Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 10:33:54 -0400 From: Erik Rothwell <erothwell@callgtn.com> To: David Leimbach <dleimbac@earthlink.net>, questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Intuitive interface - was RE: vi Message-ID: <3B24D6D2.6C72125@callgtn.com> References: <20010609142241.A424@mutt.home.net> <000c01c0f241$0a458c60$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> <20010611063721.A542@mutt.home.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
David Leimbach wrote:
> > Think about how "intuitive" the arraingement of letters on a typewriter
> > keyboard is - it's the God of Standardization here that is being
> > worshipped - not an intuitive
> > interface.
> >
> Yeah and technically bandwidth [another misused term] is really not the amount
> of data you can exchange between one point and another. Its just a range of
> frequencies which may or may not help you get data across.
>
> I may have huge bandwidth but it its noisy forget about data.... :)
>
> Intuitive interface most likely falls in to this category of misused terms.
>
> You feel they should say "common" or "easy" interface. There are lots of
> crusades I could take up for the sake of terminology but I really don't care
> enough to run around trying to correct everyone. Eventually if enough people
> accept what everyone is saying a certain term means... it becomes a meaning
> for the word.
>
> Words are just symbols used to express a meaning and these meaning change over
> time... To argue traditional meaning against popular meaning seems futile and
> the subject becomes noise that makes people promptly ignore it altogether.
>
> This happens when the argument becomes stale a repetitive. I totally agree
> with you that intuitive is the *wrong* word to use for any tool a human might
> learn to use... But that is what makes us primates so special is our ability
> to use tools. [Ever seen an ape *fish* for ants in a dead tree?]. I bet
> that ape had to learn how to use the stick too.
I don't really thinking "intuitive" is a bad word to be using in some
circumstances to describe UI operation. How "intuitive" a program is
depends less on how "common" or "easy" it's interface is and more on how
easily, quickly, efficiently, "realistically" etc. that one can figure
out how to do something with the program.
By "realistically" I mean that programs should work in as close a manner
as possible to everyday, real world axioms -- i.e. we should find
things, files, menus, commands, etc. where we'd inherently expect to
find them: if I put my pen down on the table, and walk away, chances are
good that when I come back to the table my pen will still be there, in
the same place -- rogue pen theives aside ;).
Therefore, for instance, directory structure is intuitive. It's a good
way classifying things, first, so it's more intuitive than.. say.. a
single directory into which all files go. Perhaps intuitive for a
disorganized person :) -- but then computers should operate as humans
see fit, and much like a messy desk, we see monstrous home directories
filled with absolutely every sort of file imaginable without any attempt
at organization. ("My Documents" folders as well :))
Nevertheless, when you put something into a directory, leave the
directory, and come back -- the file is still there. (Evil h4x0rs or
user error, aside ;)). One step further -- the MacOS 9 Finder is a0
particularly good example of "spatial computing": when I open a folder,
put a file in it, close the folder, and return -- my document is not
only there, but in the same screen position in which I left it.
Things of this nature are "intuitive."
The intuitiveness of a program, I think, as well, is just a measure of
how quickly and easily one can figure out a program simply by *using*
it. If the menu options or commands required by a program make some
logical sense -- determined by past experience, perhaps, or perhaps
simply the over-all self-consistance of the program's UI -- and fall
into the place you'd expect it -- the place you'd intuit it to be.
A directory listing command "ls" and "dir" are both intuitive. More so,
perhaps, is "list files" or selecting a folder, choosing File -> Open
(ignoring the double-click, for now.) from a set of menus. Listing a
directory by typing "xaksaja" is less intuitive than any of these
options, significantly.
The other end of the spectrum would be something like... putting the
command to save your work 25 levels down in a menu structure that starts
with "Graphics Options" -- this is counterintuitive and plain bad UI
design.
So, I don't think the word intuitive as applied to user interfaces is
strictly a misnomer for "easy" or "common" interfaces. You quickly
understand what "intuitive" is when you see some truly unintuitive or
counterintuitve user interfaces :)
Erik.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3B24D6D2.6C72125>