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

List:       kde-look
Subject:    Re: Standard questions and answers
From:       Derek <fountai () hursley ! ibm ! com>
Date:       1999-09-15 13:44:23
[Download RAW message or body]

> > > It is much more difficult to answer yes/no questions instead of
> > > Ok/Cancel.
> >
> >   --------
> >    Is it?
> >
> >   Yes   No
> >   --------
> >
> >   -----------
> >     Is it?
> >
> >   OK   Cancel
> >   -----------
> 
> Your examples do not reflect the real world dialogs.

Real world dialogs should change. That's my point. Real world dialogs
should ask simple, unambiguous questions, and give simple answers for
the user to choose from. The user should know exactly what the question
is and the exact meaning of the answer they are giving. You can't get
simpler than Yes or No. OK is not too bad, Cancel can be ambiguous.

> Ok/Cancel is excellent for confirmation.

OK is excellent for confirmation, when there's only one button:

  -----------------------
  Something has happened!

            OK
  -----------------------

Cancel means nothing in a confirmation dialog, and doesn't mean much at
other times. When was the last time someone asked you a question (in
English :-)) and you replied "cancel". Just because it's a computer
doesn't mean we have to use computer-speak. Quite the opposite in fact.

I'm not saying OK/Cancel don't have a place. Sometimes they are the best
option, but Yes/No is much easier to understand and therefore normally
much better.

> Yes/No is only needed if there is a true choice between two identical
> alternatives it is like.
> 
> if ok do
> else nothing
> 
> and
> 
> if y do
> elseif do
> 
> There is a semantic difference.

We're talking about human computer interaction. This is about usability.
This is about people who may or may not be happy working with computers,
getting things done. The above shows that you are still thinking like a
programmer.

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