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

List:       kde-usability
Subject:    Re: Menu entry: how to tell that not the whole selection is affected?
From:       "Friedrich W. H. Kossebau" <friedrich.w.h () kossebau ! de>
Date:       2006-12-30 9:12:07
Message-ID: 200612301012.07791.friedrich.w.h () kossebau ! de
[Download RAW message or body]

Am Samstag, 30. Dezember 2006 09:19, schrieb Aaron J. Seigo:
> On Friday 29 December 2006 14:48, Friedrich W. H. Kossebau wrote:
> > gadget. But I think you agree that the fact that some are missed should
> > be communicated in a menu entry.
>
> no, actually, i don't agree with this =)
>
> why would i care *in the menu*. think of it as a conversation between two
> people, call them gerry and larry.
>
> Gerry: "Hey, Larry, do you have a list of everyone in the family?"
> Larry: "Yep, right here."
> Gerry: "Could you send an email to all of them?"
> Larry: "Sure, except for Uncle Barry because he doesn't have email."
>
> compare to:
>
> Gerry: "Hey, Larry, do you have a list of everyone in the family?"
> Larry: "Yep, right here."
> Gerry: "Can you tell me who does or doesn't have email addresses?"
> Larry: "Uh, sure. Uncle Barry doesn't have one. Why?"
> Gerry: "I want to email everyone. Could you do that for me?"
> Larry: "Sure, except for Uncle Barry because he doesn't have email."

Hm. The dialog with the system I see rather like this:
Gerry: "Hey, Larry, I want you to help me doing something to all members of 
the family."
Larry: "Alright. I can help with sending an email to all, except one (Uncle 
Barry), starting a video chat with all, except one (your sister), or start a 
chat conference with all."
Gerry: "Hm, so I want you to start a chat conference for me."

Yes, problem here is, that telling who exactly will be missed gets complicated 
if there are a lot. So doing it afterwards, like you propose, could make 
sense (for Simple Joe). But I personally would at least like to have a hint 
before that there is trouble ahead with a certain action. Something like in 
the attached screenshot.

> in other words, it would seem much more natural to me if the computer told
> me -after- i asked it to take an action if it couldn't do it for certain
> individuals. personally, i'd expect this to happen with a passive popup (so
> i don't have to click further) near my current locus of attention (e.g.
> where the menu entry is/was).

Hm, interesting idea. Where should this popup appear? But then, a user might 
not be pleased if a phone call is already set and only then she reads in the 
passive popup "Sorry, Aunt Lilly and Brother Joe aren't phoned.", or? 

> i can then decide if i do or don't want that action to occur.

But a passive popup won't let you choose, or? A decision (on a question) would 
need a further answer. What do you have exactly in mind here?

> chances are, i probably know that Uncle Barry doesn't have an email address
> already anyways.

Chances are. But so are chances, you don't remember, and then both Uncle Barry 
and you will be sorry to have him miss your birthday party, not? (okay, I 
don't know Uncle Barry ;)
I mean, wouldn't it comply with the principle of least surprise to warn about 
the fact?

At least in the usecase I have in mind, where you want to give an information 
to all in a list, it seems useful to me to see which action fits best for 
this purpose. Or?

Friedrich

["sendmenu.png" (image/png)]

_______________________________________________
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]