New text links - usability problems

Hi,

Maybe you have noticed the new, blue-highlighted text-"links" on
different places in Aurora. This might look cool and up-to-date but is
completely counterproductive in the meaning of usability (see the
DONT-DO-THIS-attachments). Did you tried to invoke the text-"link" with
keyboard-only? It does not work.
It is so easy to replace the link with an ordinary (text-)button. Then
everything would be usable from keyboard, too.

Jetbrains, please do not ignore the severity of this issue. The user
interface is not the right place to try new, "innovative" features.
Users expect GUIs, that contain accessible and known controls.

IDEA had a strenght in usability in the past, don't gamble away this
advantage!

Tom



Attachment(s):
example-screenshot.png
another-example-screenshot.png
34 comments
Comment actions Permalink

I love the fact that "see error details" is a hyperlink. This is space
saver and very commonly used pattern (just take a look at Windows XP.
Hyperlinks are everywhere!). What kind of usability are you talking
about in these two cases? How often are you looking into the error
details? Do you really often want to navigate to error details from
keyboard (if so then it's possible to have a mnemonic on the hyperlink)?

Concerning innovations: IMHO user interface is the right place for
innovations. If we are using ancient patterns then we still using ugly
Motif, would not know about HTML, inductive interface and many other
goodies.

With best regards,
Vladimir Kondratyev
_____________________
JetBrains

Thomas Singer wrote:

Hi,

Maybe you have noticed the new, blue-highlighted text-"links" on
different places in Aurora. This might look cool and up-to-date but is
completely counterproductive in the meaning of usability (see the
DONT-DO-THIS-attachments). Did you tried to invoke the text-"link" with
keyboard-only? It does not work.
It is so easy to replace the link with an ordinary (text-)button. Then
everything would be usable from keyboard, too.

Jetbrains, please do not ignore the severity of this issue. The user
interface is not the right place to try new, "innovative" features.
Users expect GUIs, that contain accessible and known controls.

IDEA had a strenght in usability in the past, don't gamble away this
advantage!

Tom

------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
Comment actions Permalink

Hi Vladimir,

> I love the fact that "see error details" is a hyperlink. This is space
> saver and very commonly used pattern (just take a look at Windows XP.

If Microsoft uses it, it does not imply that it is good. Search for GUI
bloopers from Microsoft applications and you will find a lot of examples.

> What kind of usability are you talking
> about in these two cases? How often are you looking into the error
> details? Do you really often want to navigate to error details from
> keyboard (if so then it's possible to have a mnemonic on the hyperlink)?

IIRC, IDEA is an desktop application, no web-site. Links, IMHO only have
a value in web-pages, not in an application, because they are only
reachable with mouse and behave differently than in a web-page.

> Concerning innovations: IMHO user interface is the right place for
> innovations.

I agree, if the usability is not vitiated.

> If we are using ancient patterns then we still using ugly Motif,
> would not know about HTML, inductive interface and many other
> goodies.

Why do you think, that a "usable" application needs to look bad? Did you
take a look in a GUI design book like the one from Jeff Johnson. Does
his alternatives look bad? No, they look smart and intuitive.

What's the purpose of a GUI? Not to look cool to the disadvantage of
usability, but to take the user by the hand and guide him through the
jungle of features in the application. To make decisions as
non-ambiguous as possible.

Tom

0
Comment actions Permalink

I agree with Thomas.

Also:

-> Hyperlinks are not that much visible, jus't a blob of color in the middle
of the text.

-> Hyperlinks have real low affordance -> it's much harder clicking on them
than clicking on a button.

Can you really say that the blue link is more readable/usable than a group
of "Yes, No, Details" buttons?

Caelos


0
Comment actions Permalink

Thomas

> What kind of usability are you talking
> about in these two cases? How often are you looking into the error
> details? Do you really often want to navigate to error details from
> keyboard (if so then it's possible to have a mnemonic on the hyperlink)?

IIRC, IDEA is an desktop application, no web-site. Links, IMHO only have
a value in web-pages, not in an application, because they are only
reachable with mouse and behave differently than in a web-page.


Unfortunately you didn't answer on my simple questions...


> Concerning innovations: IMHO user interface is the right place for
> innovations.

I agree, if the usability is not vitiated.


see my question above

> If we are using ancient patterns then we still using ugly Motif,
> would not know about HTML, inductive interface and many other
> goodies.

Why do you think, that a "usable" application needs to look bad?


Sorry, but I didn't understand.

Did you

take a look in a GUI design book like the one from Jeff Johnson.


Yes, I do look in many design books.

>Does
> his alternatives look bad? No, they look smart and intuitive.

Not only Jeff's alternatives look smart.


What's the purpose of a GUI? Not to look cool to the disadvantage of
usability, but to take the user by the hand and guide him through the
jungle of features in the application. To make decisions as
non-ambiguous as possible.


Please see my first question. I'm not arguing about design principal
here, but I'm only talking about these two concrete cases and I didn't
listened any concrete argument from you (only abstracts).

Regards,
Vladimir Kondratyev
_____________________
JetBrains

0
Comment actions Permalink

Carlos Costa e Silva wrote:

I agree with Thomas.

Also:

-> Hyperlinks are not that much visible, jus't a blob of color in the middle
of the text.


Do you really think that underlined shine blue string is not visible
withing black color?


-> Hyperlinks have real low affordance -> it's much harder clicking on them
than clicking on a button.


I suppose that any person who send an hour in web browser can easily
click on hyperlinks.


Can you really say that the blue link is more readable/usable than a group
of "Yes, No, Details" buttons?

Caelos


Yes, I do really say it. It's absolutely not important for ordinary user
to see "Details" button. Most people so not want to see 3 button when
the 99% of usecases require only two ones.

Regards,
Vladimir Kondratyev
_____________________
JetBrains

0
Comment actions Permalink

I actually like the hyperlink concept. It sort of captures the idea of functions orthogonal to the purpose of the current gui context. For example, an info dialog, like the cvsroots example in the first post, its only purpose in life is to inform. Adding a bunch of buttons bloats and blurs the responsibility of the dialog. But the hyperlink captures the idea of "here's a different gui path you can go down" or "here's a link to a new gui context, which exposes a different area of functionality".

In a standard gui app, most functionality is organized hierarchically, via the menu system. Hyperlinks provide a good way to navigate between the leaves of that hierarchy.

Keyboard navigability could be via type-find, like mozilla.

Links might be harder to click than buttons, but then I think links should only be used to add additional navigation options to existing gui contexts. Hyperlinks probably shouldn't replace buttons, they should only be added to dialogs which already fulfill their responsibilities. So, I don't care if they're harder to click on. If you can't click on them, don't use them. Plus, the difficulty of clicking on them certainly hasn't hindered the popularity of the web browser.

0
Comment actions Permalink

If Microsoft uses it, it does not imply that it is good.


Microsoft made a lot to bring perfect UI to us. Saying "Microsoft sucks"
without argumentation looks like useless flame wars in popular Unix
threads. Although voices should be weighted, not counted.

> Search for GUI bloopers from Microsoft applications and you will find
a lot of examples.

Please post here a couple of such bloopers.

Regards,
Vladimir
__________
JetBrains

0
Comment actions Permalink

Vladimir Kondratyev (JetBrains) wrote:

Thomas

>>> What kind of usability are you talking
>>> about in these two cases? How often are you looking into the error
>>> details? Do you really often want to navigate to error details from
>>> keyboard (if so then it's possible to have a mnemonic on the hyperlink)?
>>
>> ...


Unfortunately you didn't answer on my simple questions...


OK, here they are: In the error dialog it is an optional, not required
feature. Here the link is acceptable. But in the CVS dialog it's the
feature, that is hidden behind the link. There must be a button.

My main concern with the links is, that they will be used for real
features like in the CVS dialog, not just for optional, unimportant
features, because some developers (no pun intented!) aren't aware of the
small differences, but just find the link cool.

>> > If we are using ancient patterns then we still using ugly Motif,
>> > would not know about HTML, inductive interface and many other
>> > goodies.
>>
>> Why do you think, that a "usable" application needs to look bad?


Sorry, but I didn't understand.


Well, I did not said, that you should use "ancient patterns". But for me
it looks like you say between the lines, that buttons are ancient and
links much more modern. Again, it's not the battle between ancient and
modern patterns, it's between easy-to-use and proven patterns versus
cool and hip patterns.

--
Friendly :)
Tom

0
Comment actions Permalink

Microsoft made a lot to bring perfect UI to us. Saying "Microsoft sucks"



I didn't hear anyone say Microsoft sucks.

without argumentation

>
<

> Search for GUI bloopers from Microsoft applications and you will find
a lot of examples.


Without argumentation?


0
Comment actions Permalink

I like the links, because they cover less space. For functionality I do not use frequently, operation with keyboard is not a must for me. To my opinion the usability of IDEA is one of the best in IDE's I have seen. Yesterday, I looked at the recent Eclipse build and spent quite a long time to figure out how to configure another JDK. Even after looking for two hours, I was not successfull to adjust the library / classpath configuration so that my toolbar icons would appear.

All this is easier and intuitive with IDEA, and I like the fact that during EAP builds new usability is tested and perhaps criticized.

Thomas Gülden
Munich, Germany

0
Comment actions Permalink

Carlos Costa e Silva wrote:
>>Microsoft made a lot to bring perfect UI to us. Saying "Microsoft sucks"



"If Microsoft uses it, it does not imply that it is good"


I didn't hear anyone say Microsoft sucks.

>>[...] without argumentation
>>


<

>> > Search for GUI bloopers from Microsoft applications and you will find
>>a lot of examples.


Without argumentation?


It's not an argument. The real link is a argument. I do not accept
phrases like "go to google and find something"

Regards,
Vladimir
___________
JetBrains

0
Comment actions Permalink

Vladimir Kondratyev (JetBrains) wrote:
>> If Microsoft uses it, it does not imply that it is good.


Microsoft made a lot to bring perfect UI to us. Saying "Microsoft sucks"
without argumentation looks like useless flame wars in popular Unix
threads. Although voices should be weighted, not counted.


I did never say, that user interfaces of Microsoft products suck. Quite
the opposite. Microsoft did a very good job in making applications (and
operating systems) usable, but who creates such a mass of software also
makes errors. I agree, that most Linux applications are much less usable
than average Windows programs, but we should stop here to prevent OS
flame wars.

>> Search for GUI bloopers from Microsoft applications and you will find

a lot of examples.


Some month ago I found a website showing a lot of examples (some from
Microsoft applications), but I cannot find it any more. Just some
examples from my memory:

a) The File Open dialog has a cancel button, although creating
directories, deleting files is not cancelled...

b) If you have a tab control with a lot of tabs (an older Word version
is said to have a lot of them -- don't use Word myself), they were
aligned in different rows; clicking in one row (!= current row) swapped
the rows. This confuses a lot of users.

c) IIRC, you cannot use the arrow keys in an excel cell to change a
single character (as possible in ordinary text fields) as long as you
have not double clicked the cell.

d) The dial-up configuration dialog (where you need to enter your area
code) on Windows NT/2000(?) does not let you close/cancel the dialog,
you need to fill it out correctly.

e) By default (starting with Windows 2000) less often menu items in the
start-menu will be hidden automatically (same should be valid for some
Office products - just heard about it).

So brainless copying of such anti-features (I saw a lot of Windows
programs with dozens of tab-pages for example) results in less-usable
applications. But typically software developers do not have the right
"smell" for usability (Jeff Johnson and other may help to learn smell,
but a good GUI designer is never wrong).
To prevent personal attacks: I'm not a GUI expert, but I believe, I have
a relatively good nose for some "smells" :)

Tom

0
Comment actions Permalink

Thomas Singer wrote:

Vladimir Kondratyev (JetBrains) wrote:

>> Thomas
>>
>>>> What kind of usability are you talking
>>>> about in these two cases? How often are you looking into the error
>>>> details? Do you really often want to navigate to error details from
>>>> keyboard (if so then it's possible to have a mnemonic on the
>>>> hyperlink)?
>>>
>>>
>>> ...
>>
>>
>> Unfortunately you didn't answer on my simple questions...


OK, here they are: In the error dialog it is an optional, not required
feature. Here the link is acceptable. But in the CVS dialog it's the
feature, that is hidden behind the link. There must be a button.


Agree about CVS.


My main concern with the links is, that they will be used for real
features like in the CVS dialog, not just for optional, unimportant
features, because some developers (no pun intented!) aren't aware of the
small differences, but just find the link cool.

>>> > If we are using ancient patterns then we still using ugly Motif,
>>> > would not know about HTML, inductive interface and many other
>>> > goodies.
>>>
>>> Why do you think, that a "usable" application needs to look bad?
>>
>>
>> Sorry, but I didn't understand.


Well, I did not said, that you should use "ancient patterns". But for me
it looks like you say between the lines, that buttons are ancient and
links much more modern.


NO! I didn't say that buttons are bad! :)

With best wishes,
Vladimir Kondratyev
_____________________
JetBrains

0
Comment actions Permalink

> "If Microsoft uses it, it does not imply that it is good"

Where in this sentence is the meaning sucks?

If this means sucks, then you are saying Idea sucks, as not everything in
Idea is always good and right.

Or are you also saying Idea is always good and right ;)

It's not an argument. The real link is a argument. I do not accept
phrases like "go to google and find something"


Ok. But writing "Post a link please" would be much more useful and less
flame seeming.

Carlos


0
Comment actions Permalink

Some month ago I found a website showing a lot of examples (some from
Microsoft applications), but I cannot find it any more. Just some
examples from my memory:


Do you mean this site:

The Interface Hall of Shame
http://digilander.libero.it/chiediloapippo/Engineering/iarchitect/shame.htm

The original site (iarchitect.com) doesn't seem to exist anymore, and
there's no new entries since 2000.

Very good site btw.

b) If you have a tab control with a lot of tabs (an older Word version
is said to have a lot of them -- don't use Word myself), they were
aligned in different rows; clicking in one row (!= current row) swapped
the rows. This confuses a lot of users.


http://digilander.libero.it/chiediloapippo/Engineering/iarchitect/tabs.htm



Look at the Microsoft entries in:
http://digilander.libero.it/chiediloapippo/Engineering/iarchitect/idxprod.htm




0
Comment actions Permalink

Just an aside, but I completely disagree with calling this a GUI blooper:

Thomas Singer wrote:

e) By default (starting with Windows 2000) less often menu items in the
start-menu will be hidden automatically (same should be valid for some
Office products - just heard about it).


That's a feature I find incredibly convenient in my everyday use of windows.
It's also very simple to switch off, for those that don't like it. So I
think, if anything it's the opposite of a blooper.

Vil.
--
Vilya Harvey
vilya.harvey@digitalsteps.com / digital steps /
(W) +44 (0)1483 469 480
(M) +44 (0)7816 678 457 http://www.digitalsteps.com/

Disclaimer

This e-mail and any attachments may be confidential and/or legally
privileged. If you have received this email and you are not a named
addressee, please inform the sender at Digital Steps Ltd by phone on
+44 (0)1483 469 480 or by reply email and then delete the email from
your system. If you are not a named addressee you must not use,
disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this email. Although
Digital Steps Ltd routinely screens for viruses, addressees should
check this email and any attachments for viruses. Digital Steps Ltd
makes no representation or warranty as to the absence of viruses in this
email or any attachments.

0
Comment actions Permalink

Vilya Harvey wrote:

Just an aside, but I completely disagree with calling this a GUI blooper:

Thomas Singer wrote:

>> e) By default (starting with Windows 2000) less often menu items in
>> the start-menu will be hidden automatically (same should be valid for
>> some Office products - just heard about it).


That's a feature I find incredibly convenient in my everyday use of
windows. It's also very simple to switch off, for those that don't like
it. So I think, if anything it's the opposite of a blooper.

This is a polarizing feature. I do consider this a blooper, mainly as I
don't use Office products all the time and so navigating the menu is a
new thing for me all the time. About the argument for turning it off -
because it's the default, every new machine I open a word document in, I
have to either retrain myself, or work extra hard just to make my menu
item appear, or go into options to turn it off. You must be the type who
uses some particular options in some particular applications all the time.

Sumit.


0
Comment actions Permalink

Do you mean this site:

The Interface Hall of Shame
http://digilander.libero.it/chiediloapippo/Engineering/iarchitect/shame.htm

The original site (iarchitect.com) doesn't seem to exist anymore, and
there's no new entries since 2000.


Yes, this is the site. Thanks.

Tom

0
Comment actions Permalink

Vilya,

A lot of users (me too) remember only a vague location, where a menu
item exist. They scan the menus to find it. If the menu item is hidden,
they cannot find it. This definitive is a GUI blooper. A better (but not
much better) way is to be able to configure the actions, that are shown
in the menu.

Tom

0
Comment actions Permalink

HCI (Human Computer Interaction) defines STABILITY as a essential concept that supports the cognitive process involved when using a GUI.

Menus that fold automatically according to how frequently they are used is one of these so-called "modern" GUI features that contradict a very basic and required principle of HCI called STABILITY.

The aim of folding menus is to present less information so that the user finds his way more easily. It adapts to the user's behaviour pattern (frequent use of such menu entry).

The idea of helping the user to find information is right, and should be implemented, but not if it defies the basic rules of HCI => there should be less entries in the menus in the first place.

Menu bar design is only a very small part of GUI design. The rules are quite simple: use mnemonics (or any alternative navigation patterns), group actions with common semantic, keep it simple (do not clutter), stick to the most widely adopted layout (be aware of the user's learning process => 'File' - 'Edit' - ... is a menu order that most people are used to, don't break that), and ensure stability !

I hate these collapsable menus.
My experience in teaching people how to use computer software tells me it's wrong, because it confuses users.

A lot of them don't even realize that there is an arrow to expand the menu They just search for the information by looking at the menu entries as they are by default, when the menu opens with a restricted amount of data. After a few seconds pausing, the menu suddenly expands and that confuses the user even more ! The menu content is changed as other menu entries have been inserted in between...it takes more time to re-structure the information based on the visual mess that these menus create.

Microsoft adopted a way of marking the menus that were hidden before the menu expanded: by using button-pressed effect !! What a stupid idea !! It contradicts major rules of GUI design (or 'HCI' for the posher like me ;) Now the menu entries look like the well-known metaphor of the state button ! Does it mean something is selected ? What is it trying to show me ???

Yuukk I really dislike the concept of 'adaptable menus', and although I've not heard of any plan to introduce this in IDEA, please don't even think about it ! ;)

As for hyperlinks in dialogs, instead of usual button (like the error dialog allowing the user to display more info, such as 'Show full exception trace'), I think they can be a good way of uncluttering the GUI, but they should conform to the "mnemonic" paradigm, for alternatives to mouse click. Mozilla does that well (Tab key to navigate, keyboard typing to search for links...)

But as someone pointed out: it's wrong to use 'HTML-like' links when the related action is not 'optional'. The 'OK_CANCEL' / 'YES_NO_CANCEL' / 'YES_NO' buttons are robust enough when the message in the dialog is explicit and make it clear about what type of action is expected from the user. They fulfill most of the use-cases for user interaction based on dialogs: I think it is just about finding the best way of exposing the issue to the user, and letting him know what's expected from him.

Just my 2 cents in a rather long post.
;)
Dan/

0
Comment actions Permalink

Isn't the simple solution to make them a part of the tab ordering in order to make them keyboard selectable? Whilst I've not come across the error dialog in 922 myself (nice one!), I assume it isn't or we wouldn't be discussing this? As for usability - I take it that 99.99% of people developing using an IDE know what a hyperlink is and how to use it, and I'm sure that a similar percentage of those used to navigating using pure keystrokes are also used to tabbing through links in a hypertext document?

Whilst I'm personally not terribly bothered about keyboard operability for all aspects of an aplication, it's perfectly understandable that the IDE should be usable as far as possible entirity from the keyboard as there are users who will base their decision on usability upon just that sort of thing.

On that note, I've noticed more fundamental areas than arguing over error dialogs where this is an issue - such as tab ordering and the selectability of all elements on (imparticular) the modules page of project properties, as well as the lack of ability in navigating up and down the various pages within Project Properties.

To discuss a small 'feature' is all well and good, but for such a small aspect to produce a thread that seems to disolve into a microsoft windows gui debate(!) really isn't in the spirit of the EAP.

Be constructive, and give the guys a break! I'd rather have them spending time on development, or even reading relevant bug posts than reading through yet another 'Why Microsoft got the GUI wrong' post.

0
Comment actions Permalink

I thought usability type people hated OK/Cancel/Yes/No buttons. Apple does. I do. Why don't you? :)

0
Comment actions Permalink

I like the links too.

0
Comment actions Permalink

Andrew Walters wrote:

Isn't the simple solution to make them a part of the tab ordering in order to make them keyboard selectable? Whilst I've not come across the error dialog in 922 myself (nice one!), I assume it isn't or we wouldn't be discussing this? As for usability - I take it that 99.99% of people developing using an IDE know what a hyperlink is and how to use it, and I'm sure that a similar percentage of those used to navigating using pure keystrokes are also used to tabbing through links in a hypertext document?

Whilst I'm personally not terribly bothered about keyboard operability for all aspects of an aplication, it's perfectly understandable that the IDE should be usable as far as possible entirity from the keyboard as there are users who will base their decision on usability upon just that sort of thing.

On that note, I've noticed more fundamental areas than arguing over error dialogs where this is an issue - such as tab ordering and the selectability of all elements on (imparticular) the modules page of project properties, as well as the lack of ability in navigating up and down the various pages within Project Properties.

To discuss a small 'feature' is all well and good, but for such a small aspect to produce a thread that seems to disolve into a microsoft windows gui debate(!) really isn't in the spirit of the EAP.

Be constructive, and give the guys a break! I'd rather have them spending time on development, or even reading relevant bug posts than reading through yet another 'Why Microsoft got the GUI wrong' post.


exactly.

sk.

0
Comment actions Permalink

This is so true.

For some bizarre reason, Microsoft believes that by moving items about on the start menu, they're helping me ....

0
Comment actions Permalink

Yep. That's certainly is a bad idea.

I have no problem with hyperlink buttons (I imagine that it'll make it much easier to write cross-platform UIs eventuallY)

But when you mix and match them with regular controls, then the result are quite bad.

Have you seen the Norton AntiVirus? Hyperlinks are used to good effect there. One of the things they've done is have a clear separation between button areas and hyperlink areas.


0
Comment actions Permalink

I find that it does help me. Horses for courses, I suppose.

Vil.

Rayz wrote:

This is so true.

For some bizarre reason, Microsoft believes that by moving items about on the start menu, they're helping me ....


--
Vilya Harvey
vilya.harvey@digitalsteps.com / digital steps /
(W) +44 (0)1483 469 480
(M) +44 (0)7816 678 457 http://www.digitalsteps.com/

Disclaimer

This e-mail and any attachments may be confidential and/or legally
privileged. If you have received this email and you are not a named
addressee, please inform the sender at Digital Steps Ltd by phone on
+44 (0)1483 469 480 or by reply email and then delete the email from
your system. If you are not a named addressee you must not use,
disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this email. Although
Digital Steps Ltd routinely screens for viruses, addressees should
check this email and any attachments for viruses. Digital Steps Ltd
makes no representation or warranty as to the absence of viruses in this
email or any attachments.

0
Comment actions Permalink

I should point out that I was only talking about the start menu. I don't use
Word very often (the company standard where I work is StarOffice), but I
have found the collapsible menus in it confusing. There again, I've found
it's full menus confusing too...

You're right about the way people find menu items. I think the start menu is
an exception to the rule because it has a number of characteristics which
differ from application menus.

I disagree that being able to configure which items are shown is a better
alternative. I've found time and again that people just won't bother to
configure it. That's what I like about the way the start menu works: it does
the configuration for you.

My guess, although I don't have anything to back this up with, is that an
ideal system would be one that initially presents you with a full set of
menus while gathering usage data in the background. After some cutoff point
it would offer to switch on the hiding of less frequently used menu items,
but continue to gather usage data. After some other cutoff point it would
offer to adjust the hidden items based on the newer information. And so on.
Between the cutoff points the menus would remain static. It would be easy to
switch between partial and full menus at all times, or to configure the
set of items to be shown/hidden. I -think- that would be a good system; it
would be interesting to research it further to find out.

Vil.

Thomas Singer wrote:

Vilya,

A lot of users (me too) remember only a vague location, where a menu
item exist. They scan the menus to find it. If the menu item is hidden,
they cannot find it. This definitive is a GUI blooper. A better (but not
much better) way is to be able to configure the actions, that are shown
in the menu.

Tom


--
Vilya Harvey
vilya.harvey@digitalsteps.com / digital steps /
(W) +44 (0)1483 469 480
(M) +44 (0)7816 678 457 http://www.digitalsteps.com/

Disclaimer

This e-mail and any attachments may be confidential and/or legally
privileged. If you have received this email and you are not a named
addressee, please inform the sender at Digital Steps Ltd by phone on
+44 (0)1483 469 480 or by reply email and then delete the email from
your system. If you are not a named addressee you must not use,
disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this email. Although
Digital Steps Ltd routinely screens for viruses, addressees should
check this email and any attachments for viruses. Digital Steps Ltd
makes no representation or warranty as to the absence of viruses in this
email or any attachments.

0
Comment actions Permalink

a) The File Open dialog has a cancel button, although creating
directories, deleting files is not cancelled...


I do not agree that it's a blooper. Personally as a user I would be VERY
surprised if it canceled filesystem operations.

--
Valentin Kipiatkov
JetBrains, Inc
http://www.intellij.com
"Develop with pleasure!"


"Thomas Singer" <idea@NOregnisSpam.de> wrote in message
news:bjq1c4$7ij$1@is.intellij.net...

Vladimir Kondratyev (JetBrains) wrote:
>> If Microsoft uses it, it does not imply that it is good.
>

Microsoft made a lot to bring perfect UI to us. Saying "Microsoft sucks"
without argumentation looks like useless flame wars in popular Unix
threads. Although voices should be weighted, not counted.

>

I did never say, that user interfaces of Microsoft products suck. Quite
the opposite. Microsoft did a very good job in making applications (and
operating systems) usable, but who creates such a mass of software also
makes errors. I agree, that most Linux applications are much less usable
than average Windows programs, but we should stop here to prevent OS
flame wars.

>

>> Search for GUI bloopers from Microsoft applications and you will find

a lot of examples.

>

Some month ago I found a website showing a lot of examples (some from
Microsoft applications), but I cannot find it any more. Just some
examples from my memory:

>

a) The File Open dialog has a cancel button, although creating
directories, deleting files is not cancelled...

>

b) If you have a tab control with a lot of tabs (an older Word version
is said to have a lot of them -- don't use Word myself), they were
aligned in different rows; clicking in one row (!= current row) swapped
the rows. This confuses a lot of users.

>

c) IIRC, you cannot use the arrow keys in an excel cell to change a
single character (as possible in ordinary text fields) as long as you
have not double clicked the cell.

>

d) The dial-up configuration dialog (where you need to enter your area
code) on Windows NT/2000(?) does not let you close/cancel the dialog,
you need to fill it out correctly.

>

e) By default (starting with Windows 2000) less often menu items in the
start-menu will be hidden automatically (same should be valid for some
Office products - just heard about it).

>

So brainless copying of such anti-features (I saw a lot of Windows
programs with dozens of tab-pages for example) results in less-usable
applications. But typically software developers do not have the right
"smell" for usability (Jeff Johnson and other may help to learn smell,
but a good GUI designer is never wrong).
To prevent personal attacks: I'm not a GUI expert, but I believe, I have
a relatively good nose for some "smells" :)

>

Tom

>


0

Please sign in to leave a comment.