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

List:       kde-usability
Subject:    Re: KDE 4.2 Toolbars
From:       Peter <gostelow () global ! co ! za>
Date:       2008-11-20 7:11:51
Message-ID: 200811200912.16533.gostelow () global ! co ! za
[Download RAW message or body]

On Monday 17 November 2008 09:23, Mike Arthur wrote:
> On Sunday 16 November 2008 15:24:05 Peter wrote:
> > The WIMP used by KDE defines icons, not text, as a primary human/machine
> > interface.
> >
> > Text creates incompatibilities within the toolbar itself because it
> > expands the vertical toolbar's width, but the horizontal toolbar's
> > length. Because text also has orientation it creates inconsistent toolbar
> > behaviour.
>
> Interesting email Peter, cheers for that.
>
> A question: do you think the problems I highlighted with icons earlier
> (e.g. new users just not being able to associate them for the first time
> with their actual functions) are insurmountable or do we just need better
> icons? I'm more with the latter, I don't think I'll ever be able to "teach"
> my mother to recognise icons across applications but I'm interested in your
> and others' views on this...

I think there are simply too many icons for even the most experienced user to 
remember, mostly because applications are excessively feature full. It might 
be more profitable to emphasize the association between icon and function, 
rather than icon and physical object. Functions seldom mimic the real world 
and some don't have a real world equivalent (e.g. step-over).

Some icons have a long history and may not make sense to a new user. This is a 
combination of advancing technology and changing culture. Virtual reality 
creates its own problems because it's objects are abstract, having no shape, 
colour, or characteristics an artist needs to iconify it. 

Perhaps explaining an icon's history (if it has one) may help in shifting the 
user's expectations and ease their concerns. People expect a return on their 
investment, so spending time on an icon is a kind of investment and the user 
may then demand a return by being able to identify it correctly.

Personally, I'd start the new user off with the menubar and ignore toolbars 
and short-cuts. If, or when, the user becomes familiar with the menubar, then 
I'd try a stripped down toolbar. The user should have seen, and be familiar 
with, the icons on the menu, so the toolbar shouldn't be a major issue. It 
may take a user weeks or months to navigate the menubar successfully, so 
there's no need to rush the process. 

At some point the user may complain about the awkwardness of the menubar, 
which is an indication they're ready to try something different. However, the 
user's initial success rate and motivation play a large part in learning KDE.

Games may help the user learn how to manage the desktop and run programs, but 
only if they're interested in playing. This should teach them how to save, 
load, and other common functions, so learning an app becomes that much 
easier. Once familiar with the look and feel, you no longer have to 
intersperse teaching how controls work with how the app works.

Remember to walk in the user's shoes, talk their language, not computer 
jargon, and build on what they know, rather than dumping alien information on 
them. If you don't know where they're at, most of what you say will pass over 
their head and create FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt). The response will 
be either fight or flight. Try to figure out different ways of saying the 
same thing, if they don't understand the first time. If they have the 
proverbial elephant by the tail, talking from the trunk's viewpoint won't 
help. Be patient, supportive, and talk at the user, not down. You can help 
ignorant users, but not stupid ones, so make sure you know the difference.

Peter
_______________________________________________
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]