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

List:       kde-look
Subject:    Re: Usability and open source
From:       Tyler Regas <tyler () regas ! net>
Date:       2000-01-31 6:22:31
[Download RAW message or body]

On Sun, 30 Jan 2000, Ben Last wrote:
> Aqua isn't radical.  It's an attempt (and probably a successful one) to
> distinguish the Mac in terms of *look*, not feel.  Jobs is an excellent and
> innovative marketeer - who'd have thought that people would buy an iMac
> based just on the colour - and Aqua comes from that space.

No, Aqua is NOT radical. I don't personally think it's even evolutionary,
short of the aforementioned window-dependent dialogs. I can only hope Greg
is getting ready for X so I can use an OS8 theme.

> Something radical?  How about any of these (apologies for the bad
> explanations):
> * dual mice.  Use one for each hand.  If you think of the existing mouse
> pointer as extending the reach of the tip of your finger onto the screen,
> think of two mice as doing the same for two hands.  I've actually seen
> research examples of this doing image manipulation (think Gimp), where the
> left hand had "grabbed" the whole image and was moving it around (like
> grabbing the paper) and the right hand was sketching on it.

Too radical. It takes the element of freedom away from the user by having
them use both hands. It's also motion-intensive in that the user would have
to move both hands to the keyboard and back. Integrating a BAT-type
chording keyboard may be a solution, but the learning curve would be steep.

Mousing (or the many popular variants such as trackballs and trackpads) is
the most direct method of free input. It also doesn't draw on any
pre-existing metaphors. Drawing pads mimic paper.

> * scalable desktop.  Think of this one like so; your desktop at the moment
> runs at 100% zoom; one-to-one ratio between the pixels in the document
> window and the pixels on the screen.  Now imagine that you can easily zoom
> the whole desktop down in size so that each window is 3/4 of its usual size
> (damnit; email needs pictures) and the window content is also shrunk.  Think
> of looking close-up at a picture on the wall and stepping back to get an
> overview.  A single click can take any one of those windows and zoom it back
> up to 1:1 so you can work on it.  A single click takes it back down.  The
> point being that the other windows are all readable enough so you can tell
> what you're looking at, but you only need to zoom up the one you're working
> with.

This has a great deal of potential, but it's document centric. Besides,
most graphic and document creation software implements something like this
already. Word can scale documents to many percentages in and out without
modifying the type size.

Of course, this is only really useful in document environments where there
is a large scale to see. Blueprints or maps would be prime contenders for
this and there are already systems available that make this possible even
over the net. AutoCAD has had Overview since R5.

> * getting away from the lousy Start menu idea (sorry KDE, but copying that
> idea of MS's was a Bad Idea, imvvho) and using a circular menu - when you
> invoke it with the mouse (anywhere on the screen), the options pop up around
> the mouse position, like numbers around the edge of a clockface.  Now you
> have a whole two dimensions to arrange items in rather than the single
> dimension of a popup or pulldown menu, and you can exploit humans'
> positional memory much better.

Though I'm not clear on what you're describing here specifically (I'm
seeing the menuing system from The Secret Of Mana for Super Nintendo) I do
understand the concept of multidimensional interface. Interestingly enough,
one of the finer examples of a working 2D interface is GNOME. The
Dock-concept allows one icon to iconically identify a group of functions.

2D, though, is not a pure exmaple of multidimensional interface design. 
Apple developed a 3D navigation system for the web called HotSauce that
worked as a plug-in and required some scripting but allowed you to "fly"
through the site. Quite inventive.

> * moving away from the document/view paradigm for apps where it's not
> appropriate.  Or for that matter, from hierarchical tree views of data that
> doesn't fall into hierarchies.  Think of a graphical linuxconf that's
> structured around the *processes* you go through (the jobs you do) when
> administering or setting up your system instead of (or at least, as well as)
> being structured around groups of vaguely related commands.  Wizards are a
> start on this, but they tend to lead you down one single preset path.  Think
> of an interface that shows you a flowchart of the actions you'll be taking
> to setup some complex package.  The flowchart occupies the left-hand side of
> an app window (where the tree control is in Windows Explorer, for instance).
> Clicking on any step causes the right-hand side to display the information
> and dialog elements necessary to perform that step.  You get (a) an overview
> of the whole process, (b) detail about the step you're at and (c) an idea of
> how the step you're at relates to the process as a whole.

Windows 2000 already does it. It's simplistically called Configure Your
Server and starts automatically when you first boot after an install. It
uses an iconic bar on the left (ala OutlookBar) to list functions and it
arranges them in first to last order, loosely. In the right-hand pane it
gives clear textual explanations and more iconic links to configuration
dialogs.

It's really quite idiotic as it assumes the user is a) stupid, limited, or
dim, and b) cares not one whit that MS changed almost the entire server UI
for little reason but to appear innovative. There are functional and
operational differences, perceived and real, that the user takes away from
an experience with either a dialog or a Wizard.

Dialogs are for changing options. Wizards are for adding things. One is
old, the other is new. One assumes experience and know-how. The other
assumes newbie. One empowers. The other holds your hand. You place the
Wizard functionality in a Linuxconf-type environment and you will please
newcomers but anger hackers. This is why there is a balance. MS got this
one right.

> whew - enough already.
> And hey, I do non-radical too, so I'll concentrate on that for the time
> being!

Phew is right. WOW! That's a lot of stuff :)

> ben
-- 
Tyler C Regas
Freelance Author
Freelance Other
ICQ#: 37060555
Mail: tyler@regas.net
HTTP: www.regas.net
=====================
Fascism can play havoc
with your complexion.
Just look at Stalin!

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