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

List:       kde-usability
Subject:    Re: NWI: metaphor needed?
From:       Diego Moya <turingt () gmail ! com>
Date:       2009-07-07 16:47:50
Message-ID: 11ee04940907070947r24f3ef47l62832c19496e659e () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

2009/7/7 Maciej Pilichowski wrote:
> Slightly off-topic.
Well, this thread is about a metaphor for NWI, so anything about
metaphors and broad design decisions is on-topic. :-)

Do the original poster get to decide what is or is not off-topic? ;-)


> Really? :-) It is like saying to an artist, here paint only in
> black&white. Why anyone (not only "user") should be limited in
> expression?
>
> You can write any algorithm using recursion, you can write it using
> iteration. Should one of them be banned to provide one, true, way (it
> is doable)? No -- those are different approaches and sometimes one
> fits better, sometimes the other.

This is included in the distinction between functions and interaction
methods. Having many functions for different tasks is good, having to
invoke each function through a completely different method is bad.
Having several methods for *the same* function is even worse, for the
reasons described in my previous post.


> UI -- I would be terrified to find out any GUI which provides _only_
> menus. Or _only_ toolbars. Or _only_ keyboard shortcuts.

Me too. But that's because those interaction elements are really poor
as general functionality enablers. I've tried some prototypes based on
Raskin's studies, and you'd be surprised at how natural they feel to
use (for a touch-typist at least) except for a few quirks, and in
quite varied situations.
_______________________________________________
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]