* Re: [9fans] architectures @ 2001-07-12 5:22 anothy 2001-07-12 8:04 ` Matt ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: anothy @ 2001-07-12 5:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans //err, mouse buttons? okay, so USB would be needed to make Plan 9 on a Mac really enjoyable. but heck, since i'm waiting on USB anyway... as an unrelated point, what do people think of multi-button mice as interface components for non-computer-savvy folks? when i supported business-type users, particularly such people on Win32 boxes, having them do anything with any button other than the left was usually a failure. many times i'd say "right click" and have them ignore the first word. i'd repeat "no, _right_ click". the response would usually be "i did" and they'd repeat exactly what they'd just done. again, incorrectly. don't get me wrong, i love the three button mouse interface myself, given an inteligent use of the buttons (like Plan 9 has). i'm particularly fond of the acme interface, and i really like the chording (okay, maybe it's not for everyone, but _i_ really like it). i'm asking about non-techie folks. for them, wouldn't a single-button interface be simpler to understand? oh, and for the moment, ignore design-specific issues. i understand that one can design both stupid and inteligent interfaces with _any_ number of buttons. i'm interested in the question's more abstract form. -α. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] architectures 2001-07-12 5:22 [9fans] architectures anothy @ 2001-07-12 8:04 ` Matt 2001-07-12 10:12 ` Boyd Roberts 2001-07-12 13:01 ` Laura Creighton 2 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Matt @ 2001-07-12 8:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans > when i supported business-type users, particularly > such people on Win32 boxes, having them do anything with > any button other than the left was usually a failure. many > times i'd say "right click" and have them ignore the first > word. i'd repeat "no, _right_ click". the response would > usually be "i did" and they'd repeat exactly what they'd just > done. again, incorrectly. give 'em a big red button and no keyboard or screen tell 'em press this button when you here a beep ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] architectures 2001-07-12 5:22 [9fans] architectures anothy 2001-07-12 8:04 ` Matt @ 2001-07-12 10:12 ` Boyd Roberts 2001-07-12 13:01 ` Laura Creighton 2 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Boyd Roberts @ 2001-07-12 10:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans > as an unrelated point, what do people think of multi-button > mice as interface components for non-computer-savvy > folks? you don't need to be computer savy to use your fingers. that gets wired into the cerebellum pretty early on :) i think the problem is that people with 'right click syndrome' are suffering from bad design on µsloth's part because the right button did _nothing_ for so long and then they screwed it up in some contexts: click the right button on the desktop -- nothing happens. release it and something happens. just like a knife that makes the cut after you've finished cutting. totally counterintuitive. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] architectures 2001-07-12 5:22 [9fans] architectures anothy 2001-07-12 8:04 ` Matt 2001-07-12 10:12 ` Boyd Roberts @ 2001-07-12 13:01 ` Laura Creighton 2001-07-12 20:35 ` [9fans] architectures Jim Choate 2 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Laura Creighton @ 2001-07-12 13:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans; +Cc: lac my experience with non-techie folks is that once they get over the conceptual hurdle of actually believing that can use a different finger than their index finger to point with, they think that being able to use their machine efficiently to do what they want is as cool as the rest of us do. The problem is that naive users are what people design for, because customers who have never bought your product are by definition naive users of it. But naive users have a limited lifetime. For a few years I was involved with a project that tried to measure exactly how limited the lifetime was. We came up with ~3 weeks for most users for every program we tried to measure. At this point, they become frustrated users who want a better interface, or resigned users who don't believe that there is a better interface because they have only used computer interfaces designed for the naive. The big lesson I learned from this was to teach how to user regular expressions to every vi user who has been using vi for at least 3 weeks ... but not before then ... and make their lives a lot happier. And to cheerfully and patiently listen to all the complaints of the new users who found the interface hard to learn, because, after all they deserve the respect of having their complaints listened to and acknowledged; and then carefully filing whatever changes they want under `things that they most likely do will not want to change in about 3 weeks'. Of course if your interface is truly lousy, the naive uers may quit before 3 weeks is up. And if you have botched some detail, the complaints will continue after the 3 weeks. But while you must never, ever treat anybody with such contempt as to reply `you aren't significant enough to have an opinion' - naive users truly are not significant enough -- because like butterflies, their life expectancy is measured in weeks. Experienced users may also have a list of design defects in your interface, sometimes because you have botched the interface, sometimes because they have better vision than you did, and sometimes because they are using your program to do things that you never do -- what is a problem for them never came up for you. But it is extremely rare for them to have the same list of changes as the naive (and an indication that user interface design may not be what you have any talent for). In test after test where we established a user community of experienced users and then announced that we were going to change the interface in response to complaints that the interface was hard to learn we got enormous protests (which we of course saved, that being the point of this) of the form `when I was learning this, I thought that XXX sucked too, but now I can't live without it.' There are some things you cannot teach the technically unsavvy. For instance, in 20 years I have never, ever, ever, been able to convince people that floating point, despite looking like decimal fractions, ISNT, and that you MUST NEVER USE IT FOR MONEY. The damn fools listen politely and then go back to using it, because, after all, they think they know better than you do. Moth to the flame. But I have worked with 8-year-olds and 80-year-olds, secretaries, hairdressers, and supermarket-check-out clerks, the most non-technical people we could hope to find since we advertized for them. And after they get some familiarity with vi, I can teach nearly all of them how to use regular expressions. And just like the technically savvy, they think that regular expressions are wonderful. Laura ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [9fans] Re: architectures 2001-07-12 13:01 ` Laura Creighton @ 2001-07-12 20:35 ` Jim Choate 2001-07-12 21:41 ` Dan Cross 2001-07-13 14:52 ` Douglas A. Gwyn 0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Jim Choate @ 2001-07-12 20:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans It's not a question of 'tech savvy' it's a question of mental process, levels of indirection and abstraction. Those are biological factors and can't be taught. If you got it you can improve it, if you ain't you ain't. I speak from spending 7 years in a hands-on science museum trying to explain a host of technologies to folks. Most folks are not techie and can't be. Most 'techie' folks really aren't either. They get a vague idea of the process and work from that, they never get a deep inside intuitive grasp of process and principle. On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, Laura Creighton wrote: > There are some things you cannot teach the technically unsavvy. For > instance, in 20 years I have never, ever, ever, been able to convince > people that floating point, despite looking like decimal fractions, > ISNT, and that you MUST NEVER USE IT FOR MONEY. The damn fools listen > politely and then go back to using it, because, after all, they think > they know better than you do. Moth to the flame. But I have worked > with 8-year-olds and 80-year-olds, secretaries, hairdressers, and > supermarket-check-out clerks, the most non-technical people we could > hope to find since we advertized for them. And after they get some > familiarity with vi, I can teach nearly all of them how to use regular > expressions. And just like the technically savvy, they think that > regular expressions are wonderful. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Re: architectures 2001-07-12 20:35 ` [9fans] architectures Jim Choate @ 2001-07-12 21:41 ` Dan Cross 2001-07-12 22:09 ` Jim Choate 2001-07-13 14:52 ` Douglas A. Gwyn 1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Dan Cross @ 2001-07-12 21:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans In article <Pine.LNX.3.96.1010712153305.9367f-100000@einstein.ssz.com> you write: >I speak from spending 7 years in a hands-on science museum trying to >explain a host of technologies to folks. Most folks are not techie and >can't be. Most 'techie' folks really aren't either. They get a vague idea >of the process and work from that, they never get a deep inside intuitive >grasp of process and principle. I'm sorry, I must be missing something. I don't see how you spending seven years in an environment where you interact with a single individual for what, maybe a few hours on end, and that's it, qualifies you to question the judgement of someone whose been spending 20 or so years in an academic setting, working with individuals for a few months (or more!) at a time. I also fail to grasp the relevance of any of this to Plan 9; either the operating system, or the Ed Woods movie. - Dan C. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Re: architectures 2001-07-12 21:41 ` Dan Cross @ 2001-07-12 22:09 ` Jim Choate 0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Jim Choate @ 2001-07-12 22:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, Dan Cross wrote: > I'm sorry, I must be missing something. I don't see how you spending > seven years in an environment where you interact with a single > individual for what, maybe a few hours on end, and that's it, qualifies > you to question the judgement of someone whose been spending 20 or so > years in an academic setting, working with individuals for a few months > (or more!) at a time. Because I'm a human being, arguments from 'authority' are worthless (and in fact harmful but I digress). You speak from ignorance of my situation. I spent 7 years working at Discovery Hall (ask around any of the science museums that exist). I built exhibits that went to the Exploratorium, Chicago, The Smithsonian. I helped start the Austin Robot Group, ran their BBS, ran their exhibit group (I've built over 40 exhibits using hundreds of volunteers), I've over 10 years experience teaching. I've worked with three Nobel prize winners. I've worked with NASA on several occassions getting "For All Mankind" out of mothballs and on the road again, helped set up the 1990 Cyberspace conference here in Austin. A whole host of other activities. You speak from ignorance and inexperience. I say what I say because I've been there and done that. > I also fail to grasp the relevance of any of this to Plan 9; either the > operating system, or the Ed Woods movie. I didn't start the discussion, but I did find it interesting. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Re: architectures 2001-07-12 20:35 ` [9fans] architectures Jim Choate 2001-07-12 21:41 ` Dan Cross @ 2001-07-13 14:52 ` Douglas A. Gwyn 2001-07-13 15:15 ` Boyd Roberts 1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Douglas A. Gwyn @ 2001-07-13 14:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans Jim Choate wrote: > ... Most folks are not techie and can't be. ... But they could have been, if their early education hadn't ruined them. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Re: architectures 2001-07-13 14:52 ` Douglas A. Gwyn @ 2001-07-13 15:15 ` Boyd Roberts 0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Boyd Roberts @ 2001-07-13 15:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <DAGwyn@null.net> > > But they could have been, if their early education hadn't ruined them. yeah, feynman was always tinkering with stuff from an early age. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2001-07-13 15:15 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2001-07-12 5:22 [9fans] architectures anothy 2001-07-12 8:04 ` Matt 2001-07-12 10:12 ` Boyd Roberts 2001-07-12 13:01 ` Laura Creighton 2001-07-12 20:35 ` [9fans] architectures Jim Choate 2001-07-12 21:41 ` Dan Cross 2001-07-12 22:09 ` Jim Choate 2001-07-13 14:52 ` Douglas A. Gwyn 2001-07-13 15:15 ` Boyd Roberts
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).