[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>
Date:       2002-08-06 17:51:22
[Download RAW message or body]

On Tuesday 06 August 2002 05:31, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:

> arG! once again, i replied to the wrong copy of the email so it didn't go
> to the list ... *sigh*

Strange thing about your posts... I respond to other posts on the list and 
they go to the list. I respond to yours and it goes to you. I've manually 
edited the To: field on this one.

> On Tuesday 06 August 2002 07:24, you wrote:
> > Obviously there is no hardship for new users, as they have no knowledge
> > of the "old icons" to unlearn,
>
> nor is there any gain for them unless the new icons are remarkably better

I would give your theory far more credence if it weren't for the fact that 
skinnable applications are so immensely popular. Skins, themes, and preferred 
window managers all argue against you. 

Now, that said, I do agree that the replacements should be better. What I 
disagree with is that they need to be *remarkably* better. As I look at the 
calendar I find that I've been working in this industry for a few months shy 
of twenty years, as a trainer, programmer, and designer. In that time I've 
seen users confused about a lot of things, but this simply ISN'T one of them. 
Users just aren't as stupid as you seem to believe. As I've pointed out 
before, moving from one UI to another (and I left OS/2 off of my list, darn 
it... I also worked in an all OS/2 shop that converted to Win95) isn't a 
major shock to the established user. Apple actually uses this in their 
advertising to good effect. 

Again, learning the functionality the first time is where the time is spent, 
and something that's more comprehensible and consistent is desirable, even if 
the advantage is incremental. Why? Economics. For an improvement to be a 
"good deal," the benefit does not have to be delivered to the same place as 
the cost. However, the OVERALL benefit should outweigh the cost. The 
largest user base is the one you don't have yet. There are far more future 
users than there are established users, and even incremental benefits serve 
to sell the product, even to those users of other systems. The established 
users are not terribly inconvenienced and the future users far outweigh them, 
both in numbers, and because their training costs (where the benefit is 
primarily applied) outweigh the retraining costs of the established base.

Remember that the established base of Linux users often chooses to change its 
icons, controls, and UI functionality at will. In the Windows world they 
don't have this luxury, but if they had it they'd use it. In fact, they do  
choose to do this where allowed by skinnable apps. They would not do this if 
the core of your argument were as valid as you believe. As it is, users  
often choose to change their UI for no logical or functional benefit, merely 
an aesthetic one.

...
> again, you confuse functionality training with interface learnability. i'm
> not talking about the time to learn their functions: i'm talking about the
> time to learn the interface so you can use it w/out even looking at it ("by
> touch").

LOL. I don't think so. You're speaking figuratively, of course. There are 
exactly four points on the screen where this is possible, and they've been 
discussed ad nauseum on this forum. And if you were actually using the 
interface "by touch" then the shape of the icon wouldn't be an issue, now, 
would it? But let's roll with it:

Give your two couch potatoes EACH OTHER'S remotes and ask each of them the 
same question. Unless one has the Magic Mind-Reading Universal Remote 
Control, you'll likely get the same response from both... they each prefer 
their own. One is not more "learnable" than the other simply because you 
learned it first. And ONCE AGAIN, it's not the functionality or the shape of 
the buttons that you're talking about primarily, it's the position of the 
buttons. This particular argument applies only to the aspect of the proposal 
dealing with switching the positions of the copy and clipboard icons. To this 
extent I do agree with you to a point... if the position of the buttons gives 
no advantage whatsoever, I'd say don't change it. But if there is only an 
incremental improvement, then I'd say make the improvement. The larger number 
of users benefit with no undue hardship on the established user base.

> my question is and has been: are the new icons remarkably better or are we
> simply going to be making the interface less comfortable for our existing
> users for a period of time for no real gain elsewhere?
>
> i have yet to see an answer.

That's because the premise of the question is off on several points, both 
addressed in this and the preceding posts. For the record:
	1. The icons don't have to be remarkably better. Benefits are leveraged by 
the larger new user base and magnified by combining with other incremental 
improvements to give a better overall user experience.
	2. The trivial period of time involved is no hardship (any moreso than 
getting acquainted with the controls of your new Lexus after having traded in 
your Redmond Yugo).
	3. The gain does appear elsewhere. This, of course, means you have to look 
elsewhere for it, as described above.

-- 
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

People humiliating a salami!

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