shubin@bartok.DEC (when's lunch?) (02/01/85)
> [in a message on NET.COG-ENG Joe Steffen, AT&T Bell Labs, asked:] > When you press a mouse button to pop-up a menu, should the top item be the > default selection, or the last item you selected on the menu? The latter > has the advantage that clicking the menu button repeats the last operation, > but > 1) is error prone because you have to remember the last operation > and if you forget you will select the wrong one, > 2) you have to decide whether to move the mouse up or down to get > to the correct item if you don't want the last item you selected. > Thus you will save time if you repeat a selection and lose the half second > deciding which way to go if you don't repeat. I'm not sure that I agree with either of your suggestions. I'm assuming that by "top item" you mean the first item on the menu. Having the top item be the last item that was selected implies dynamically re-ordering the menu, which will lose more in confusion than it could gain. In fact, the other choice, making the top item be the default selection, might mean re-ordering it as well, because the same menu in different contexts might have different defaults. I'd prefer something like this: o When a mouse button is pressed, the popup menu appears where the cursor was; o the cursor appears on the default selection; o the menu is exited by moving the cursor a defined distance away from the menu. That third bullet is there because it's probably the same amount of movement to move away from the menu as to go to an EXIT choice, and because the EXIT choice might wind up being the "previous selection" (see next paragraph). I would still have the default choice be the previous selection, because that's as likely as any other to be the desired choice this time. But if the menu has an EXIT choice, this doesn't work -- users will infrequently want to EXIT from a menu that's just popped up. -- hal shubin AI Technology Group Digital Equipment Corp. Hudson, MA ...!decwrl!rhea!bartok!shubin decwrl!rhea!bartok!shubin@/su-shasta \berkeley
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) (02/02/85)
In article <420@decwrl.UUCP> shubin@bartok.DEC (when's lunch?) writes: > >Having the top item be the last item that was selected implies dynamically >re-ordering the menu, which will lose more in confusion than it could >gain. In fact, the other choice, making the top item be the default >selection, might mean re-ordering it as well, because the same menu in >different contexts might have different defaults. Dynamic reordering in a pop-up menu seems counter intuitive to me. I've been using my Macintosh for a while now, and the way it uses pop up menu's is flexible and easy to get used to. Each major category is shown at the top of the screen, and clicking on that brings out the pop-up menu. pointing at an item in the pop-up highlights it, and de-clicking (is there a better term?) activates it. Moving off of the pop-up deactivates it again. There are no defaults. A big advantage of this is that it allows browsing. You can bring forward all of your pop-up menu's one at a time and look through them if you wish, with the complete safety and knowledge that nothing will happen unless you explicitly ask for it. Setting up defaults implies that something will happen, and if you are searching for an action it becomes possible to execute the default accidently, which causes users to inhibit their actions. The only good default action is no action. The Mac, BTW, is a good interface. It is fast (enough) for me, and had enough power for me to really sit and play with interfaces. There are some glitches-- having used 2, 3, and 4 button mooses before the Mac, I really find a single button a hindrance-- my personal favorite is a two button moose... chuq -- From the ministry of silly talks: Chuq Von Rospach {allegra,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA Life, the Universe, and lots of other stuff is a trademark of AT&T Bell Labs
jss@sjuvax.UUCP (J. Shapiro) (02/06/85)
[Aren't you hungry...?] When Apple adapted the pop-up menu/mouse combination (and bitmapped display), they made some programming commitments to non-modal software. This idea basically runs "The less the user has to remember about the properties of the state he is in, the better." Remapping the meaning of keys or the position of options on a menu is clearly prone to having people forget the current mapping. How well would you do if someone kept remapping the letters on your keyboard? The claim has been made that an exit option on a pop-up menu typically involves as little cursor motion as moving out of the area. This is true, but: 1. Adding exit increases the size of the pop-up window, thereby overlaying more of the underlying area which provides visual reminder of what the user was doing when he picked the menu. 2. The natural thing for the user to do to deselect a window is to move out of it. If a selection is highlighted, reasonable natural behaviour is disallowed, which defeats the purpose of pop-up windows. One of the nicest things about bitmap displays is that they allow applications to be flexible and easy to use for an expert while at the same time (if carefully used) decreasing the chances that a novice will lose themselves. I often get the impression that too little attention is given to the fact that the application user wants to use the program in the least brain straining fashion, and in most cases if that means an extra centimeter motion of a mouse, big deal. With the advent of the popular bitmap display, we have a chance to explore thoroughly the implications of user interface design. Apple has made a start. There are things I don't like about it, but we have a chance to explore what is good, what we would prefer, and what is *EASY TO USE*. Where ease of use does not conflict with flexibility and does not seriously infringe on user convenience, I believe it should be actively sought. Is having to move the mouse that extra inch really so painful in this light? Comments are welcome. I am thinking of doing a thesis on this topic and would like to hear alternate views. I would like to see the day when the programmer/user interface becomes satisfactory to both. That takes compr0mise, but I think that the bitmapped display with mouse/trackball has potential. As usual, my opinions only. Jon Shapiro Haverford College
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (02/08/85)
> ... I often get the impression that too little attention is given > to the fact that the application user wants to use the program in the least > brain straining fashion, and in most cases if that means an extra > centimeter motion of a mouse, big deal. Designing a user interface that works well for both novice and experienced users isn't easy. The problem with your observation is that any serious user of a given application very quickly graduates out of the "novice" category, for that application. Making things simple for the novice must not imply making things slow for the person who uses the application every day and knows what he's doing. Ease of use for the naive user is important, but it's not the only issue. Producing a user interface that meets this criterion is, uh, non-trivial. (Not impossible, mind you, contrary to persistent folklore; just extremely hard work.) The nice thing about bitmap displays is that the richer methods of interaction -- e.g., pop-up menus -- make this so much easier. But a bitmap display and a mouse are not a substitute for long, hard thought by the user-interface designer. Re-ordering menus definitely loses. Not only does it have potential for confusing the novice, but it'll mess up the experienced user quite badly. Experienced users "touch type" menus: they know where the entry they want is, and they go to it without actually re-reading the menu. For the same reason, menu items that are inapplicable to the current circumstances should be dimmed out rather than deleted entirely. Whether the menu should pop up with the previous selection under the cursor... I don't know. I suspect it's too error-prone, and that the experienced-user's "touch typing" will be fouled up by not having the other menu items in a constant position relative to the initial cursor position. Perhaps what is wanted is a "same again" key-sequence so that the experienced user can bypass the menu entirely. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
wfi@unc.UUCP (William F. Ingogly) (02/09/85)
> themselves. I often get the impression that too little attention is given > to the fact that the application user wants to use the program in the least > brain straining fashion, and in most cases if that means an extra > centimeter motion of a mouse, big deal. This is certainly true of the novice user, but the extra movement can get to be a pain after using the program four hours a day for two years. With regard to the 'repeat last command' idea, I like Random's idea from Research Triangle Institute of using an extra menu slot for the repeat function. But why not have a long, skinny slot that runs the length of the menu, thus minimizing the hand motion needed to repeat the last command: ---------------------------- | Command 1 | R | |-------------------| E | | Command 2 | P | |-------------------| E | | Command 3 | A | |-------------------| T | | etc. | | This would allow you to repeat the last command with the same amount of movement no matter where you were in the menu or how long the menu was. > > With the advent of the popular bitmap display, we have a chance to > explore thoroughly the implications of user interface design. Apple has > made a start. There are things I don't like about it, but we have a chance > to explore what is good, what we would prefer, and what is *EASY TO USE*. > Where ease of use does not conflict with flexibility and does not seriously > infringe on user convenience, I believe it should be actively sought. Is > having to move the mouse that extra inch really so painful in this light? > > Comments are welcome. I am thinking of doing a thesis on this > topic and would like to hear alternate views. I would like to see the day > when the programmer/user interface becomes satisfactory to both. That takes > compr0mise, but I think that the bitmapped display with mouse/trackball > has potential. > > As usual, my opinions only. > > Jon Shapiro > Haverford College >
herbie@watdcsu.UUCP (Herb Chong [DCS]) (02/18/85)
while we're on the topic, what do people think of icon based systems?
i have only used one so my experiences are limited (PC Paintbrush) and
i have talked to people who have used others. one complaint i hear is
that often an action is complex enough that the things have to be
arranged in a hierachy of selections. after getting to be an expert
user, several people have said that they'd have prefered a command line
of some sort to do something instead of having to go through all the
icons and menus to do whatever they wanted to do. does anyone have
more experience with different systems and/or references (technical or
nontechnical) dealing with this? perhaps from xerox?
Herb Chong...
I'm user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble....
UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!water!watdcsu!herbie
CSNET: herbie%watdcsu@waterloo.csnet
ARPA: herbie%watdcsu%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
NETNORTH, BITNET, EARN: herbie@watdcs, herbie@watdcsusmith@wlcrjs.UUCP (Mark L. Smith) (02/22/85)
Apple's Mac Icons are OK, but the system assumption of certain file types for particular programs (MacPaint uses MacPaint files) causes problems with the user that wants to enter information in a word processing program, use Visicalc on it and then make spreadsheets and graphs. Bad system organization can defeat the best user symbols.