Hi Johannes, hi all, Please don apologize for long answers. Although it took me some time to read it and more time to answer, I found it quite interesting to read and I think, you got many good points :-)
mixing syntax with semantics
I was aware of the difference between syntax and semantics, I only doubt whether this difference is also clear to the user or to be more exact: at which experience level is the user able to distinguish between syntax and semantics? I would like to give you an answer on that, but I don't know it by myself :-( "What is really interesting" should definitly not be hidden. That's totally correct :-) The point is that "what is interesting" is different for each user group. Maybe we should start thinking about different design for our different user groups? I think the syntax vs. semantics discussion and your notion of the usability test showed also that we need to take care of the workflow to clean up the semantics side of life. One word regarding the term "consistency": when I talk about consistency I want to express that it is important that items that have the same semantics must look the same to avoid user confusion. I want to work on both, the consistency and the workflow side, but up to now I don't have a mandate for this. It is on my to do list to discuss this issue, but I am afraid I won't have any resources for this before autumn :-( The light switches vs. fire alarm buttons is an excellent example. If you look closely at the fire alarms you will also notice that putting a red frame around the button is not sufficient to protect it from misuses: usually it is hidden behind glass and you have an additional explanation message. Which can be taken as a proof, that different semantics have to be explained to the user. Kind regards, Martin -- Martin Schmidkunz User Experience Specialist martin.schmidkunz@novell.com +49 (0) 911 740 53-346 ------------------------------------- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) ------------------------------------- Novell, Inc. SUSE® Linux Enterprise 10 Your Linux is ready http://www.novell.com/linux -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-ux+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-ux+help@opensuse.org
Hello, On Jun 6 12:57 Martin Schmidkunz wrote (shortened):
I was aware of the difference between syntax and semantics, I only doubt whether this difference is also clear to the user or to be more exact: at which experience level is the user able to distinguish between syntax and semantics?
There is no need that the user can distinguish. It is not my point that the user should be able to distinguish. My point is that - as far as I see - we focus currently too much on syntax-like stuff instead of focusing on the semantics (i.e. how to show the user the meaning behind the surface i.e. how to show the user "what is really interesting"). See what I wrote about light switches vs. fire alarm buttons: "the syntax it totally irrelevant here".
The point is that "what is interesting" is different for each user group. Maybe we should start thinking about different design for our different user groups?
No. "What is really interesting" is the same for all users because the semantics does not change. On a basic-settings dialog "what is interesting" is the same for experts and novices. On a sophisticated experts dialog "what is interesting" is also the same for experts and novices but novices may not understand it here and therefore it is an experts dialog.
I think the syntax vs. semantics discussion and your notion of the usability test showed also that we need to take care of the workflow to clean up the semantics side of life.
Perhaps I misunderstand you because I have no idea how the workflow could make the semantics clear? I mean "only the plain workflow" - not additional explanatory texts. Could you show for example how the workflow could make the different semantics clear in the previous password dialogs? Or how could the workflow make the different semantics clear when - the media size must be specified according to what there is actually loaded in the printer versus - an arbitrary printing resolution can be chosen?
when I talk about consistency I want to express that it is important that items that have the same semantics must look the same to avoid user confusion.
This is exactly the "consistency" which I would like to have. But what do I see currently? Items that have the same syntax look the same regardless of their semantics.
The light switches vs. fire alarm buttons is an excellent example. If you look closely at the fire alarms you will also notice that putting a red frame around the button is not sufficient to protect it from misuses: usually it is hidden behind glass and you have an additional explanation message. Which can be taken as a proof, that different semantics have to be explained to the user.
Not necessarily. According to Donald A. Norman, "when simple things need instructions, it is a certain sign of poor design". Perhaps he is wrong regarding computer software? If he was right, the password dialogs and media size versus resolution settings and light switches versus fire alarm buttons must be complicated things because they need instructions? By the way: The instructions on our fire alarm buttons are very clear. They command: "Scheibe einschlagen, Knopf tief drücken" ("break glass, press button") but I didn't do it up to now. Should I obey now? What happens if I refuse? If I obey, would I be liable for the broken glass? Kind Regards Johannes Meixner -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstrasse 5, 90409 Nuernberg, Germany AG Nuernberg, HRB 16746, GF: Markus Rex
Martin Schmidkunz wrote:
The light switches vs. fire alarm buttons is an excellent example. If you look closely at the fire alarms you will also notice that putting a red frame around the button is not sufficient to protect it from misuses: usually it is hidden behind glass and you have an additional explanation message. Which can be taken as a proof, that different semantics have to be explained to the user.
The "light switches vs. fire alarm buttons" is rather a philosophical case :) Imagine that fire alarm buttons looked the same as light switches but had a red frame around. Then, what are the light switches good for? You very often need to press them in an absolute dark just to turn the light on. In an absolute dark, you wouldn't see a red frame around an alarm button and you might think it is a light switch. That could cause a harm or/and a damage by starting a fire alarm instead of turning the light on. An explanatory message is not the most important part. The most important is that it is different to a common light switches and that it attracts your attention. The only possible consistency is to have all light switches the same and then all fire alarm buttons also the same type but a completely different to light switches. Then, neither light switches nor fire alarm buttons need to be explained... consistency is self-explanatory ;) Lukas -- Lukas Ocilka, YaST Developer (xn--luk-gla45d) ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUSE LINUX, s. r. o., Lihovarska 1060/12, Praha 9, Czech Republic
Hello, On Jun 6 15:21 Lukas Ocilka wrote (shortened):
Imagine that fire alarm buttons looked the same as light switches but had a red frame around.
To avoid misunderstanding: Of course I didn't mean that a red frame is the one and only item which makes fire alarm buttons different from light switches.
The only possible consistency is to have all light switches the same and then all fire alarm buttons also the same type but a completely different to light switches. Then, neither light switches nor fire alarm buttons need to be explained... consistency is self-explanatory ;)
Exactly! Nevertheless a note: I don't think that consistency alone is self-explanatory. In this case there are cultural conventions (i.e. knowledge in the head of the users) which makes the user understand what a fire alarm button is and what a light switch. Watch children who don't know yet about the cultural conventions what they try to do with a fire alarm button (that's one reason why there is additionally a glass). Note that fire alarm buttons and emergency stop buttons look similar (but not identical) but very different from light switches. Somehow fire alarm buttons and emergency stop buttons manage very well to show a clear message about their semantics (i.e. about their meaning behind the plain "I am a button" syntax). Do already solutions or proposals exist how to show semantics for buttons (or whatever else stuff) in GUIs? What about using differnt colors depending on the button semantics? E.g. an [Abort] button may have a red background color because the meaning of Abort is "quit immediately without saving anything"? Another good example how to show semantics/meaning is the mouse cursor of the "xkill" command. Kind Regards Johannes Meixner -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstrasse 5, 90409 Nuernberg, Germany AG Nuernberg, HRB 16746, GF: Markus Rex -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-ux+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-ux+help@opensuse.org
On Jun 06, 07 15:21:38 +0200, Lukas Ocilka wrote:
Martin Schmidkunz wrote:
The light switches vs. fire alarm buttons is an excellent example. If you look closely at the fire alarms you will also notice that putting a red frame around the button is not sufficient to protect it from misuses: usually it is hidden behind glass and you have an additional explanation message. Which can be taken as a proof, that different semantics have to be explained to the user.
I fully agree. But this explanation is not necesarily done in words. If I expect a light switch, and my fingers hit the metal frame with the glass front, I immedialty realize this is not an ordinary light switch. The feedback, which I get from the device includes sufficient 'explanation' about the device itself. I may not fully understand (without looking at) what it really is, but it tells that my expectations were wrong, which is the most important information here.
The "light switches vs. fire alarm buttons" is rather a philosophical case :)
Imagine that fire alarm buttons looked the same as light switches but had a red frame around. Then, what are the light switches good for? You very often need to press them in an absolute dark just to turn the light on. In an absolute dark, you wouldn't see a red frame around an alarm button and you might think it is a light switch. That could cause a harm or/and a damage by starting a fire alarm instead of turning the light on.
An explanatory message is not the most important part. The most important is that it is different to a common light switches and that it attracts your attention.
Absolutly. A written message is a nice add on, but insufficient here. Besides giving tactile feedback in addition to optical, the metal frame has another purpose. It avoids false alert caused by a careless user, who just slams his hand against the wall, in a manner that is usually sufficient to toggle a light switch. With the sturdy frame around the fire alarm button, nothing happens. This again attracts the users attention.
The only possible consistency is to have all light switches the same and then all fire alarm buttons also the same type but a completely different to light switches. Then, neither light switches nor fire alarm buttons need to be explained... consistency is self-explanatory ;)
Fire alarm buttons and light switches have more in common than one may realize at first glance. They both send out a number of identical messages: "I am a switch!" "I belong to the building, not some furniture!", "Use your hand (or elbow) to operate me!" "You can touch me without activating me!" All switches, (be they light switches, or alarm buttons) should be wall-mounted. None at doors, tables, floor or ceiling or dangling at loose wires. All are at an average height where one expects such a switch, and all should be near doors or other easily reachable locations. All switches have a size and require a force that is suitable for a human hand, and the mechanical action should be one of the standard press or flip actions that one expects. All switches provide two levels of feedback to acknowledge their activation: (1) mechanical movement, (2) lights on / alarm sounded. That is a lot of consistency already, isn't it? The light switch just sends some additional message: "Try me, nothing bad will happen!" "I have two obvious positions, my activation is easily reversible!" Whereas the fire-alarm button says: "Are you sure?" "Take care, I may hurt your fingers!" cheers, Jw. -- o \ Juergen Weigert paint it green! __/ _=======.=======_ <V> | jw@suse.de wide open suse_/ _---|____________\/ \ | 0911 74053-508 (tm)__/ (____/ /\ (/) | __________________________/ _/ \_ vim:set sw=2 wm=8 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg) "Oral agreements are worth about as much as the paper they are written on." -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-ux+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-ux+help@opensuse.org
participants (4)
-
Johannes Meixner -
Juergen Weigert -
Lukas Ocilka -
Martin Schmidkunz