unity-design team mailing list archive

[Jo-Erlend Schinstad <joerlend.schinstad@xxxxxxxxx>]

Den 28. aug. 2011 05:12, skrev James Jenner:
> On 27 August 2011 13:57, Jo-Erlend Schinstad 
> <joerlend.schinstad@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:joerlend.schinstad@xxxxxxxxx>> 
> wrote:
>
>     Den 27. aug. 2011 05:02, skrev James Jenner:
>
>     I was agreeing with you, not sure why you thought I was not. In
>     regards to my comment on muscle memory, I meant that once it is
>     developed it doesn't matter if they're visible or not.

Right, and that was what I reacted to. You don't need to develop any muscle
memory. If you hit anywhere on the panel (except the indicators, presently)
then the menus and the window buttons are shown. Hitting the top of the
screen doesn't qualify as something you need muscle memory for since
it doesn't matter how far you move the mouse, as long as you move it
forward.

> While people do need to learn things, you don't try and make it hard 
> for them for no reason other than someone thought hiding buttons makes 
> everything pretty and clean. I would have thought you have dealt with 
> people who are not familiar with computers, I know I have and actions 
> like moving windows is something that they have a hard time to learn. 
> It's not a frequent activity and it's something they generally don't 
> bother doing as they cannot remember how to do it (again based on my 
> observations, but then my work has historically let me interact with a 
> lot of users who are first time users of a computer and in that only 
> when they have to).
My assumption is that if people are easily confused, then reducing the 
number
of buttons and menus would reduce the chance of confusion. It also makes it
much more comfortable to work with maximized windows, which is -- as you
also point out -- becoming common, specially for less experienced users.

> Comparison to the enter key is not comparing apples to apples. It has 
> correlation in the real world, has text stating it's action and has 
> correlation with early electronic typewriters. This is very different 
> to say, learning how to close a window with the keyboard.
Why? Most people I know, haven't got any experience with type writers. It's
not obvious to me that a ninety degree angle with a left arrow means you
want a new line. It is more obvious that an up arrow means shift, since 
you're
shifting from small to large characters, but it still isn't obvious. Or 
what about
tab? Two arrows pointing to the left and right at a vertical bar? The 
point,
obviously, is that you do need to learn some basic skills in order to 
interact
with the computer and the system. Learning that you can expose extra
functionality by moving the pointer to the top of the screen isn't very
advanced. I would say that learning to use the mouse buttons are very much
more difficult. When do you double click? Why do you never double click on
the right button? When do you click the middle button? That _is_ complicated
and that's something that's improved rather radically with the indicators.
People really appreciate that.
> Frequency is relative. For a person who only surfs the net, they may 
> never close a window. I know people who only understand turning the 
> computer on, clicking on the big blue E and then surfing the net. When 
> they finish they don't close the window, they turn the computer off. 
> Some people I know don't understand about URL's and always search for 
> hotmail or for their website because they don't understand about 
> bookmarks or about how to type in an address. A lot of these people 
> are either over 50 or just never have used computers. There are still 
> a lot of professions that don't require computer use. There are a lot 
> of people both young and old who dont understand computers.

I think that is an excellent reason not to display extra buttons and menus
at all times. How often do these people use the menus in the browser?
If it isn't needed, don't show it. Microsofts ribbon interface does the 
exact
opposite and I think it's a very bad idea in very many cases. In some cases
it might be useful, but in most cases, I think it makes more sense to hide
buttons that aren't needed.

> This is one reason why Apple has been so successful with the iPhone, 
> it's easy for people to figure out how to do things. you touch an icon 
> or you press the button on the bottom to exit, it's very obvious.
«...is not comparing apples to apples...» A mobile phone is not the same
as a desktop. You generally don't have large applications like LibreOffice
or Blender running on it, with hundreds of menu options, etc. I'm not really
that impressed by their interface, and I don't think it's just because of it
that they're successful. They're masters of the media. For instance, here
in Norway, there were three pads on the market before the Ipad were
made available. They were being called Ipad competitors a year before
Ipad entered the market. That helps. It's not to say that Apples software
isn't good. It is. But it is also more than a little overrated.

> I should state clearly that I have as yet not seen the behaviour of 
> the new build (time poor at the moment), I'm only going on screen 
> shots and statements. I'm presuming there are no visual cues that they 
> have been hidden and that is my concern. If there are visual cues and 
> thus making my presumption incorrect, then while I would still be 
> uncomfortable, I don't see any major issue.
Well. If you look at the subject of this thread, then it should become
apparent that I wasn't expecting this. Even so, it was completely
apparent to me what had changed. It actually took a little while before
I noticed that the buttons were not being displayed when I didn't use
them. What I did notice, was that it had become much easier to see
the title of the page/window I was working in, and that is a real
improvement.

> If however the controls are not visible at all and there are no visual 
> cues then how do they learn that they are there? By randomly moving 
> the mouse around the screen until they see something appear?
You need to touch the top panel. Right now the menus and window
controls aren't displayed if you go directly to the indicators without
touching any other part of the panel. I think that needs to be
changed before release. The indicators are begging to be explored
and when the buttons and menus are displayed, it is very noticeable.
Specially because of the red button on a panel where everything
else is monochrome. I'm really impressed by that. The message
indicator is also very visible when there is an email, even though
it just changes colors. The effect is similar, but stronger because of
the red button. And of course, the more menus an application has,
the easier it is to notice.
> Again I ask, who is Ubuntu for? When you were born and what you first 
> used has no bearing, I was born in the 60's and started learning on 
> CMP based systems, that has no bearing on this issue at all. Our 
> individual ability to adapt and learn doesn't count because we're in 
> the advanced user class (and we have exposure to many different systems).

It actually did have a meaning. My point is that when I grew up,
things were very different and now most people doesn't even know
that they ever were that way. Many people have been arguing that
we shouldn't hide the window controls and menus because people
are used to the way things are from Windows. But that is a very weak
argument for many reason. All new users of Ubuntu should be made
very aware that Ubuntu is a different system. They'll discover that
many things are similar, but they shouldn't expect them to be,
because that will only cause confusion.

And I wasn't actually born a geek. I did have to learn using MSDOS,
GEM, later Windows and then GNU/Linux of different shapes and
sizes. I learned that because I was interested in using computers.
That was a somewhat strange hobby back then, but now it is
something almost everyone does. I think the fear of change is
exaggerated, and in this case, it is unfounded. I don't know exactly
how I noticed that the buttons had been hided, but I suspect it
happened when they were displayed because I needed them. To
me, that is a sign of really good design.

> It's all about who is Ubuntu targeted at and does it meet the needs of 
> those people? If the target audience is technically adept people, then 
> no problem. If however it is aimed at new users to computers then I 
> would suggest that it may not be appropriate.
Well I have tested this on some ... let's call them rather
inexperienced users. I was expecting some strong reactions, in
either direction, but I didn't get it. "ok". Some didn't even react
at all. "The panel shows either the title or the menus, since you
never need both at once". If you think about it, it's quite sensible
and not at all difficult to comprehend.


> Your presuming that I want things to be the same or to limit 
> ourselves, which is wrong. I have only argued that we need to make it 
> easy for people to a) learn and b) remember. However this doesn't mean 
> making the UI ugly, just usable and intuitive.  Personally I love the 
> approach with Unity and I like all the different ideas are being 
> tried. But that doesn't mean that every choice taken is a good choice.
Well. If it doesn't hurt the user experience, then as much as
possible should be discoverable. But since most people are going
to spend thousands of hours using their computers, I think it is
better to show these things once and then optimize personal
efficiency and comfort. We once learned how to shave, right?
It wasn't strictly necessary. You would've figured it out by trial
and error, but it didn't take long to show it once and it probably
saved you from a few cuts and itches. And since then, I'm sure
you've shaved a couple of times without feeling any need of a
reminder how to do it.

And shaving is far less common than interacting with a window.
I expect to receive a few points for that analogy :)

Jo-Erlend Schinstad