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

List:       kde-look
Subject:    Re: Clipboard
From:       Dave Leigh <dave.leigh () cratchit ! org>(by way of Dave Leigh <dave ! leigh () cratchit ! o
Date:       2002-08-06 4:44:15
[Download RAW message or body]


On Monday 05 August 2002 15:25, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> On Monday 05 August 2002 08:31, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > 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.
>
> unfortunately the people on this list don't matter squat. the general user
> populace does. and that populace has already spent time doing the learning
> you speak to.

Fortunately, the majority of people on this list are well aware of these
issues, and have been training those users and studying useability issues for
years. That's why we subscribe to this list...to represent those users.
Anyone who's spent time as a trainer is well acquainted with the blank stares
generated by such foolishness as "press Start to Shut Down"; or the concept
that cutting something doesn't destroy it, but if you cut something ELSE it
destroys the thing you cut LAST time!

Comprehensible metaphors are important... *more* important, IMHO, as
consistent metaphors. If there's nothing else I convey in this post I want to
stress the point that you should not continue to saddle a future generation
of users with the bad metaphors that have been inflicted on past users simply
BECAUSE they were inflicted on past users. THAT, after all, has been the meat
of your argument, and it's spoiled meat.

> i'd love to see the relative learnability difference between the current
> icons (esp the Scissors == cut) and the newly proposed ones. read further
> for why this is the key point.

I'd love to see any evidence whatsoever that the current icons are inherently
intuitive. I mentioned elsewhere that an earlier form of the "Paste" icon was
a jar of paste. "Paste=paste"=intuitive (or it used to be when physical
pasting was common). "Clipboard=Paste"=users scratching their heads. There's
nothing inherently "good" about the existing icons. So long as you associate
a clearly identifiable shape with an action you're fine, and it only takes a
moment to learn. The actual shape matters little. I've had users that with
several years of experience who never knew that the icon WAS a clipboard
until they were told! "Insert Clipboard Text/Object" is more intuitive when
associated when the Clipboard icon, but "Paste" has the advantage of brevity.
It's an archaic term in the same class as "dialing" phones that haven't had
dials for years. Does all of this sound like arguing at cross-purposes? So
much for intuition!

...

> > 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.
>
> no, you can't. because the moment you did that you'd have people whizzing
> through 3- and 4-way stops and causing accidents. you'd have to retrain the
> whole driving populace (which, given the nature of the change would take
> years...) ergo, in practicallity you CAN'T change the "red octagon means
> stop" paradigm

Not so fast, there, Hoss! Sounds real conclusive in theory, but fortunately
we don't have to rely on guesswork. We have history!

I lived through the change from text-only street signs to the "international"
signs using silhouettes, both in the US (in the 70s) and in the UK (slightly
later). It didn't take terribly long, and it wasn't a brain-wrenching
experience, and everybody wasn't recalled to re-train and re-test for their
drivers licenses. In fact, it was only slightly disconcerting to
local-language speakers, in that they now had to "translate" the silhouette,
but in the long run it was worth it because the signs were more widely
understood. And in the UK the red octagon is in fact a recent introduction,
replacing the old circle-and-triangle. People DIDN'T go whizzing through the
stops.

In any event, you can't equate the function of the icon with the function of
the traffic signs. Nobody's trapped into whizzing along using their word
processor as if it were a scene from the movie, "Speed."
"OhmygodImissedmyopportunitytousetoPASTEicon! I'm gonna crash!" People use
their computers more deliberately, unless they're playing games. (Those who
design for speed (including game designers) find that, *for that purpose*,
keyboard shortcuts are superior to icons anyway). In practice, if you're
confused by an icon, you simply hover for a half second and the tooltip pops
up. Once that's done, it's done: you've learned it.

> > (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.
>
> these all miss the point. the answer is:
>
> 6) Changing these icons forces me relearn the interface, rendering it
> uncomfortable for me. I now spend several frustrating seconds search for
> what used to be automatic for me. I may or may not stay with KDE depending
> on how jarring and uncofmortable this experience becomes.
>
> ergo, to change these icons one would need to show a clear and obvious
> improvement in the average time to learn the meaning of these icons before
> you can risk throwing out the millions of hours spent learning the meaning
> of the previous icons.

If it happens more than once, you're either changing your icons each time you
log on or you need medical attention. Assume for a moment that only 2
"millions of hours" have been spent learning icons. This equates to about 228
years. Obviously it doesn't take that long. Never did. Don't overstate your
case, it becomes absurd.

Please don't assume that your users are brainless morons, or at least pay
more attention to what they're brainless *about*. Give someone an icon they
can guess (or even the tooltip) and they'll learn it and use it more quickly
than you can explain it, just as they use various brands of remote controls
even though the specifics of the layout vary from remote to remote. Given
that it only takes a moment to learn any icon as it is, it's unreasonable to
hold out for an order of magnitude faster "learning speed." There's no such
thing as an order of magnitude for something so trivial. What takes time and
thought in training is not the icon representative of an action, but the
action itself.

...

> > 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
>
> actually, they are more efficient than most other elements when used with
> the guidelines you offered: action oriented, used for the most often
> accessed items, and with consistent and learnable icons.

I agree with that. Commonly-used, one-click actions are best suited to
toolbars.

> > 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
>
> actually, it is nearly identical. both changes render learned behaviour
> worthless and causes the user to have to relearn things. words are just
> symbols, as icons are. in fact, words are sometimes easier to change as
> even the abstract words usually have commonly agreed upon deffinitions.

This I only partially agree with, and here's why: icons are not
language-dependent, but menus are. The meaning of toolbar icons are
reinforced by placing the same icon next to the menu option that it
represents, and by associating it with tooltip text that matches that menu
text. HOWEVER, That menu text is very specific, and isn't as flexible in
meaning. By this I mean that there's broad artistic leeway in the
presentation of an icon... moreso than in the text. I should expect "Open"
and "Read File" to be different, because I know that "Close," "Exit," and
"Quit" are three completely different things even though in spoken English
they might be used as synonyms. So while it's important that the same icon be
used for consistency throughout an environment, it's even more important
that... whatever icon is used... it's clear to the user WHICH action it's
associated with.

Apple is making a big deal of the fact that their user interface is different
from Microsoft's, and that this difference is a good thing. They're
absolutely right in their advertising, and in their reasoning: if the
difference didn't exist there'd be little reason to switch. Don't shy away
from improvements simply because they're different. Make the improvements,
and give the users a reason to switch.

--
Dave Leigh, Consulting Systems Analyst
Cratchit.org
  http://www.cratchit.org
  864-427-7008 (direct)
  AIM or Yahoo!: leighdf
  MSN: leighdf29379@hotmail.com
  ICQ: 37839381

We are experiencing system trouble -- do not adjust your terminal.

-- 
Dave Leigh, Consulting Systems Analyst
Cratchit.org
  http://www.cratchit.org
  864-427-7008 (direct)
  AIM or Yahoo!: leighdf
  MSN: leighdf29379@hotmail.com
  ICQ: 37839381

   "Daddy, Daddy, make
    Santa Claus go away!"
		       "I can't, son;
			he's grown too
			powerful."
				     "HO HO HO!"
-- Duck's Breath Mystery Theatre

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