

These sorts of toolbars are great interface elements. So of course 
Microsoft (who might spend a lot of money on interface research, but 
you wouldn't know it by the results) said "Well if toolbars are good 
for tools, then they must be good for EVERYTHING."

So now we have toolbars for just about everything under the sun.

The advantage of toolbars -- that everything is visible all the time -- 
is lost if you have too many icons, because then there are too many 
icons for most people to memorize by either shape or position, and most 
of the icons themselves are unobvious. (What does a padlock have to do 
with encryption? Sure there is a link, but its a tenuous link.)

So now we have text labels and tooltips to make up for the fact that 
toolbars aren't really good for what they are being used for. Instead 
of the user clicking the icon that looks like the thing he wants to do, 
the user has to slowly mouse-over all the icons, reading the tooltips, 
or memorize the shape and/or position.


I do have a point in this little bit of history. Toolbars are here to 
stay. I use them myself, even though they are less efficient, because 
they look cool, and they aren't so terribly inefficient. But changing 
the icon in a toolbar isn't a critical change like changing "Open" to 
"Read file", or rearranging the Edit menu. Its a comparitively minor 
difference, but one that is potentially much more efficient than the 
traditional icons.



-- 
Steven D'Aprano

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]