Mousing Around: Tyrannasaurus Rodentia Plasticae (continued)

While we may laugh at the Mac situation, we find many applications in other popular operating systems remain mouse-centric when they shouldn't. This fault arises from the stealthy work of cryptodesign. Recall, these are design ideas that work for certain situations, but get misapplied when thoughtlessly applied to tasks that are different than the original. We'll cover the issues below in our "VIMM" model.

SNEAKIER CRYPTO ATTACK BY SECONDARY MOUSE BUTTON Now that Win95 has jumped into the future with the right mouse button (OS/2, OSF, etc. were there all along), we face grave challenges, i.e., developers and product managers may feel even more compelled to embrace mouse-centric design in order to get hypothesized benefits from the "other" mouse button. This bifurcation of mouse features appears to have some benefits. Pointing to a object and selecting the secondary mouse button brings up a context-sensitive menu. In the word processor used to type this article, a right-mouse menu lists three options for setting the typing parameters for subsequent text. We can change the font, set paragraph style, or initiate bulleting and numbering schemes. If text were highlighted, we could also cut or copy it. Wow.

Contextually related commands are wonderful. However, the secondary mouse button can easily be misemployed. Note that the word processor also provided the same functions in a more traditional way (pull-downs in our word processor, or buttons in other applications). Designers misuse the right-mouse button when they fail to provide navigation or functions in these other, more obvious ways.

Problems arise because this "new" pop-up menu, like pull-downs, is hidden. Avoid using it as the sole source for navigation or functions. Reserve it only for short-cut commands that experts would like to use. Frequent users accept the effort required to memorize the functions and recall their availability. Their high volume workload makes the effort pay off. Meanwhile, casual users and new users must have access to commands through more traditional, visible means such as buttons and menubar options. We suspect that after another 5 to 10 years of computer experience in the workforce, this recommendation can change. Currently, however, we must remain conservative while still in the early stages of computer-literacy.

THE TASK IS THE THING As in each of our columns, we resurrect soul-design by analysis of the various kinds of work involved: Visual, Intellectual, Memory, and Motor (the VIMM model). Let's look at how Rodentia Plasticae can be misused and what you can do to decrypt its influence.

Reduce Visual Work

Issue: Finding a window to click on requires visual work. The window title or other clues to distinguish the desired window may be hidden. This problem arises when the designer depends on the mouse as a cryptonavigational tool and thus tolerates the burden of "window thrashing" (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: The mouse fails to maintain productivity and ease of use when designers use multiple free-form windows.

Solution: Design applications to greatly reduce or eliminate the proliferation of windows. For example, as discussed in previous issues (September/October and November/December, 1995), the folder metaphor allows users to open one tab while simultaneously closing another tab. This approach does not exclude using the mouse. But it reduces the tyranny of mousing around! Note that keyboard access is quite easy if we label the tab with a function key or use an accelerator key (Alt + letter). (The function key is less error-prone than accelerators.)

The Method of Loci: There are many other ways to reduce the visual work in searching for "clickable objects" – be they windows or buttons. All the solutions depend on maintaining a fixed spatial location for the pointer target. Tabs remain in a fixed location. Another example involves placement of the OK and Cancel buttons in locations that remain consistent throughout an application or your user environment.