Slashdot Mirror
Balancing Use Between the Keyboard and Mouse?
initialE wonders: "A friend of mine, working for a bank, mentioned to me that she had just undergone training for the migration of applications from their legacy systems (think DOS-based interface, AS400 powered) to a snazzy new web application. Whereas the younger users were impressed by the bling it provided, the older users were less happy, and the reason provided was that the application lacked shortcut keys to doing their most common tasks. The newer staff were mighty pleased not to have to learn all those arcane commands, of course. This led me to consider a few things. I administer Windows-based systems, and more and more I am choosing to use whatever key-based interface is available - I don't even use the file explorer anymore, preferring to type 'WindowsKey+R', and typing in the file path (Windows helps with auto-complete). It's better for me to keep my hands on the keyboard and not touch the mouse. It's certainly not because my mouse is bad, I just don't want to release the focus on the keyboard. And it works - I get things done a lot faster than anyone else in my department. Have we placed too much emphasis on making GUI-based applications, and left behind what was a perfectly good way of doing things?"
I have to agree that we have placed too much emphasis on the GUI where a nice key command would suffice. On OS X, I can't survive without Quicksilver, which has been referred to as a GUI CLI, combining the best of both. It can also function as a sort of "glue app," interfacing between Terminal programs and GUI apps.
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
bling makers themselves are so dazzled by their own creations they don't even bother to make keyboard accelerators for things like menus! I'm not even saying adding shortcut combos, just adding the underline on each menu item. Is it too much to ask? Apparently.
It's very much an issue of preference. Windows has got it right: visual, mouse-click interface combined with plenty of shortcuts. When people have choices, they're happy.
"The command line is like writing a poem, while using a mouse is like pointing and grunting"
Er, something like that.
I like both, both have thier place.
Some times click click and being done with something is great, while other times having a command line to type EXACTLY what you want is a life saver.
To me, it's all about what you want to do.
Chat (irssi for irc and bitlbee) is command line if possible.
Web design (Dreamweaver MX 2004) is a good balance. Point, click, edit code, flex the geek and the mouse.
Graphic design (GIMP) is almost 100% mouse for me. GIMP and World of Warcraft are the reason I bought a trackball.
Pretty Pictures!
At least not the Windows Interface part. It is completely feasable to have a windows interface with lots of well defined key commands. Autohotkey is a good tool for this sort of thing, and the source is available for free as well.
Way back when the Mac as new (mid '80s), Apple tries this with a stopwatch. People reported they were faster with the shortcut keys, but when forced to move their hand to the mouse they got the job done in half the time.
Now be careful about reading this - this was for a very specific task. Each task varies. However the point is that you need to make an objective measure before you can say one is better - sometimes your perceptions lie.
Part of this depends on how much training is worth. Phone operators (who do the same job for years on end, apparently switching jobs is/was rare) find it worthwile to learn command that save them 1/10 of a second, even though they need an all day training course to learn it. That command is something they do all day though (I don't know what the task is/was), so it is worth the phone companies money in the long run to train operators to use the shortcuts.
One advantage of shortcuts is even when there is no significant advantage, it allows some people to feel more elite than others. This can stoke their ego, and make them hang onto a bad job just to show the youngsters how "real men" do it.
Remember though this is a computer. You should be automating any task that you do often. Control-R, type (with completion) a command is not as fast as a shortcut key that starts that command in one touch. It may or may not be faster than putting an icon for that application on the desktop or in the taskbar. Remember to use a stopwatch to time this, not your gut feeling.
Some things are just easier and faster when done by keyboard, especially if done repeatedly. When editing text I far prefer to use keystrokes. The mouse is handy for exploring menus, pointing at things and context-sensitive stuff but when you know what you need to do a keyboard shortcut is invaluable. I also hate the horrible clutter of icons it most apps these days, I know though that once you learn where they are that's a useful way of packing in functionality. I just think its gone too far.
This is a classic example of Easy to Use VS Easy to Learn.
Modern UI designers have an unfair bias towards designing for the new user. The emphasis is to make the new user get up to speed as painlessly as possible. In other words, the design of the inerface should cater for "Easy to Learn". This is a fundamental principle in modern user interface design.
Now. "Easy to Use" is not the same thing as "Easy to Learn". They are not necessarily orthongonal, but they tend to be. So while your new graphical application is easy to learn for the new user, the experienced power user finds it cumbersome to use. Note that a easy to use application can take a long time to master. For example, all the short cut keys in your old application requires effort and time to memorize.
The standard argument is that if the application is hard to learn, people won't buy it. Therefore, if we need to sacrifice ease of use, for the sake of ease of learning, so be it.
Okay, if the users wanted keyboard shortcuts, why didn't the web developers include them? It's not as if HTML doesn't have support for this.
A properly constructed GUI application should be just as usable with the keyboard as older applications. Web applications throw up a couple of minor hurdles, but no real showstoppers. The question seems pointless because you can have the best of both worlds easily.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
Certainly does help, we have telemarketers who use an autodialler connected to a button on an intranet site. They click the button, it routes the phone call to their workstation immediately. Before the autodialler they had to manually punch in the numbers, three things to swap between, phone-keyboard-mouse. After installing the auto-dialler (fixing up all the mis-dials), I removed as much of the mouse keyboard swapping that I could using button shortcuts and field jumps so they were primarily keyboard users, which works pretty well. The data entry is fairly straight forward, tab, enter, lots of typing, alt+whatever. But when they are faced with having to scroll down the screen because the form is just a touch to long to display all at once, they head towards the scroll wheel on the mouse. We've considered purchasing keyboards with a mousewheel tacked onto the side and some kind of trackball (their desk real estate is fairly limited) but we've come to the conclusion that they're happy the way they are now and it works.
Then again, sometimes I find myself typing in word then trying to use CTRL+K combinations...
Task Mangler
Have we placed too much emphasis on making GUI-based applications, and left behind what was a perfectly good way of doing things?
YES. Next question?
Seriously, this is a classic example of a common problem in IT. The problem is called "not having a fucking clue". Instead of objectively determining what the best solution to a problem is, people just use whatever they know. All they know is web apps, so that's what they create.
For repetitive, screen-oriented tasks, where the interface is stable, and the user can be trained ahead of time, a simple text GUI with keyboard shortcuts is almost always more efficient and therefore cost-effective. Of course, you shouldn't assume this without objective measurements (use a stopwatch, as the poster above suggested), but in my experience it's true.
Haven't you ever seen a receptionist or a teller staring at her screen, moving her hands from the "mousing position" (one hand on the mouse, one on the keyboard) to the "keyboard position" (touch-typing position) and back again? She enters some data, uses the mouse to get to the next field or screen, goes back to entering data.. and it takes twice as long as it should.
Some of this is lack of training of course ("with our snazzy web-based interface, you DON'T NEED to train" .. yeah, what bullshit.. how about telling her about the Tab key for instance?).. but much of it is the stupid interface.
Not to mention that now instead of display and keyboard, employees now need display, keyboard, and MOUSE .. it gets gunked up, it falls off the desk, it breaks and needs to be replaced.
Some tasks are good for the mouse, but data entry, and/or paging through screens is not one of them. For that you just need a text UI (with appropriate use of color) and a reliable keyboard.
Usually the best thing to do is ask the experienced users who are already efficient on the old system: "what do you think of the new system"? Which I believe you did.. Of course, most companies don't seem to bother with that...
It appeals to reviewers, who simply can't invest the time required to master a steep learning curve.
It appeals to the people evaluating your software package for purchase, because again, they aren't going to spend a month learning to use something if they aren't already sure they're going to purchase it.
Convincing people that it's worth spending time learning anything is a Very Hard sell indeed. Look at your average high school for proof.
In order to do that, you need some whizzbang testimonials from fanatical users who will swear blind that your software product changed their lives. Otherwise, you are stuck selling to scientists and engineers who live by the principal that the steeper the learning curve, the better the tool.
Ah, the age old debate between GUIs and CLIs.
This isn't anything new. People have been discussing this for a long time. It's pretty well known that GUIs are better for some tasks and CLIs are better for others. Rather than trying to proclaim that one is dead, people really should work on making them work better together.
Anyhow. Until people start making more advances in that arena, in the meantime, I've found that using a keyboard with an integrated TrackPoint works great. (You can find old IBM ones on eBay or get some from pckeyboards.com.) Any modern OS supports multiple input pointing devices, so if you need to do a lot of mousing but only a little bit of typing, you still can have a normal mouse available to you. If, however, you need to do a lot of typing but only a little bit of mousing, you can keep your fingers at your keyboard the whole time. It's the best of both worlds, and I think all keyboards should come like this.
it's a lot easier to train computer newbies with standardized "point-and-grunt" user interfaces than to make them learn complicated command syntaxes and file system conventions.
I fear for the survival of our race if those sort of things qualify as being "complicated."
These things seem "simpler" to people who learned to use computers early on. But by any objective standard, they just aren't.
I'd like to hear about these object standards of yours, because I object wholly to your statement. It depends, however, on whether you meant to say "commands are simpler than point-and-click" or "commands are simpler to long-time users than they are to people with objective standards."
Here is an objective example: to view all of the files in directory c:\foo\bar, you must type 'dir c:\foo\bar'. That is one step. Say you are using a GUI in standard Windows XP: "Start > My Computer > C: > foo > bar" That's 5 steps! The "complex" command structure involves simply typing an abreviated English word followed by the name of the directory. The GUI method can be given shortcuts, such as linking a shortcut to that directory or using the run function, but the former can be automated the same way on the command line using a batch file/command alias, and the latter requires that you type in the path and is therefore just as complex. Also, the dir command is accepted on more systems (example, 'dir [directory]' can work on anything from *nix to DOS to Windows to VMS natively and any other operating system with minimal modifications. GUI methods will differ profoundly from one platform to another.
Also, programming a GUI is more complex than any other kind of interface, and adding keyboard shortcuts is quite trivial. I never underestimate the laziness of programmers (I do this because I am one), and it's probably true that they don't bother to add them, but then that is a poor GUI they have just written.
Here's a complete solution for Windows:
Use AutoHotkey to make keyboard shortcuts to run programs and enter text.
Use AutoIt to simulate keyboard entries and mouse clicks and when you need complicated decision-making. Download AutoIt with the SciTE auto-completion IDE. The SciTE editor makes writing and testing AutoIt programs and compiling the finished results very easy.
Both these programs are very sophisticated, the best available, and FREE. AutoHotKey comes with source code. Both are programmable.
For example, I've written an AutoHotKey program that uses a shortcut to toggle between Windows shortcut keys and WordStar/Brief control-key editing commands. I like to avoid taking the time to touch the mouse.
AutoIt is great for automating installations of software.
Both allow programming your own GUIs.
Don't forget to contribute to these efforts.
I've noticed that I spend most of my time in Konsole/bash and Vim (CLI version). Vi had a really good keyboard interface for getting around quickly, and the hjkl method of moving around should be available in all programs if desired. Along with Vim, I'll be using less and man to read things, and thankfully those support the jk method of scrolling up and down.
When it comes to GUI apps, however, I mainly use Firefox, Thunderbird, Akregator, and amaroK. The two KDE applications are customisable with shortcut keys the same way all KDE applications usually are, and I know a bunch of the useful shortcuts with Firefox. Not only that, but mouse gestures are an absolute must in a GUI [web] browser, and AiO Gestures does that great.
The catch? I was born in the 80's; I didn't grow up with Unix (I started with Windows 3.1). Even with that, I still have found CLI programs to be a godsend.
'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
I'll stay away from GUI vs CLI when it comes to speed/ease of use etc, but here is one interesting point, I hadn't thought of before.
I did some consulting for a hotel chain, and I ended up talking to the front desk staff one night about their new very mouse-based GUI'ish reservation program. I had noticed that they spent a lot of time staring down at the screen and mousing, whereas at other hotels, the counter person would talk to the customer and make eye contact while only needing to briefly look at the screen.
The staff definately felt the emphasis on mousing had interfered with their ability to give good customer service and it wasn't just a learning curve - on a keyboard based system, they had eventually memorized enough keystrokes just from practise, that they didn't have to watch the screen all the time. But with a mouse you can *never* do that - a mouse *always* requires one hand and at least one eye.
imho
Master Foo Discourses on the Graphical User Interface
One evening, Master Foo and Nubi attended a gathering of programmers who had met to learn from each other. One of the programmers asked Nubi to what school he and his master belonged. Upon being told they were followers of the Great Way of Unix, the programmer grew scornful.
"The command-line tools of Unix are crude and backward," he scoffed. "Modern, properly designed operating systems do everything through a graphical user interface."
Master Foo said nothing, but pointed at the moon. A nearby dog began to bark at the master's hand.
"I don't understand you!" said the programmer.
Master Foo remained silent, and pointed at an image of the Buddha. Then he pointed at a window.
"What are you trying to tell me?" asked the programmer.
Master Foo pointed at the programmer's head. Then he pointed at a rock.
"Why can't you make yourself clear?" demanded the programmer.
Master Foo frowned thoughtfully, tapped the programmer twice on the nose, and dropped him in a nearby trashcan.
As the programmer was attempting to extricate himself from the garbage, the dog wandered over and piddled on him.
At that moment, the programmer achieved enlightenment.
Courtesy of the Rootless Root
-- Nick "Hallo this is Beel Gates, und I pronounce weendows as
Part of the problem is the "standard" configuration of most workstations. Many people use a mouse that requires you to move one of your hands back and forth between it and the keyboard. One of the first lessons I learned when I got my first laptop was how much more efficient you can be with a touchpad just below the space bar. With this configuration the "mouse" is practically part of the keyboard. I've taken to purchasing desktop keyboards with this same configuration.
-Pascal