My UI principles was: (Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Simple Frame Adornments - default value...)

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

My UI principles was: (Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Simple Frame Adornments - default value...)

Chris Muller-3
I think Preferences are a good tool for reconciliation of our UI
differences.  However, another good tool is if we can establish a
constructive dialogue about UI.  Such a dialogue could perhaps
occasionally spare us a new preference in favor of a slightly more
cohesive result, because it was a solution that was good enough for
the overwhelming majority.  Let's talk about it!  Of course
preferences are great because they allow our users to heavily
customize the system..

I hope, my having gone through Maui and forced myself through dozens
of painstaking design and usability choices, at least illustrates my
own _interest_ in this subject.  I'm interested, in talking about
these ideas with those interested in making Squeak look drop-dead
gorgeous not just on the surface, but in the details too.

Understanding each others' core-UI principles I think would be very
helpful in establishing a constructive dialog.  Here are mine:

1) That, at least the a software dev-environment (which is about what
we're talking about), that this software, Squeak, expects users to
have Basic Computer-Literacy before attempting to use Squeak.

  "Basic Computer Literacy" is defined as:
    - Use of the keyboard, including the Enter or Return key, arrow
keys, page/home/end.
    - Use of the mouse as a pointing device.
    - Use of the (red/left/primary) mouse button as a means to
"select" or "activate".
    - Use of the (yellow/right/alternate) mouse button, and
understanding that is how to ask an object for options or information.

2) A user with Basic Computer Literacy, will be able to, at least,
_discover_ how to operate a system with merely those skills.  If the
system requires further skills, it should be discoverable via help or
guidance-elements accessed only with BCL.  Typically, users learn
about UI-elements not already obvious to them by yellow-clicking for
interrogation and discovery.

3)  Humans direct, software responds.  Software should take care not
to interrupt human.  Software should no't ask "are you sure?",
instead, provide undo.

4)  Ensuring not to break rule 2, give the user the most powerful
gestures possible to efficiently operate the software.  This typically
means:

   - minimize the demands of the users fine motor-skill (i.e.,
small-area left-clicking)
   - employ high-traction strategies, such as the power of pointing
   - good keyboard support is almost always, really necessary.

That's it, those are my UI principles.  If software requires user to
be "frantic" to go fast, then it does not provide enough
power-per-gesture.

The principles I heard from rado are:

  - favors practicality over aesthetic
  - that the machine should make it easy on him, not force his eyes to
"search for the corner" to see the status (and not forgetting, there
may be several dirty windows with their corner exposed)

I understand these.  The principles from Igor are:

  1. friendly for newcomers
  2. convenient for citizens.

however, I am not sure what he meant by "friendly" and "convenient".
Igor, I am very interested in your ideas in a constructive dialogue..

 - Chris


On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 5:56 PM, Igor Stasenko <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 4 March 2010 01:21, radoslav hodnicak <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I do not care whether a feature is ugly as long as it's practical and making
>> it less ugly means making it less practical. I also do not care if a feature
>> is counterintuitive to newcomers, if making it less counterintuitive means
>> making it less practical too.
>>
>
> Practical is to use cell phone for calls. This means that your iPhone
> is not much more practical than
> 10-year old cell phone with tiny monochrome display. So, why people buying it?
> I know people who still prefer using a unix command line and feel very
> distracted, when they need to switch to graphic mode to look something
> on the web. But let us be realistic: user interface is User Interface,
> meant for humans, not for robots which doesn't have any sense of
> aestetics or any use of good look and feel.
> A good UI is one which is
> 1. friendly for newcomers
> 2. convenient for citizens.
>
> remove either of above, and you don't have good UI. You will have crap.
> We should always care about both of these.
>
> Just my 2 cents..
>
>> Sure a red frame is not very pretty aesthetically speaking (although I'd be
>> hard pressed to rate an orange rectangle in the corner as a dramatic
>> improvement), but it provides a very clear visual clue that is accessible
>> *immediately*, without focusing on a window corner with my eyes.
>>
>> Substance > Style
>>
>> That said, as long as it's a preference, I don't mind what the default value
>> is.
>>
>> I'd like to ask all folks messing with the user interface to always add
>> preferences for the the changes you do - in other words: add features and
>> keep the old ones. Don't replace. I'm open to trying out new things and see
>> if they speed up my workflow, but chances are they won't.
>>
>> rado
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>>
>>> Chris,
>>> i add -1 to red outline too. This is a counterintuitive and ugly.
>>> I still remember when i first opened squeak and i were unable to
>>> figure out what this red herring means. :)
>>>
>>> On 4 March 2010 00:22, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Ok, thanks for speaking up, I just didn't know whether there was any
>>>> voice at all for the new look.
>>>>
>>>> And please don't get me wrong, I am *all for* better form.  And I even
>>>> agree, this one "looks" better, artistically.  It's just that some of
>>>> the 3.11 improvements to form have come at a cost to function, and
>>>> THAT, in itself, can sometimes detracts from form somewhat (i.e.,
>>>> greater function has implicitly better form).  Perhaps we considered
>>>> making the ugly solid-line red-frame simply look better, like with
>>>> three progressively-more translucent rectangles, each inset one pixel
>>>> of the outer?  Or maybe a combination of the two looks, one
>>>> (translucent?) line combined with the new (corner) look.
>>>>
>>>> Since your -1 is big and fat, I consider it the winner of the vote and
>>>> I'll adjust my own Preference file accordingly.  Going forward, if we
>>>> can find ways to have our cake and eat it too, it would be better than
>>>> having introduce a yet another Preference that forces one to choose
>>>> between form and function.
>>>>
>>>>  - Chris
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Andreas Raab <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 3/3/2010 12:40 PM, Chris Muller wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for adding the preference, but unfortunately the default is
>>>>>> false such that the new way still presses in for each new image.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the original thread, there were two people who expressed this was a
>>>>>> "step backward" for them, but there were no proponents for the change
>>>>>> voiced.  Therefore, unless there are strong objectors who can make
>>>>>> some arguments for, I'd like to put the default value for this to
>>>>>> restore the default functionality that has been there for years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3.11 has suffered several usability degradations over 3.9 in terms of
>>>>>> the UI.  I would like to begin addressing them, starting with this
>>>>>> one.
>>>>>
>>>>> A big fat -1 from me. From my perspective the rectangular frame is ugly.
>>>>> Simple as that. It's visually unpleasant and in conflict with the rest
>>>>> of
>>>>> the window and the default shouldn't be that. If the new cue is too
>>>>> subtle
>>>>> to be of use for you personally, that's what we got preferences for, but
>>>>> I
>>>>> think we should at least *try* to get a teenie weenie bit less heinous
>>>>> in
>>>>> the default L&F.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>  - Andreas
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best regards,
>>> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: My UI principles was: (Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Simple Frame Adornments - default value...)

Igor Stasenko
On 4 March 2010 04:02, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I think Preferences are a good tool for reconciliation of our UI
> differences.  However, another good tool is if we can establish a
> constructive dialogue about UI.  Such a dialogue could perhaps
> occasionally spare us a new preference in favor of a slightly more
> cohesive result, because it was a solution that was good enough for
> the overwhelming majority.  Let's talk about it!  Of course
> preferences are great because they allow our users to heavily
> customize the system..
>
> I hope, my having gone through Maui and forced myself through dozens
> of painstaking design and usability choices, at least illustrates my
> own _interest_ in this subject.  I'm interested, in talking about
> these ideas with those interested in making Squeak look drop-dead
> gorgeous not just on the surface, but in the details too.
>
> Understanding each others' core-UI principles I think would be very
> helpful in establishing a constructive dialog.  Here are mine:
>
> 1) That, at least the a software dev-environment (which is about what
> we're talking about), that this software, Squeak, expects users to
> have Basic Computer-Literacy before attempting to use Squeak.
>
>  "Basic Computer Literacy" is defined as:
>    - Use of the keyboard, including the Enter or Return key, arrow
> keys, page/home/end.
>    - Use of the mouse as a pointing device.
>    - Use of the (red/left/primary) mouse button as a means to
> "select" or "activate".
>    - Use of the (yellow/right/alternate) mouse button, and
> understanding that is how to ask an object for options or information.
>
> 2) A user with Basic Computer Literacy, will be able to, at least,
> _discover_ how to operate a system with merely those skills.  If the
> system requires further skills, it should be discoverable via help or
> guidance-elements accessed only with BCL.  Typically, users learn
> about UI-elements not already obvious to them by yellow-clicking for
> interrogation and discovery.
>
> 3)  Humans direct, software responds.  Software should take care not
> to interrupt human.  Software should no't ask "are you sure?",
> instead, provide undo.
>
> 4)  Ensuring not to break rule 2, give the user the most powerful
> gestures possible to efficiently operate the software.  This typically
> means:
>
>   - minimize the demands of the users fine motor-skill (i.e.,
> small-area left-clicking)
>   - employ high-traction strategies, such as the power of pointing
>   - good keyboard support is almost always, really necessary.
>
> That's it, those are my UI principles.  If software requires user to
> be "frantic" to go fast, then it does not provide enough
> power-per-gesture.
>
> The principles I heard from rado are:
>
>  - favors practicality over aesthetic
>  - that the machine should make it easy on him, not force his eyes to
> "search for the corner" to see the status (and not forgetting, there
> may be several dirty windows with their corner exposed)
>
> I understand these.  The principles from Igor are:
>
>  1. friendly for newcomers
>  2. convenient for citizens.
>
> however, I am not sure what he meant by "friendly" and "convenient".

Just two examples:
Friendly means that user should not be puzzled by UI , like what does
that red rectangle means.
Drawing a semitransparent 'changed... [v][x]' in the text morph corner
is what i calling friendly.
It could be combined with red rectangle, if you want, but not rectangle alone.
And convenient means, that if i going to learn how to use UI more
efficiently (mainly using keyboard shortcuts)
then first and obvious thing what i need is a way to see the list of
current keyboard shortcuts bindings as well as
be able to change them in case if i prefer using different keys.

> Igor, I am very interested in your ideas in a constructive dialogue..
>
>  - Chris
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 5:56 PM, Igor Stasenko <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On 4 March 2010 01:21, radoslav hodnicak <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> I do not care whether a feature is ugly as long as it's practical and making
>>> it less ugly means making it less practical. I also do not care if a feature
>>> is counterintuitive to newcomers, if making it less counterintuitive means
>>> making it less practical too.
>>>
>>
>> Practical is to use cell phone for calls. This means that your iPhone
>> is not much more practical than
>> 10-year old cell phone with tiny monochrome display. So, why people buying it?
>> I know people who still prefer using a unix command line and feel very
>> distracted, when they need to switch to graphic mode to look something
>> on the web. But let us be realistic: user interface is User Interface,
>> meant for humans, not for robots which doesn't have any sense of
>> aestetics or any use of good look and feel.
>> A good UI is one which is
>> 1. friendly for newcomers
>> 2. convenient for citizens.
>>
>> remove either of above, and you don't have good UI. You will have crap.
>> We should always care about both of these.
>>
>> Just my 2 cents..
>>
>>> Sure a red frame is not very pretty aesthetically speaking (although I'd be
>>> hard pressed to rate an orange rectangle in the corner as a dramatic
>>> improvement), but it provides a very clear visual clue that is accessible
>>> *immediately*, without focusing on a window corner with my eyes.
>>>
>>> Substance > Style
>>>
>>> That said, as long as it's a preference, I don't mind what the default value
>>> is.
>>>
>>> I'd like to ask all folks messing with the user interface to always add
>>> preferences for the the changes you do - in other words: add features and
>>> keep the old ones. Don't replace. I'm open to trying out new things and see
>>> if they speed up my workflow, but chances are they won't.
>>>
>>> rado
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>>>
>>>> Chris,
>>>> i add -1 to red outline too. This is a counterintuitive and ugly.
>>>> I still remember when i first opened squeak and i were unable to
>>>> figure out what this red herring means. :)
>>>>
>>>> On 4 March 2010 00:22, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok, thanks for speaking up, I just didn't know whether there was any
>>>>> voice at all for the new look.
>>>>>
>>>>> And please don't get me wrong, I am *all for* better form.  And I even
>>>>> agree, this one "looks" better, artistically.  It's just that some of
>>>>> the 3.11 improvements to form have come at a cost to function, and
>>>>> THAT, in itself, can sometimes detracts from form somewhat (i.e.,
>>>>> greater function has implicitly better form).  Perhaps we considered
>>>>> making the ugly solid-line red-frame simply look better, like with
>>>>> three progressively-more translucent rectangles, each inset one pixel
>>>>> of the outer?  Or maybe a combination of the two looks, one
>>>>> (translucent?) line combined with the new (corner) look.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since your -1 is big and fat, I consider it the winner of the vote and
>>>>> I'll adjust my own Preference file accordingly.  Going forward, if we
>>>>> can find ways to have our cake and eat it too, it would be better than
>>>>> having introduce a yet another Preference that forces one to choose
>>>>> between form and function.
>>>>>
>>>>>  - Chris
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Andreas Raab <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/3/2010 12:40 PM, Chris Muller wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for adding the preference, but unfortunately the default is
>>>>>>> false such that the new way still presses in for each new image.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the original thread, there were two people who expressed this was a
>>>>>>> "step backward" for them, but there were no proponents for the change
>>>>>>> voiced.  Therefore, unless there are strong objectors who can make
>>>>>>> some arguments for, I'd like to put the default value for this to
>>>>>>> restore the default functionality that has been there for years.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3.11 has suffered several usability degradations over 3.9 in terms of
>>>>>>> the UI.  I would like to begin addressing them, starting with this
>>>>>>> one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A big fat -1 from me. From my perspective the rectangular frame is ugly.
>>>>>> Simple as that. It's visually unpleasant and in conflict with the rest
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> the window and the default shouldn't be that. If the new cue is too
>>>>>> subtle
>>>>>> to be of use for you personally, that's what we got preferences for, but
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> think we should at least *try* to get a teenie weenie bit less heinous
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> the default L&F.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>  - Andreas
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
>>
>>
>
>



--
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: My UI principles was: (Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Simple Frame Adornments - default value...)

Chris Muller-3
> Just two examples:
> Friendly means that user should not be puzzled by UI , like what does
> that red rectangle means.
> Drawing a semitransparent 'changed... [v][x]' in the text morph corner
> is what i calling friendly.

I would call that not only friendly, but also drop-dead gorgeous.  The
translucency would be necessary not just to not interfere with the
main text of the code (which, if using Indented Control Flow, probably
wouldn't extend into the.. upper-right? corner anyway).  No, the other
reason is that it's a "meta" UI-message from the TextEditor is not
part of the users "concrete" content..

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: My UI principles was: (Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Simple Frame Adornments - default value...)

laza
In reply to this post by Igor Stasenko
Just for what it's worth:

On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 03:50, Igor Stasenko <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Friendly means that user should not be puzzled by UI , like what does
> that red rectangle means.

As I see it you can't in general prevent users from being puzzled by
parts of the UI, because this largely depends on user experience.
I'd say I would attribute to an friendly UI if a user can easily learn
about it. Like when a new user sees that mark in the top right corner
of a text view and wonders what it is about. If he would get a balloon
help like "This indicates that the text/content has changed" or the
like by just moving the mouse over it, would be a simple way to get a
clue about it.

> Drawing a semitransparent 'changed... [v][x]' in the text morph corner
> is what i calling friendly.

For my taste this is too much of "in my face". And the idea of having
meta text inside some text content, even if it ain't likely that they
overlap, does not really appeal to me.

Alex

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: My UI principles was: (Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Simple Frame Adornments - default value...)

Chris Muller-3
Great comments.  You illustrate the opposing forces of the computer
needing to be helpful and "friendly" without being "in your face".

It's a tight line for UI designers to walk, which is why I think it
requires detailed consideration..

Also *learning* the software is just one aspect.  The other aspect to
remember is, given whatever "friendly" indicators the software _does_
provide to aid in learning, how much demand is placed on the users
visual-scanning and fine-motor skill just to *operate* the software,
once learned.  These demands need to be minimized.


On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 3:18 AM, Alexander Lazarević <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Just for what it's worth:
>
> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 03:50, Igor Stasenko <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Friendly means that user should not be puzzled by UI , like what does
>> that red rectangle means.
>
> As I see it you can't in general prevent users from being puzzled by
> parts of the UI, because this largely depends on user experience.
> I'd say I would attribute to an friendly UI if a user can easily learn
> about it. Like when a new user sees that mark in the top right corner
> of a text view and wonders what it is about. If he would get a balloon
> help like "This indicates that the text/content has changed" or the
> like by just moving the mouse over it, would be a simple way to get a
> clue about it.
>
>> Drawing a semitransparent 'changed... [v][x]' in the text morph corner
>> is what i calling friendly.
>
> For my taste this is too much of "in my face". And the idea of having
> meta text inside some text content, even if it ain't likely that they
> overlap, does not really appeal to me.
>
> Alex
>
>