 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
<<Previous | 1
| 2 | 3
| 4 | 5
| 6 | Next>>
|
|
Figure 1. Cryptovision at work. Here the
design hides the task flow. The user must work hard to understand the
expected task sequence. The user must infer the task flow based on training
or experience.
|
|
|
Figure 2. The task flow is implied by the
left-right, top-down sequence of screen objects. Meaning emerges from
the sequence with an implied then between
each line. For example, "consider this first" THEN "consider
this item next" THEN "consider this following item", etc.
|
|
|
CRYPTOVISION SNEAK ATTACK Occasionally a designer will
use a left-right, top-down pattern for the task flow, yet fail to tell
the user what to do. The design in Figure 3
causes confusion by withholding important instruction from the user. Check
it out on Compuserve! Some developers think that instructions will insult
users and clutter the screen for the expert users, but casual, infrequent
users fail to remember what to do, thus need "just in time training"
on the screen. Meanwhile, instructions never slow down experts. Experts
easily ignore them, just like we ignore highway signs when driving on
a familiar road.
|
|
In the Compuserve example, the designer might reply that the Help button
is nearby, with ready support. However, why call an ambulance, when only
a band-aid is needed? The lesson is that layout can be correct but still
lack meaning (the cryptovision thing). Layout can benefit from disciplined
use of short, well-place instructions. Call it writing from the soul.
|
|
Figure 3. This window allows you to change
your Compuserve tool bar icons. Training is NOT an option for Compuserve.
Instructions would help. Apparently users can assign any command to any
icon. Could you? Although the task follows the left-right, top-down model,
we still get cryptovision meaninglessness. (p.s.,
we never figured out what value you'd get from making the mail Inbox perform
the Exit command. But that's a topic for another column.)
|
 |
|
Discover the weak points in your design by asking potential users to
think out loud as they do a task using paper printouts of your screen
designs. This is called a protocol simulation
test. If a user gets stuck, ask what they're thinking. Don't get defensive.
If they don't know what to do, and user training is not in the cards,
then you can only blame the design. Get soul.
THE TASK IS THE THING What regimen can save users from
attacks of misunderstanding arising from bad layout? First, we must understand
what varieties of "work" designers create for users. Then we
can see how to reduce that work. Once again we'll take recourse to our
familiar VIMM model (Visual, Intellectual, Memory, and Motor work) to
construct soul design solutions.
|
| |
<<Previous | 1
| 2 | 3
| 4 | 5
| 6 | Next>>
|
| |
GUI Articles List
|
| |
|
 |
|
