Oooh, good one! You got me there! I have no idea what you're talking about, since you didn't include a link
Sorry. There was one modded highly near the top, but must have dropped. But here's one.
Of course not everyone reads the artical in full, but if you're going to make comment about the critical point in the artical, then you should make sure you've got your facts right, and that may mean reading the artical in full. Else the post is kinda redundant.
I think you mean that when the back button is clicked more than once, then a link is clicked, further behavior of the back button is contrary to what some would expect. That's not the same as the feature being broken, or counterintuitive.
Exactly. But it is counterintuitive if users don't understand it right. Besides I never said it was counterintuitive or broken, I said it isn't understood properly, and doesn't work as advertised. This is the point the artical made. And yes, it was longer than it needed to be, or a summary would have been nice, but it is supposed to be a research paper. It would have been nice if the/. editors posted a summary, but hey.
Big words from someone who's not even a programmer, but a graphic designer.
*sigh* I use HTML, CSS, PHP, APS, and have had limited experience with MySQL. I have also set-up Apatche/PHP/MySQL on both Win2000 and OS X. I have sucessfully installed a few Linux distros. I also take a interest and practice in usability and UI etc.
I may know jack shit about pearl or C (even though I'm sure I would have no trouble learning them), but as you can see, I have a knowledge of web design technologies and usability that most programmers wouldn't have let alone the average user. So please don't make sure decisions on my experties based on an old, out of date web-site.
Also, just because you're a programmer, it doesn't mean you are nessesary good at designing applications. The code behide the application, the UI, and what it does are 3 very different things.
Therefore, I may have no coding experince with software applications. But I have a fair idea of how to design a UI for them, and can tell if something is an improvment or not.
I don't think this guy is any more selfish than you are, when you think about it. You make your daughter happy because it makes you happy to do so. I don't mean that as a bad thing. But in the end, humans are more selfish than you think.
However, I do agree with your idea: You may get happiness by doing things for others. And by that I don't just mean charity work. Rasing a family, starting a revolution etc.
The Matrix was a good movie. But I wouldn't try to get too much out of it idea/though-wise.
I think happiness/sadness is simply relative. No pain, no missery, and your happiness won't seem as good.
If it makes you happy or gives you satisfaction in some way, it is probably wrong, or dangerous, or illegal...Or it soon will be.
I don't agree with that, the only thing keeping most people from having a good life is our social/economic system. Of course, to change that, you need to work on curving some of our instincts like power and greed.
If you use the back button in 'column' view - which is what I think we're talking about - it works just like a web browser, ie. you jump all over the place indiscriminately of the heirarchy.
But that just works like the current browers do;) (if not, then like how they explained in the artical).
Does clicking "Back" not take you to the page you were looking at previously?
No, not always. Read the post near the very top for an example.
Thanks for your "RTFA", though. You just don't get that enough on Slashdot.
Well, the funny thing is, if people did RTFA, then not only would you not get RTFA posts. But you would also not have a whole lot of missleading post all over the place to begin with.
Also, anyone who would claim "The traditional back button suffers from the distance and targeting issues that govern Fitts' Law" probably has their egg-shaped head so far up their ass that making something less complicated, and more intuitive would be impossible.
Or the person who is listening to them has their head so far up their ass, that they think they are an expert at everything, and can't beleive that someone could have an good understanding in a field they don't have a clue in.
Hell if you took the back button out most users wouldn't even know it was gone.
This little gem can only come from someone who has never done any usability testing at all.
And when they do use the back button, it's not to go back 10 or 20 times but maybe 1 or 2.
Really? And how do you know this very handy fact? Did you read it somewhere? Did you do your own well planned usability test? Or did you simply pull it out of your ass?
This is totaly different. The panel view in OS X is not histroy based, it's 100% heirachical, which makes sence for browsing files on your computer, but not so much for web-browsing. Besides, the idea is to fix the probelms with the back button, because it doesn't take up much space, and people already know how to use it.
Sound like a good way of mixing elements and confusing users to me. The back and forward buttons are strictly for history. If they see that they can go forward, then they might be under the impression they have just been there, and have go back to the current page.
On of the biggest flaws in GUI design are dual perpous controls, or controls that change etc.
But it isn't univeraly understood, and it doesn't work exactly as advertised. The research and suggestion they made aims to make it more understood, and work exactly as advertised. Did you even read the artical? Or did you just read the headline and have a knee-jerk reation?
Undo? But they didn't do anything. They want to go back to a page. Try thinking from the users point of view. Undo is usaly if you changes.edited some data, nit change you view.
Currently, the back button is a pesudo up button, because it seems as if it goes up most of the time (becaue of they way it deletes data in the history), but it's also possable to go deeper into the site by clicking the back button.
I've always found it clunky sometimes, but never acctualy though about it before.
The subject is only overhyped if you are ignorant of it. Where is you research that everyone affected by the radiation doesn't reproduce? Are you not aware of the fact the contaminates can spread if not contained? Why should we belive anything you say when you don't give a shread of evidence?
Not to mention that the process would be worse than the equivilant of cleaning up the dog's accident on the carpet and carrying it, balance pecuriously on a peice of newspaper, right over you family xmas dinner, on the way to the trash can.
After reading this. I have to dissagree with you implication that TWI was only a small accident. Yes it did only release small amounts of radiation, but it could have been much worse. A very interesting and detailed read anyway if you've wondered exactly how a plant works, and what exactly happened at TMI.
Why do manufacturers think people want to run MS-Windows on a teeny-tiny screen?
Where the hell did that come from? WHat do you mean? I didn't see any windows or a start button, or any other GUI element that you usaly find on a desktop PCs GUI.
Horray I say, now you can have more than 2 words a line, and have it look much smoother. It's not like you sit far away from your cellphone or anything.
Keeping the reply to your post above in mind. Have you hit tab more than once? I've found that if you hit it once, it works as expected, but more than that, and it just cycles through left to right.
Not sure which way is better...on windows, if it's anything more than 3 tabs away, I've probably forgoten when I used it. Maybe they should change it to 3 or something, but then again, that brings up consistancey issues. Gotta love GUI design.
So "CONTROL W" is more logical than "ALTERNATE FUNCTION 4" for "Close"? Windows supports both, you know.
Well, I'll be f'd...It does to:) Now if only MS could tell us why the hell "Ctrl+W" doesn't appear besides the close command in the file menu like every other keyboard shortcut does:/
The mouseOver part is not to open the add, but to follow the link on the add. E.G. The pop-up opens, and as soon as you hover your mouse over the add (probably reaching for the close button), it whisks you away to it's destination (probably hi-jacking the artical you're reading), just as if you had click on the add.
Quite a few people have said this in Jackson's defense but the BBC radio version argues against it; if a good version can be played out on the radio why not a film?
Because radio is nothing like a film? Infact, radio is more like a book than a film. Both books are radio are very narative.
Start writing your own movie script from a good book, and then you will realise why most films based on a book are always different from the book.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but those items aren't exactly for sale. So I don't think they should count.
Sorry. There was one modded highly near the top, but must have dropped. But here's one.
Of course not everyone reads the artical in full, but if you're going to make comment about the critical point in the artical, then you should make sure you've got your facts right, and that may mean reading the artical in full. Else the post is kinda redundant.
I think you mean that when the back button is clicked more than once, then a link is clicked, further behavior of the back button is contrary to what some would expect. That's not the same as the feature being broken, or counterintuitive.
Exactly. But it is counterintuitive if users don't understand it right. Besides I never said it was counterintuitive or broken, I said it isn't understood properly, and doesn't work as advertised. This is the point the artical made. And yes, it was longer than it needed to be, or a summary would have been nice, but it is supposed to be a research paper. It would have been nice if the /. editors posted a summary, but hey.
Big words from someone who's not even a programmer, but a graphic designer.
*sigh* I use HTML, CSS, PHP, APS, and have had limited experience with MySQL. I have also set-up Apatche/PHP/MySQL on both Win2000 and OS X. I have sucessfully installed a few Linux distros. I also take a interest and practice in usability and UI etc.
I may know jack shit about pearl or C (even though I'm sure I would have no trouble learning them), but as you can see, I have a knowledge of web design technologies and usability that most programmers wouldn't have let alone the average user. So please don't make sure decisions on my experties based on an old, out of date web-site.
Also, just because you're a programmer, it doesn't mean you are nessesary good at designing applications. The code behide the application, the UI, and what it does are 3 very different things.
Therefore, I may have no coding experince with software applications. But I have a fair idea of how to design a UI for them, and can tell if something is an improvment or not.
However, I do agree with your idea: You may get happiness by doing things for others. And by that I don't just mean charity work. Rasing a family, starting a revolution etc.
I think happiness/sadness is simply relative. No pain, no missery, and your happiness won't seem as good.
If it makes you happy or gives you satisfaction in some way, it is probably wrong, or dangerous, or illegal...Or it soon will be.
I don't agree with that, the only thing keeping most people from having a good life is our social/economic system. Of course, to change that, you need to work on curving some of our instincts like power and greed.
You'd be suprised at what you find when work with real people, instead of pulling things out your ass ;)
But that just works like the current browers do ;) (if not, then like how they explained in the artical).
No, not always. Read the post near the very top for an example.
Thanks for your "RTFA", though. You just don't get that enough on Slashdot.
Well, the funny thing is, if people did RTFA, then not only would you not get RTFA posts. But you would also not have a whole lot of missleading post all over the place to begin with.
Also, anyone who would claim "The traditional back button suffers from the distance and targeting issues that govern Fitts' Law" probably has their egg-shaped head so far up their ass that making something less complicated, and more intuitive would be impossible.
Or the person who is listening to them has their head so far up their ass, that they think they are an expert at everything, and can't beleive that someone could have an good understanding in a field they don't have a clue in.
This little gem can only come from someone who has never done any usability testing at all.
And when they do use the back button, it's not to go back 10 or 20 times but maybe 1 or 2.
Really? And how do you know this very handy fact? Did you read it somewhere? Did you do your own well planned usability test? Or did you simply pull it out of your ass?
This is totaly different. The panel view in OS X is not histroy based, it's 100% heirachical, which makes sence for browsing files on your computer, but not so much for web-browsing. Besides, the idea is to fix the probelms with the back button, because it doesn't take up much space, and people already know how to use it.
On of the biggest flaws in GUI design are dual perpous controls, or controls that change etc.
It doesn't do what it's supposed to do perfectly well, that was their hole point. Please re-read the artical.
I'm still not sure what you on about in regards to file-system browsers.
You should really be modded to -1, redundant.
Currently, the back button is a pesudo up button, because it seems as if it goes up most of the time (becaue of they way it deletes data in the history), but it's also possable to go deeper into the site by clicking the back button.
I've always found it clunky sometimes, but never acctualy though about it before.
The subject is only overhyped if you are ignorant of it. Where is you research that everyone affected by the radiation doesn't reproduce? Are you not aware of the fact the contaminates can spread if not contained? Why should we belive anything you say when you don't give a shread of evidence?
Not to mention that the process would be worse than the equivilant of cleaning up the dog's accident on the carpet and carrying it, balance pecuriously on a peice of newspaper, right over you family xmas dinner, on the way to the trash can.
After reading this. I have to dissagree with you implication that TWI was only a small accident. Yes it did only release small amounts of radiation, but it could have been much worse. A very interesting and detailed read anyway if you've wondered exactly how a plant works, and what exactly happened at TMI.
Care to explain exactly what you on about for the many of us who don't "map" in Quake 3, and don't know what it means?
Anybody else wanna bet that the sites in question are actually designed for 800 pixels wide, but it's Internet Explorer screwing up the box model?
I think you'll find in a lot of cases, they're optimizing for a browser that is maximised, and has no window borders or scrollbars.
Now you'll be shaking two heads...
Where the hell did that come from? WHat do you mean? I didn't see any windows or a start button, or any other GUI element that you usaly find on a desktop PCs GUI.
Horray I say, now you can have more than 2 words a line, and have it look much smoother. It's not like you sit far away from your cellphone or anything.
Not sure which way is better...on windows, if it's anything more than 3 tabs away, I've probably forgoten when I used it. Maybe they should change it to 3 or something, but then again, that brings up consistancey issues. Gotta love GUI design.
Well, I'll be f'd...It does to :) Now if only MS could tell us why the hell "Ctrl+W" doesn't appear besides the close command in the file menu like every other keyboard shortcut does :/
The mouseOver part is not to open the add, but to follow the link on the add. E.G. The pop-up opens, and as soon as you hover your mouse over the add (probably reaching for the close button), it whisks you away to it's destination (probably hi-jacking the artical you're reading), just as if you had click on the add.
Eggs?
Because radio is nothing like a film? Infact, radio is more like a book than a film. Both books are radio are very narative.
Start writing your own movie script from a good book, and then you will realise why most films based on a book are always different from the book.