|
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).
|
|
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.
|
