Slashdot Mirror

I don't get it.

As someone else has pointed out here, "OK" is a perfectly valid verb, synonymous with "Yes, I Authorise this action" but considerably less wordy and (and this is an important point) very easy to rapidly distinguish from the alternative choices.

Is there a particular HCI study that makes a legitimate case against "OK". Perhaps something from http://www.ok-cancel.com/?

Unfortunately this kind of interface is completely useless except as a gimmick.

Relevant Comic

I'm a lazy-ass.

Or is it simply that you don't have the upper body strength to wave your arms about for 8 hours a day.

I play games. A four hour session is a regular occurrence for me. Over the years, games have gotten more immersive and sophisticated, and even with a dozen or so buttons, analog sticks and analog sensitivity, many buttons have context sensitive actions or use "shift key" functions. Characters can perform a dozen action at any given moment, and indeed need to be able to do so at a moments notice. You need to be able to play the game with a speed as close to "thought" as possible.

Controllers are currently the best way we have of controlling all kinds of video games, in particular 2D and 3D third person titles, which comprise the largest segment of games. Dual analog sticks have cut the Gordian knot of 3D movement and camera control. Analog buttons allow "volume control" in issued commands. Even FPS titles, with their increasing roster of (needed) actions, are more ergonomically played on controllers.

This is no accident. The modern controller is the result of a slow, continuous, and at times retrograde, evolutionary process. The current incarnation: Left-Dpad/ Right main buttons/ Twin Analog Stick/ Center control buttons/ Shoulder buttons/ has not emerged from thin air. It is the end result of continuous refinment and feedback over thirty years. To throw all that out, especially given its huge success, is mad folly.

I cannot do everything I do with a controller using a motion control system. It's not possible now, and it never will be possible. I can play a gimmicky game or two, but when it comes to 3D movement and camera control, I need analog sticks. When it comes to jumping firing a weapon, I need a tactile button press. When it comes to pausing or main menus, I need dedicated function keys. I cannot make do with waving around dongles, lurching my arms about, or making a convoluted gesture if I want to do any of these things. Or at least, I can't do that for 4-6 hours straight.

Motion control is a gimmick. It can never, ever be the main way of controlling video games. Perhaps in time, our current methods will be replaced. But I see that happening in a gradual evolution process, not in a huge marketing driven push for accessibility at the expense of usability.

Well said... I thought this comic illustrated it well, also.

It's not that we necessarily can't build it. It's a question of whether it's a good idea.

It's not a question of whether we'll ever have tactile holograms. The more relevant question is, WTF is with the coffee cup metaphor?

Choose a curly brace style and stick with it! Oh, this is UI styling we're talking about...

Try this HCI web comic, I don't think it is updated anymore but there's lots of great archives:

http://www.ok-cancel.com/

Not a book, but a comic. I'm not sure how much it will actually help but it's humorous and gives us non-GUI programmers an insight on their world.

OK-Cancel

The whole basis of good UI design is that there is not one way to do things. Forcing the use of keys instead of drop-down menus is bad design. Period. You can use keyboard shortcuts in Lightwave. You can even customize them. You can even assign keys to custom scripts you've written. This customization should be considered a necessity in 3D animation, not an option that takes 10 freakin' years to implement. I'm still using LW5.6. It's in there.

But again in LW, anything you can do using keyboard shortcuts you can also accomplish using drop-down menus. [sarcasm]And check this out! They even list the actual keyboard shortcuts in the list of options in those very menus! Imagine that, pointers to the shortcuts within the very UI instead of buried somewhere in cryptic man pages! Brilliant![/sarcasm]

We shouldn't confuse the conceptual "vocabulary" in 3D animation (the domain) with the process constraints from the interfaces of the programs. I agree that learning 3D animation is hard, but having a painfully autistic UI doesn't make it easier. Nothing is more frustrating than knowing what you want to accomplish, knowing that it is certainly possible, knowing that it should be ridiculously easy, and yet can't figure out the voodoo mouse-twitch keyboard hack to make it happen. And then all the documentation you can find assumes you already know that part and glosses over that step.

It's like banging your head against a brick wall. Eventually, the pains goes away when you stop. 3DS Max has a horrible UI. But, Blender has a monumentally stoopid UI. Now that I think about it, Blender really is a fitting name. Though, maybe they should call it Frog in a Blender.

http://www.ok-cancel.com/comic/4.html/

I don't think there's a geek in the world with the sheer physical strength to work with that interface for very long.

Take your mouse. Hold it the air for five minutes. For extra effect, wave it about. Now imagine doing this eight hours a day.

Reminds me of this hilarious comic from OK/Cancel.

(Two guys exit a showing of the movie Minority Report.)

Guy: Mate, that film was brilliant! I reckon that interface'll be the interface of the future!

(Fast forward to 2099...)

Job interviewer, speaking to interviewee: I'm sorry ma'am. Your cognitive scores are incredible but you simply don't have the upper body strength to do this 8 hours a day.

If you're into usability and design, OK/Cancel is a great web comic to check out.

The problem with voluntary efforts is that they don't really have a GUI designer and a developer. Normally they're one and the same so you end up with something that looks great from a developer's perspective but probably not to others.

The notion that one person can collect (useful) end-user information and then implement it technically is analogous to asking the same person to design and then build your house. It's possible, but unlikely to be successful for larger projects.

You need someone who is trained in collecting the user behavior data, understanding what that means, and using that to guide the design (from a user standpoint) of the end product. They will gather information by interviewing and observing the users. This may include asking them what they want, asking them why they want it (what are the actual goals, not just features), observing the work they do, and understanding the greater context in which they do their work. Once they have an understanding of the needs, they will probably create many generations of cheap (perhaps on paper) prototypes that they can use to quickly acquire and integrate user feedback. Once that process has mostly defined the product (or aspects of a product) it can be turned over to you to figure out the technical implementation. (Of course the earlier on in the process that you are involved the more input you'll have on the final design.)

People who fill that role (or subsets of it) are commonly referred to as interaction designers, user experience architects, information architects, usability specialists, etc. They should be trained in accurate data collection, cognitive psychology, interface design, and a number of related skills. "Web Designers" frequently have a background in graphic design and don't have the rest of the training to make them the right person for this role. Accept no substitutes.

For more information on what this role is about, check out sites like Cooper, Boxes and Arrows, and OK-Cancel.

Good luck!

He's overapplied his own advice, to the point where his web site looks so generic that it has no unifying brand.

Really? I can recognize Nielsen everywhere - his website and books look all the same - ugly. That's his brand.

http://www.ok-cancel.com/ is a great site for non-technical, insightful discussions of user interfaces; plus a great web comic on the subject.

OK, I know that they say it's for those with disabilities, but it came to mind.

Ok-Cancel

How most open-source projects think. Hint: anybody with any experience in actual usability can tell you that users, above all else, want things that are simple and work, not things that they have ot spend six weeks configuring. Look at the iPod: simple interface, few controls, hugely popular. Look at the Mozilla suite versus Firefox: Mozilla is huge, bloated, and has more configuration options than most Slashdotters have zits. Firefox is simple, slimmed-down, has a fraction of the visible options, and has taken 10% of a previously heavily-entrenched market in a tiny amount of time.

haha i like his idea of a future interface

but do you have the arm strength? http://www.ok-cancel.com/comic/3.html (comic from OK/Cancel)

This about sums it up: http://www.ok-cancel.com/comic/3.html/

outside of the Linus quote "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from"

I think you may be mis-attributing that quote. At least 3 sources name Dr Andrew Tanenbaum...

Here
Here
and here

While it's possible he was quoting someone else, I suspect is wasn't Linus...

Can you separate content from form?

We should've stick to ASCII.

Check it out [ok-cancel.com]

I just have to point this out:

"So in conclusion, Jakob Nielsen's latest AlertBox has no scientific validity whatsoever. (ok-cancel.com)

and I only have 4 fingers...

Inspired by this attempt to restore faith, here's a comic strip about the issue:

For a music player with a better GUI, try this.

I'd use it.