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

List:       kde-look
Subject:    Re: Clipboard
From:       "Aaron J. Seigo" <aseigo () olympusproject ! org>
Date:       2002-08-06 4:22:54
[Download RAW message or body]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Monday 05 August 2002 11:35, you wrote:
> 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.

actually, that wasn't the meat of my argument. the meat of my argument was
that the new proposed icons need to be vastly more intuitive than the current
ones to be a win. the new icons are not anymore immediately obvious than the
old, therefore you are sacrficing a learned interface for an equally puzzling
but unlearned one.

> > 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.

that isn't the point. the point is: are they as good as the newly proposed
ones? if they are (or at least not horrendously worse) than thinking about
replacing them is rediculous since there is no gain.

> I mentioned elsewhere that an earlier form of the "Paste" icon was a jar of
> paste.

besides being very culturally tied (but what isn't? =) i wonder how many
people would make that connection? the concept of a computer clipboard is
completely abstract to most users; the relationship to physical paste is
practically non-existent.

>"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

i didn't say the current ones were amazing, just that the new ones aren't any
better.

> "dialing" phones that haven't had dials for years. Does all of this sound
> like arguing at cross-purposes? So much for intuition!

exactly. therefore if it is all rather abstract to them, at least keep to the
abstracts they know.

> 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.

you've hit on my point a couple times here: the new symbols were better than
the old, there were more standard (international) and therefore the learning
was worth it.

now go the other way: change the obvious and international shapes into words.
or change form a red octagon to a blue circle. you aren't gaining anything
and you will end up with problems.

> 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

the fact that people must use their computer interface deliberately (as
opposed to the learnability of driving) is a sad state of affairs. it is not
an excuse to play down the need for learnability, it is the exact reason why
we need to keep our interfaces standard and learnable.

> design for speed (including game designers) find that, *for that purpose*,
> keyboard shortcuts are superior to icons anyway). In practice, if you're

keyboard shortcuts are not often used by "average" users, they usually go for
the toolbars and the pull down menus. these changes affect the people least
capable of dealing with changes in their software.

> 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.

wrong. it takes several times to learn it, many who need to learn it don't
know about tooltips, and the wait of a few seconds for a tooltip is
frustrating.

> > 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.

assume 10 million users. assume that each spent 12 minutes learning the
relationship between icons and their actions. you have 2 million hours.

10 million users and 12 minutes learning time are both low numbers. i'm not
overstating my case in the least.

> 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

i'm basing my assertions on the fact that people are creatures of habit and
that we work best with machines that we don't have to consciously think about
to use effectively (think about how much thought you put into driving, since
we've been using that example). i'm trying to ensure the interface works well
with the way people work. asking them to learn things over and over again is
not friendly to the human mode of using tools.

> 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.

you are seriously kidding, right? have you ever watched someone with a brand
new remote that is completely unlike the one before? or have you noticed how
virtually all the remotes from the same time period look similar? or how
people religiously hang on to their old remotes because they know them by
touch? people learn the interface they use all the time, and when you change
that interface they stop being productive with it. more to the point: they
resent you for changing it on them.

this is not fanciful jibber-jabber, this is obvious fact that we as humans
have known about for centuries. many of the concepts in zen philosophy are
built around this basic fact (knowing rather than thinking to be effective)
so it isn't exactly new science here.

> 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."

ok. prove this.

time a user performing various tasks (via toolbars) with a piece of software
they know well.

the change all the icons on them to completely different symbols and time them
again. ask them for their impression of their comfort level with the new
icons.

now have them wait several hours or days and come back to the new icons and
use the software again. watch how many sessions are required before the user
is as confident and comfortable as they were with their old icons.

that time is what you are costing them by changing their icons. if there is no
great benefit to the new icons, why impose this penalty?

- --
Aaron J. Seigo
GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA  EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler"
    - Albert Einstein
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE9T08e1rcusafx20MRAjidAKCgervNJbpDy85zAridbFKHUKYoxwCdE7ZH
8nd0Aq43N/Ymheg0qiDdLjk=
=39o+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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