gus@Shasta.STANFORD.EDU (Gus Fernandez) (01/03/88)
Hello, I am working on a new Mac application aimed at high end power users. We are currently examining the feature set of our product, and in particular, the needs of our user base. These are some fairly old issues, but I feel that they need to be revisited every once in a while to get a sense for what the user community really wants. I am particularly interested in reading responses to the issues below from power users who use the Macintosh every day to get their job done. I am interested on how you personally work as opposed to vague "religion" about how you think the way things ought to be. If you think, however, that certain specific features are missing from a particular product relating to issues described below, mention them. (example: I wish application xxx had a yyy command in the menu instead of having to drag zzz to www, or I wish you could just drag ZZZ to www instead of chosing yyy from the kkk menu.) Please also indicate what other computers you use or have used. Examples need not be limited to Mac applications. 1) Mouse vs keyboard: Obviously, there are some things better done with the keyboard (typing) and others with the mouse (drawing). Almost everything else in between can be done both ways effectively. Is it important to people that EVERYTHING else be doable from both the keyboard and the mouse? I am especially interested in getting the responses from Microsoft Word 3.0 users about whether or not they use such features as keyboard menus and keyboard dialogs. Do you use all of the keyboard shortcuts, or do you often use the mouse to do an operation where the keyboard would have worked. Conversely, do you ever use the keyboard for operations where the mouse would have perhaps worked better. Please site specific exampless. 2) Centralized vs. decentralized operations: Some applications provide large dialogs which can be used to modify many attributes of a particular object. Generally, these attributes are chosen using check boxes, radio buttons, editable text fields, and, most recently, pop-up menus. Finally, the OK button applies all of the changes at once. An alternative approach is a "direct manipulation" paragign whereby attributes are changed individually. For example, changing a margin is effected by moving an arrow in a ruler instead of typing a number in a dialog. If a feature is accessable in two different ways, which do you use more often? Do you often use both? Again, please site as many specific examples as you can. 3) Features and shortcuts: Is it important that any and all program features have some type of screen indication that they exists, such as command key equivalents in menus, or is it better to not clutter the screen and expect the user to either refer to the manual or an on-line help facility? What devices have you seen that are used effectively (an not effectively) in certain applications? 4) Format lines and languages: Some programs use short text lines in certain places where the individual characters mean something special. This is most prevelant in search strings(regular expressions), paragraph numbering, numeric output formatting, etc. Note that these are not command lines, since it is generally individual characters that have significance, and not keyowrds. Other programs provide similar features using iconic interfaces where perhaps the mouse is used to drag special icons into a format line, and text is used strictly to denote itself. Do you use the full power of such format lines or do you often do things manually that you know you could probably do automatically "if you knew just how to set it up?" What would help you in this regard. Describe interfaces which you think have been most (and least) successfull. 5) Small screen: It has long been complained that the Mac screen is too small. This problem has finally been solved by third party vendors and by Apple, on the Mac II. However, many Mac Pluses and Mac SE's are still being sold with the original 512x342 screen. Some high-end users are complaining that programs were optimized for the small screen and look "crowded" on a larger screen. Although there are some things that developers can do easily, like centering dialogs, and not limiting growable window sizes to any arbitrary maximum size, other things are much harder to do, such as making dialogs automatically larger in proportion to the size of the screen. Keeping in mind that what we are developing is a high-end product, how important is it that it work nicely on small screens? Your responses to these questions will be greatly appreciated. You may post a follow-up here to get a discussion going, but preferably also reply directly via email so that I don't miss messages that get rolled off. Gustavo A. Fernandez
smethers@psu-cs.UUCP (Paul Smethers) (01/04/88)
I think the number one discipline anyone should take when building an application for power users is to adhere to Apple's Standard Human Interface Guidelines. To adjust these for power users, I recommend that you read Scott Knaster's new book "Macintosh Programming Secrets", which has a very good introduction on guidelines for programming the Macintosh (and I, for one, consider him to be a power user). Secondly, you have my vote for as many key commands as possible. Please never "replace" mouse commands for key commands, but have as many key command substitutes as possible. These are my feelings, as I learned computers from the keyboard (not a mouse) originally, and still feel much more productive issuing rapid key commands as opposed to reaching for the mouse every other second (and yes, I have memorized and use "every" Microsoft Word key command). In the past, however, I have come to feel that my insistance on adding key commands to products is unusual, as few people on the net seem to support my requests. Finally, I hope that you don't make your application "cluttered". I hate long menus and would rather have more fuctional menus that lead to simple dialog boxes (or hierarchical menus) for help. Popup menus are good for eliminating clutter also. I am a big-screen user myself, so I'm not asking for reduced clutter for screen reasons, but aesthetic reasons. By the way, what is this great product for power users? Is it another word processor?, or something to do with programming? This may change my viewpoint as I think that you can get away with less user friendliness for power (to a minor degree) if you know that your audience is technical. Therefore, it would help if we knew if "power user" can be applied to the guy who writes books and therefore uses every command in his word processor (but is not technical), or if "power user" applies only to those who have also programmed the Macintosh, and are looking for great productivity tools but don't need the simple user-interface frills of a program for novices. Paul Smethers SmethersBarnes
kaplan@uiucdcsb.cs.uiuc.edu (01/05/88)
Just one small point:
I would like to have a fair degree of control over my interface to any
tool; specifically I would like to be able to set/change my own
keymaps. Emacs is of course the best example of this, but so is X windows.
Given just about any Mac product I have used (MacWrite, MacDraw, MacScheme,
Word) extensively, it is very irritating that I cannot rearrange the order
in which things appear on menus, bind frequently used commands to simple key
sequences, etc. None of the systems (even word) I have used on the Mac
give any support for this. It means that my use of the system cannot
"grow" as I become more mature on it.
An example: In word I would like one command-key combination to get my
font changed to courier (because I write a lot of program + text type
stuff). This isnt something that I expect Word to provide as standard
(command-shift-e fontname return) does not hack it -- too much typing, and
a similar 1-keystroke command to get things changed back. I should be able
to add this feature to word.
That's why I use Emacs and X under Unix; because I have that
customizability power. No Mac application I have ever seen allows me to do
this. (And no I dont think that editing resource forks should be necessary
to tailor my applications, given the level at which that editing must be done).
Simon Kaplan
(kaplan@a.cs.uiuc.edu)
(any major node)!{seismo, ihnp4}!uiucdcs!kaplanczei@cbdkc1.ATT.COM (Michael Czeiszperger) (01/05/88)
In article <463@psu-cs.UUCP> smethers@psu-cs.UUCP (Paul Smethers) writes: >Secondly, you have my vote for as many key commands as possible. Please >never "replace" mouse commands for key commands, but have as many key command >substitutes as possible. This does not work in instances where the purpose of the program is to give the user access to data which is best 'viewed' rather than concepualized. For instance, when editing digitized sound, the user interface design should visually provide the user with all the information needed about the sound. Instantaneous volume and sample values are just two of the parameters that are best viewed graphically. If a program was designed to give some mythical power user some features, how could you hide those features in keyboard commands, when their purpose is entirely graphical? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Michael S. Czeiszperger | "HELP! I'm stuck in 3B HELL !!!" Contracted to AT&T | Phone: (614) 860-4952 (formerly with Ohio Unix Systems Administration | UUCP: cbosgd!dkc1!czei State University) 6200 E. Broad Street | Disclaimer: "The above opinions are those of Columbus, OH RM 1L334 | a large rodent with sharp teeth" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
han@apple.UUCP (-- Byron B. Han --) (01/06/88)
I would recommend that you look into the product QuicKeys - which will
do most what anyone would every want. It allows binding of menu items
keystrokes, combinationes thereof, and other nifty things. And yes it
will even work with Microsoft Word and almost any other application.
Available from CE Software.
This is NOT an official Apple endorsement. I have no connection with CE
Software except as a satisfied customer. I have no connection with
Microsoft except as a customer.
--
Byron Han, Communications Tool Apple Computer, Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSNet: han@apple.COM UUCP: {sun,voder,nsc,decwrl}!apple!han 408-973-6450
"Without Macintoshes, life itself would be impossible." - anon.smethers@psu-cs.UUCP (Paul Smethers) (01/07/88)
In article <7135@apple.UUCP> han@apple.UUCP (-- Byron B. Han --) writes: >I would recommend that you look into the product QuicKeys - which will >do most what anyone would every want. It allows binding of menu items >keystrokes, combinationes thereof, and other nifty things. And yes it >will even work with Microsoft Word and almost any other application. > >Available from CE Software. > I have a question and a comment: Question: Does quickkeys work for modifying dialog-boxes so that certain buttons will operate from the keyboard? Comment: After my initial reply to read the introduction to Scott Knaster's book "Macintosh Programming Secrets", I have since read much more of the book and think that most of the questions asked are answered by Scott. I'd like to take a moment to plug this book for anyone who considers themselves a power user or extreme Macintosh hobbiest/programmer. It is fun to read, having some great jokes and funny passages, and has some insight to how to create portable software for power users. Okay, it is somewhat disorganized and Scott rattles on here and there, but I have been finding it helpful none- theless. It also has some insights into the SE and II. Paul Smethers SmethersBarnes
shap@sfsup.UUCP (J.S.Shapiro) (01/09/88)
In article <164500076@uiucdcsb>, kaplan@uiucdcsb.UUCP writes: > I would like to have a fair degree of control over my interface to any > tool; specifically I would like to be able to set/change my own > keymaps. Emacs is of course the best example of this, but so is X windows. > Given just about any Mac product I have used (MacWrite, MacDraw, MacScheme, > Word) extensively, it is very irritating that I cannot rearrange the order > in which things appear on menus, bind frequently used commands to simple key > sequences, etc. None of the systems (even word) I have used on the Mac > give any support for this. It means that my use of the system cannot > "grow" as I become more mature on it. > > Simon Kaplan > (kaplan@a.cs.uiuc.edu) > (any major node)!{seismo, ihnp4}!uiucdcs!kaplan While I agree with the sentiment here - I use emacs, and find its power sufficiently important to me that I have portedf it to several unbelievbly obscure places - it should be pointed out that this behavior relies intrinsically on modality in the interface, and to an inexperienced user this is counterintuitive. There is a balance to be found between the expert and the beginner. Power users aren't beginners for as long as most, but for the first few days you need to have something they can approach. Perhaps it is possible to limit "modal" binding to things like function keys, where the behavior isn't so surprising to the user.