| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
What Apple could learn from MS about mice | |
|
||
| Time: 08:58 EST/13:58 GMT | News Source: ZDNet | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
AT THE MOMENT, I mainly use Apple keyboards; I find the current extended desktop version to be quite usable, though I'd prefer a little more travel in the keys and a bit more Selectric-style feedback. Having two additional USB ports on it is an excellent feature; on my keyboard, for example, one of those extra ports currently houses a Bluetooth adapter. Apple's mice are another matter entirely. Apple really has lost its touch on that front, for two generations now. Leaving aside the fact that one button just isn't enough these days, the execrable puck mouse remains to my mind the worst possible solution. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 225 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:58:29 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 9640 (195.92.168.171) at 9/16/2002 10:10:40 AM |
|
Agree, Microsoft mice do have some very good and useful innovative features.
- Optical input. No mouse pad req. + more accurate. - Scroll wheel. Makes things so much easier. - A really cool red LED at the front base. Children esp. like this but I like this as I can tell whether or not my PC is on! - ambidextrous - quality build My opinion based on the Wheel Mouse Optical. http://www.lee.ic24.net/ |
| #2 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 9/16/2002 10:26:37 AM |
| You don't want to give Mac users mice with more than one button... it might confuse them! |
| #3 By 442 (65.33.154.204) at 9/16/2002 11:11:44 AM |
| The reality is that because of the way the GUI is designed in the Mac, you don't need to hunt through a bunch of hidden "right-click" only menus to get what you need. Everything is either click-and-drag, drag-and-drop, or simply in the toolbar or menu bar. For new users, one button is much easier. Even for me I find it easier. I've been using comptuers for years and even had a few PCs where I right-clicked all the time. However, since switching I find it much quicker whne I have the simple one button mouse. However, I know it's not right for everyone. That's why two button mouse support is built into Mac OS X. Go buy your MS IntelliMouse (which are awesome mice) and it will work no problem. Apple does have excellent mice that come with their systems though. They've been shipping optical mice as the default for over two years now. |
| #4 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 9/16/2002 11:26:51 AM |
|
The Mac OS has had contextual menus for a long time, so the lack of a right-button is more about pride (a little stubborn) in their philosophy towards user interface than about ease-of-use. You don't need right-clicking on the PC, but it makes many jobs a lot easier and quicker. Sure, on the Mac (and the PC), you can find those options by going up to the top of the screen and searching for what you want, or you can right-click and get menu items applicable to the given situation immediately next to the mouse pointer on the screen. It's more efficient.
What I have noticed is that, if you watch a real Mac guru closely, they'll always have their right hand on their mouse and their left hand held a certain way over the keyboard (or vice versa if they're a lefty). They take this position so that they can quickly do Option-clicking. It might be too late now, but if they could do it over again, I think Apple should have swallowed their pride and gone for the two button mouse. |
| #5 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 9/16/2002 12:33:47 PM |
|
bluvg, jared's a bit closer to the mark. Your points are somewhat interesting but you also ignore the fact that on a PC right-click "generally" is ONLY used for contextual menus; whereas on the Mac, option click is used for a number of behaviors in addition to right-click. Most of these behaviors are spatially motivated and actually serve as an "Option" to a Normal Click... (well, I'll be, huh?). For example, clicking on the desktop makes it active, option clicking on the desktop hides the current app AND makes the desktop active... Option-clicking works in the dock, the desktop, and other objects under different scenarios.
So in the Mac metaphor, Option-click doesn't equal right-click, which on the PC means right-click equals contextual menus... It means quite literally "option" click which in some cases reveals a pulldown menu of options, but can also produce a series of context specific behaviors that do not require and are not facilitated by a right mouse button. Apple is unlikely to ever abandon these option clicks. You seem to suggest that Mac users can either go up to the file menu or use option click as their only options, but this ignores the fact that among the most common behaviors used in right-clicking on the PC, the Mac has a universal keyboard shortcut (New Folder, for example). Mac users would never expect that the shortest way to induce these functions is to click a right button with your middle finger, pulldown, and select function... They would just hit Command-"n" and invoke the behavior. So ultimately, even if those Mac gurus had a 2-button mouse, they may still keep their hand on the option key. By the way, where do you keep your non-mouse hand? Or do you mouse with 2 hands? |
| #6 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 9/16/2002 2:22:43 PM |
|
Draxxon, I think all PC AND Mac users should know how to tab between apps, and if they don't, they are idiots. My reply was regarding blugv's claim that Mac gurus are even at a disadvantage from PC users, and that there is zero value to option clicking... Which I think I provided a valid rebuttal for.
If PC users don't know alt-tab, then they probably aren't right-clicking very much, which means you've just put forth an argument for a one button mouse. I'd be curious to know what PC shortcuts there are that combine a mouse click and a key combination. |
| #7 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 9/16/2002 2:41:00 PM |
|
Sodajerk, no, I didn't say that there was no value in Option-clicking. You seem to assume that if you added a second button, you lose the option-click--an either-or situation. Keep the option-click (particularly for the exceptions you mentioned) AND give Mac users a right mouse button for contextual menus. Just because option-click is not equivalent to a right-click doesn't reduce the value of having a right mouse button. My point was that Mac gurus are constantly using option-click for contextual menus anyway... why not make it possible to do it from the mouse? Are two buttons that objectionable???
Your point about the universal shortcuts is WAY overstated--it does NOT cover the most common behaviors. New, Save, Print, etc.; Cut, Copy, and Paste aside, those are not the most commonly used selections from contextual menus (how many people have right-clicked to save a document in Word???), and universal shortcuts like these are also the de facto standard on the PC. The great majority of the options from contextual menus are application-specific and have no universal shortcut. |
| #8 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 9/16/2002 2:49:15 PM |
|
bluvg, I didn't mean to overstate your view--just needed to dismiss Draxxon's idiocy quickly. What I do disagree with is splitting up option clicks and right clicks... That just muddies the UI concepts more.
"why not make it possible to do it from the mouse?" It is, has been for years now, even better support in X. So what I don't understand is that both behaviors ARE already supported--what's the complaint. (Peope whine about buying a $20 mouse--"Apple should provide it"--but why if you can support two distinct UI concepts--their's and your own simplified one simply by packaging a simpler mouse.) But if Apple dropped one-button mice, they would no longer support, or at least no longer have a leg to stand on with, the simplified UI principles. So we already have the best of both worlds. But a move away from single button mice, would mean changing the simplified version to: somethings are option clicks, some things are right clicks. "Your point about the universal shortcuts is WAY overstated"--not really, you are simply mentioning the universal commands on the PC, there are more with the Mac. (For example, the other most common commands from the desktop or file manager are probably: make shortcut/alias (cmd-m), new folder (cmd-shift-n), properties/get info (cmd-i)) But, yes, I do understand that most are application specific. Which is much more relevant--Apple de-emphasizes contextual menus to some extent, and I frequently complain to them about this... Isn't that the real issue? What's the point of having multi-button mice if the apps and OS do not support a large number of contextual menus? But PC users who haven't attempted to learn the power shortcuts of a Mac always complain about the mouse instead of the context options. That's what I consider stupid. This post was edited by sodajerk on Monday, September 16, 2002 at 15:09. |
| #9 By 2960 (156.80.64.132) at 9/16/2002 4:06:00 PM |
|
#7,
Option-Clicking is a well established standard on the Mac, and it's been there since version 1.0 of the OS in 1984. And starting with MacOS 8.0, Control-Click invokes the "Right Mouse Click" for contectual menu usage. With that said, I do prefer a two-button mouse as well, but it has noting to do with option-clicking, it has to do with having an easier way to control-click. I've been meaning to look at one of those new Kensington Studio Mice. It does away with the center scroll wheel, which I've always liked but never found an implementation I liked, with a small scroll strip that doesn't use moving parts. Sounds neat. TL |
| #10 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 9/16/2002 4:42:56 PM |
|
I don't think a two-button mouse muddies UI concepts, except maybe Apple's UI concept. Left button = select, right button = options. What's so muddy about that? There are always going to be exceptions to the rule, but that's the guiding principle.
I don't see how needing to learn shortcuts is a simplification for users. Few people I've met know the Windows-key shortcuts, for instance. I use them extensively, and I think people that invest a significant amount of time on computers would be wise to learn shortcut keys. However, a second button on a mouse that means "options" requires no memorization, and it's useful to both beginning and advanced users. I think my point is better served by a common experience I (and most others I know) have had (this is from having worked at a half-PC, half-Mac shop)--most PC users know how to use the right mouse button, whereas most Mac users don't know about option-clicking. I think what we're disagreeing about is whether or not a two-button mouse goes against a simplified UI principle. I can't see how it does. At its foundation, it is a logical extension of the mouse--the purpose it serves is tied to screen location. I doubt Apple would switch (and I don't expect them to do so), but I they are mistaken in believing that it is somehow contrary to a simplified UI experience. When they didn't have contextual menus (years ago), the single-button made sense. Now that Macs have contextual menus (and I agree with you--not enough of them), the two-button mouse is a more elegant way to access that functionality than option-click. I understand your point about confusion if some things were option-clicks and some weren't (although I'm not sure the examples you mentioned couldn't be served by right-clicks), but that suggests a discontinuity in Mac UI principles itself in how option-clicks are used--the non-contextual menu examples you mentioned weren't really "options," but shortcuts. In that regard, the Windows-key + D for "display desktop" makes more sense, as it's really not a contextual option but a shortcut to specific functionality not related to the current application. On the other hand, unfortunately, on the PC there seems to be less of a respect for convention, and you end up with applications from rogue developers that want to do it their way (or are simply ignorant of convention). I have a love/hate relationship with the fact that the contextual menus are extensible. It offers a beautiful way for developers to give users access to the features of the program, but it can also be abused and overdone (especially when conventions aren't followed!). Perhaps Apple could address this downfall in an innovative way, and maybe even find a way of saving face while introducing a two-button mouse by offering an elegant approach? |
| #11 By 442 (65.33.154.204) at 9/16/2002 5:01:41 PM |
|
Draxxon said:
"whoop di doo da sodajerk, how many Mac users know about Option Clicking do you think and all they can do with it? Mac guru's know about it, but casual mac users would know less about it, at least that is what I have seen of Mac users that I know. It's the same on the PC side. Lost of keyboard shortcuts, combined click and keyboard methods, etc." How many PC users know about the "right-click and drag" feature in Windows? My guess is not many. The point is that there are always folks, on either platform, that know more of the special little touches than others. |
| #12 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 9/16/2002 5:11:59 PM |
|
bluvg, it seems like you are going in two directions. But, first, let's point out that the Mac does in fact support TWO conventions, including YOUR preferred convention, Yes? Okay...
Where I think Apple's conventions would be muddied and basically ended with a 2-button mouse is (1) in actually how they try to create universal shortcuts for say 20-30% of the functions which would appear in a context menu, (2) how they try to limit rarely used but easy to locate functions from appearing in contexts menus (preferring file menus and pallettes or whatever to configure these) whereas on the PC you might have a laundry list of contextual functions that rarely get used, etc... (3) I think it would also deemphasize the mod key + click shortcuts which are numerous (the complaint that you'd be bowing to is that there shouldn't be keyboard + mouse modifiers... Also, if you can right-click for CMs, the user is unlikely to explore option, cmd, etc clicking). My point about my examples was that these shortcuts are very well known, pervasive, and universal so a Mac user would never look in a context menu for them. On the other hand, what's the point of your example, Windows-key + D isn't wellknown and isn't an option for right-clicks except on top of the task bar, which actually appears as "Minimize All" really. (If I'm wrong, don't jump on me, I always enjoy learning shortcuts, and would be the first to say, shortcuts on the PC are mysterious and hidden to me at times.) Your point that these could be right-click contextual menu items is irrelevant if there is another, more pervasive shortcut to doing so... My point wasn't that people should learn these; it was that Mac users DO know these examples because they are the most common, they are pervasive, etc... Command-(option)-N is just as vital to a Mac user as Command-C basically. But I'm not suggesting the average user does or should know all the shortcuts, or even all the shortcuts that I know. I also don't get your point about the muddying of contextual functions versus shortcuts--in some respects there is bleed, but I think you'd find that PC contextual menus just as frequently, if not more so, provide access to functions which are not context specific; whereas, as I mentioned, the Mac scheme is to provide wellknown, universal shortcuts to the most common, frequently used tasks (whether or not they are tied to context). The mod key+mouse shortcuts are certainly a different class of shortcut, but that was in part my point: that the Mac metaphor has a larger array of keyboard+mouse functionality that PC users aren't looking into--that doesn't mean it's inconsistent, just that you are not operating within the right metaphor. The idea that a two-button mouse wouldn't confuse the metaphor because it would just map to contextual menus is typical PC perspective... It doesn't provide much of a metaphor, and it exists outside of the existing metaphor. On a Mac, there needs to be greater meaning/value: "just context menus? does it do anything else?" kind of a perspective. I know I am an extensive CM user, and yet I know that in OS 9 I more frequently mod key+clicked to access other functions than I did to access CMs--so if it doesn't substantially change the habit that everyone is complaining about (using the keyboard and mouse together)... obviously they haven't adopted/explored advanced Mac habits/tricks and just want it to behave like a PC without considering the benefits of the Mac system. As I said, I don't see what the complaint is: Macs support 1,2,3,n-button mice w/ or w/o scroll wheels. People are whining about $20 in hardware without considering the conceptual and programmatic changes to the UI/platform. This post was edited by sodajerk on Monday, September 16, 2002 at 18:10. |
| #13 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 9/16/2002 5:56:44 PM |
|
Wait a sec... how can it be a conceptual and programmatic change to the UI/platform if it's already supported? Neither the fact that you can simply go out and buy a two-button mouse nor the fact that the OS already supports contextual menus are lost on me. The question is why not offer a two-button mouse in the first place? There's no programmatic change--the support is already there. Contextual menus have been there for years, so right-clicking to access them is not a conceptual change. And the argument isn't about $20 if the hardware is included out-of-the-box.
Also, you are both not suggesting that "the average user does or should know all the shortcuts," while saying that "these shortcuts are very well known." If the average user doesn't know the shortcuts, how are they well-known??? Do you mean well-known as in documented? These shortcuts are not well-known to most users--I have too much first-hand experience with this to believe otherwise. |
| #14 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 9/16/2002 6:10:13 PM |
|
No, bluvg, see you have the same limited vision that the rest of the PC whiners have. Would you be happy with just an extra button... or are you really asking that Apple should support more contextual functionality, remove universal shortcuts that you consider context specific, resolve their own mod-key+keyboard shortcuts (because that is what you are complaining about, right?), etc... Not because this is necessary to say the right mice button equals contexts menus, but because Apple doesn't make changes to the application of its UI unless it makes sense, is applied universally, and is pervasive. The more we discuss I see that you are not really considering some of the consistency and other issues that the Mac actually answers better than the PC. Or that you aren't considering how the actual manifestation of a shortcut (whether keyboard, mouse, or both) affects the underlying concepts, metaphors of the UI--they most certainly do--a consideration that can't be ignored on the Mac side of things.
After all, didn't you yourself say: "I don't think a two-button mouse muddies UI concepts, except maybe Apple's UI concept." Exactly! You then say, right-click equals option. That would be odd. A lot of the option+mouse functions involve a click/release or a double-click/release--select=left and option=right, yes? So you would have the user clicking both buttons simultaneously?... or consider... double clicking the right mouse button... either would be a completely new paradigm and would confuse everyone--Mac and PC users. That's what I'm saying. If you are saying that they should just sell a two-button mouse, fine, but I think that ultimately suggest dropping their concept where functions are simple to access without detailed context menus. If you aren't suggesting that, and think it's good that they support both systems, than you should understand why they don't sell a 2-button mouse... at least as the primary option. If it is just an option, then it's perfectly understandable that Apple doesn't offer a 2-button mouse... They're basically out of the peripheral market. I'd much rather they get back to making LaserWriters than 2-button mice--and you don't hear that complaint frequently. Your second point is just silly. In your post above you made it sound like I was saying every user should learn every shortcut... something I would never argue. I don't see this as contradictory to the idea that Mac users know the most common shortcuts. I would strongly stick by the notion that if an average user knows cmd-c,v,x, 85+% of Mac users equally know cmd-n,m,i This post was edited by sodajerk on Monday, September 16, 2002 at 19:22. |
| #15 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 9/16/2002 6:23:59 PM |
|
"And the argument isn't about $20 if the hardware is included out-of-the-box."
This is exactly the argument that PC users want to make. As I have said, I am suggesting that it is a different one. I think the out of the box question ignores its impact on the Mac-style shortcuts. Let's repeat: "I don't think a two-button mouse muddies UI concepts, except maybe Apple's UI concept." The Mac has a huge array of shortcuts which use both keyboard and mouse; it's entire design is conceived to limit the need for extensive and detailed context menus... If they moved to a 2-button mouse, they'd basically, fundamentally be abandoning these concepts. Which means the question is, can Apple support its own metaphor as well as the PC metaphor, or should it just adopt the PC metaphor? My answer is support both. PC users are largely unaware of coordinated keyboard/mouse shortcuts (although there may be some) so they act as if this is an unnatural act. It's not. A power Mac user will continue to use keyboard+mouse whether or not there are 2-buttons. So really, the PCers don't know it, but they are saying, the Mac should support the same shortcuts, CMs, options that Windows does. What is unnatural about keyboard+mouse? Really, what are you doing with that other hand? This post was edited by sodajerk on Monday, September 16, 2002 at 19:20. |
| #16 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 9/16/2002 7:20:38 PM |
|
Here is where your argument is flawed: "85+% of Mac users equally know cmd-n,m,i"
No way. No how. I would expect an advanced Mac user to know these shortcuts, but I cannot go against my experience and agree with you that 85+% are familiar with more than a couple shortcuts--I simply know that this is not the case. I don't disagree that, once familiar, there's nothing wrong with keyboard+mouse shortcuts, but you are making arguments for elegance and principle at the sake of efficiency. A second mouse button doesn't invalidate anything about the UI--it's already supported! What is soooo bad about offering a two-button mouse standard, when you can still option-click and keyboard shortcut yourself to your heart's content? It's not a change to the UI if they already support it! As for detailed context menus, I agree that some are unnecessarily complex, but this is the fault of the developer, not the two-button mouse. There's nothing wrong with just clicking a second little button for contextual options. It's simply one extra button that accesses functionality that's already included! How can it be a big UI shift if it's already supported??? You don't have to revise the context menus--why would you? It doesn't abandon anything. It's already there, and it's simple. A second mouse button is easier for average users to grasp conceptually, for a number of reasons. The keyboard and mouse are two different input devices, and average users associate the keyboard with data entry and the mouse with selecting objects on the screen. By implication, would a keyboard+touch screen shortcut be intuitive? Would a keyboard+tablet shortcut be intuitive? In a way, there is something unnatural about mixing input devices. It's simply easier for users to grasp the concept of one simple button for options, rather than mixing two input devices to accomplish a task. Advanced users, they can figure this stuff out, but give the average user a single extra button on their mouse to access functionality that's already there (no other UI change--it's there already!!) so they can work more efficiently, rather than suffer due to some heady, inflexible design principles and an occasionally blind devotion to elegance. |
| #17 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 9/16/2002 7:36:43 PM |
|
Blugv, my argument in no way rests on what other people do or do not know. It rests on the fact that there is another metaphor beside the PC one. If Apple supported 2-button mice, who would support the Apple metaphor? Who would sell one button mice? That is my argument. People act as if it's just a peripheral issue; it's not. As soon as Apple adopts a 2-button mouse, the principles behind their concept are out the window--there is no one to support it. Whereas now, they support their own and the PC worlds, allowing 3rd parties to provide the cheap, low margin peripherals.
Your argument seems to be self-limiting--who cares about tying right-click functionality into the metaphor? Throw out the idea that form is connected to function... Well, Apple and Mac users care. Why should the mouse be used for anything other then selecting? Because many functions are tied to selecting; do you single and double click objects? That's two functions ascribed to something that should just be selection--it's both selection and open... (According to you, isn't it easier to understand that you right click (for options) than select "Open" in order to open files, rather than double clicking?) I want a whole sequence of options related to selection: select, open, open and close parent, open and close others, open all, hide others, select and show related functions, etc... It's much more full-powered; these shortcuts are all related to "selection" still and the combinations are intuitive and largely universal. Don't see how that is "suffer[ing] due to some heady, inflexible design principles and an occasionally blind devotion to elegance. " Of course, you think I'm obsessed with elegance and don't see how these functions enumerate themselves intuitively. And you also don't see that I'm not talking about recoding CMs but I am talking about changing design considerations and directions, etc... This post was edited by sodajerk on Monday, September 16, 2002 at 19:46. |
| #18 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 9/16/2002 8:46:10 PM |
|
By the way, Bluvg, since your own argument is all over the place, I can see why you don't see the argument behind a consistent design/principle. For example, "once familiar, there's nothing wrong with keyboard+mouse shortcuts" So how is this at "the sake of efficiency"? If it's no less efficient than other shortcuts once known (and don't you need to know any shortcut before you use it?) isn't it simply more "elegant" (which I would argue means intuitive, organized, and powerful) to have 3 or 4 behaviors associated with a click than one? Especially considering, that novice users are perfectly happy not knowing them--they aren't intrusive. "The keyboard and mouse are two different input devices, and average users associate the keyboard with data entry and the mouse with selecting objects on the screen." That makes no sense--both are used to invoke functions; is ctrl-A less efficient than selecting all of the documents on a screen? Is clicking close, maximize, minimize just "selection" or are you invoking a function? You've provided no real reasoning why these are actually distinct and (more importantly) exclusive input devices. In fact, isn't a one button mouse closer to the concept of using it just for selection, and then having the keyboard to modify what the selection means? The right-click button is completely devoid of any spatial/selection type reference. As for "By implication, would a keyboard+touch screen shortcut be intuitive? Would a keyboard+tablet shortcut be intuitive? In a way, there is something unnatural about mixing input devices." Whoever said tablets/touchscreens are intuitively combined with keyboards in the first place? It's only MS who says a device should be all things for all people no matter how redundant the capabilities are or how niche/dedicated your needs are. I think I read three articles this week besides the Reg article asking why the Tablet PC is actually a full powered PC, why they are all hybrids, why they are heavier than notebooks, etc... Your questions are spurious in that Apple hasn't said that alt. modes of mousing should be integrated with keyboard input. Microsoft has, so ask them why you need a tablet with a keyboard instead--in your argument they are exclusive but redundant, aren't they? "It's simply easier for users to grasp the concept of one simple button for options, rather than mixing two input devices to accomplish a task." I already mentioned that most users double click instead of right-clicking to open a file, didn't I? I guess it's not always best to have a single button be the place where all operations besides selection reside, huh? "Advanced users, they can figure this stuff out, but give the average user a single extra button on their mouse to access functionality that's already there"--this part here sounds to me like you are saying that really it has nothing to do with coordinating the input or the structure of the design, it simply has to do with having a list of functions that the uneducated are not aware of... That doesn't speak to HOW you INVOKE the commands, it just says that you should enumerate the commands for the idiots that don't know them.
And again, I'll point out your own words: "I don't disagree that, once familiar, there's nothing wrong with keyboard+mouse shortcuts" "I don't think a two-button mouse muddies UI concepts, except maybe Apple's UI concept." I believe those two statements are the heart of what I'm saying. This post was edited by sodajerk on Monday, September 16, 2002 at 20:56. |
| #19 By 2459 (24.233.39.98) at 9/17/2002 12:25:50 AM |
|
SJ, for more Windows shortcuts, search "keybord shortcuts" in Windows Help.
If you're using XP, search "Windows keyboard shortcuts overview" |
| #20 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 9/17/2002 4:52:49 AM |
| bluvg, why are you arguing for a two button mouse? Anything less than a five button mouse is really annoying. : - ) Well, perhaps that should be four buttons and a wheel. Nah, you can click or scroll with the wheel. It surely is a button too! |
| #21 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 9/17/2002 4:54:45 AM |
| rawprr, to some degree sodablue is in agreement with sodajerk. Jerk says that two buttons muddy the UI paradigm. Blue says two buttons confuse the user. Well, a muddy paradigm is certainly confusing. Perhaps blue wasn't as saget-esque as it seemed on the surface. |
| #22 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 9/17/2002 11:50:56 AM |
|
This argument is going in circles. We are both explaining principles, then picking apart the exceptions. Sure, there is another "metaphor" other than the Windows one, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't evolve and keep up with computing practices. Right-click is not foreign to the Mac "metaphor" already--it's already supported. You seem to say that there is a clear conceptual separation between the Windows-style use of the Mac and the Mac use of the Mac, but I don't see that clear separation--contextual menus are included in the standard Mac UI, not some alternative mode. The statement that "The right-click button is completely devoid of any spatial/selection type reference" is just plain wrong--they are contextual menus. The location relative to the application is at the heart of the existence of contextual menus. I'm confused as to what your point is in your argument about selection encompassing multiple functions--many of these things (single vs. double-clicking, etc.) are already present in the UI on Windows, and these do not supplant right-clicking. I don't know a whole lot of folks that use right-click to open (you pick on right-click>open as an example, but c'mon, that's purposefully ignorant of how contextual menus are commonly used and the power they offer), but it's simple for any user to understand that they can find out their options for dealing with a file by clicking a single button that serves the purpose of presenting options based on the object in question (which is location-dependent). That's easy to use. Maybe it's not as elegant in principle in the Mac UI "metaphor," but at the same time, it's more intuitive and elegant than combining simultaneous input from multiple devices--in principle. I never said that the devices were exclusive; I said that it was less intuitive. I was surprised (as were many of our users where I last worked) that you combined keystrokes with mouse-clicks to accomplish certain things--it certainly didn't jump out at you. It isn't intuitive. Your example of the tablet PC is not relevant, because you are not simultaneously entering input from the tablet and the keyboard.
I would never call any user an "idiot"--we are all experienced to a lesser or greater degree on computers, and there's always someone smarter than yourself. Enumerating commands puts the power into the hands of the user, regardless of experience. Hopefully Apple is taking the road of putting power in the hands of the user... otherwise, their Switchers campaign isn't going to go very well. The GUI concept was realized in no small measure for providing a method of accessing the power of computers for those "idiots" that weren't educated in using command line. This type of arguing is evidence of the type of reasoning that has been a near-fatal flaw at Apple. The "not invented here" syndrome and a devotion to design that sometimes comes at the expense of function. Elegance is beautiful, and we all appreciate that Apple strives for that--but this shouldn't be a blind devotion. Put the power in the hands of all users--not just the educated ones. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 225 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:58:29 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
