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.
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.
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
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...
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.
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