[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: kde-usability
Subject: Re: Single vs Multi Window KControl
From: Christoph Wiesen <chris () deadhand ! com>
Date: 2004-09-03 20:10:10
Message-ID: 200409032209.49028.chris () deadhand ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
Am Friday, 3. September 2004 14:40 schrieb Evan:
> What decision do you think will be
> faster and jump out at you more:
>
> -choosing the shortcut 'panel' in a set of 24 options?
> -choosing 'look and feel' in a set of 9 options?
For a user who doesn't recall all of the 24 icons from before definitely the
latter - remember than every user thinks of a certain change in a different
way. One user might think "panel" and find what he needs quickly even among
24 options - but that's the ideal case. Most users won't really know what
that bar at the bottom really is. And then there's the problem that those
elements are named differently in every language and I say that it's even
less logical for many users to look up a setting merely by the name of the
KDE part the setting applies to since the changed names for german for
example are even less clear to an average user than they might be in english
for english speakers.
Dividing unto few(!) clear categories really helps here since a user will have
a starting point where to look for his setting. If he want's to change the
background he will look under "Appearance and Themes" and won't have to even
consider looking at what's under "Sound & Multimedia" or "Security &
Privacy". In this specific case he might look at "Desktop" as well, but it's
not always possible to have such clear categories that everything only fits
in one place - it's still a lot better than reading through 24 or even more
single and unrelated options.
_______________________________________________
kde-usability mailing list
kde-usability@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-usability
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic