Subject: longer-term and broader understandings of how users use the UI
Eugene Eric Kim wrote: > > … I'm highly skeptical that we are the norm. :-) > :-) a smile whilst treating all types of user as normal. > … It would be worth actually testing this in a user study. However, the > fact that [a] question comes up at all (over and over > again) seems to be an indication of unnecessary complexity. … > As reassurance: the words 'Delete' and 'Remove' were the two and only words that someone (in addition to me) had flagged as troublesome in the glossary <http://chandlerproject.org/Projects/ChandlerGlossary>. William K. Volkman wrote: > > … fundamental lack of understanding … They don't understand why there are > two actions so it seems redundant. Is there some place where the "over and > over again" question keeps coming up? Perhaps it should be part of the FAQ > rather than attempting to fix a non-problem. > My twopenneth: if any thing in Chandler requires the user to step beyond Chandler and learn why Chandler is not behaving in a logical way, there is a flaw in either that logic of Chandler, or the in-Chandler presentation of that logic. In this case (remove, delete) I'm confident that: the logic is great, the presentation deserves attention ... but not rushed attention. > … disorient and confuse new users and annoy power users, eventually people > just mindlessly click through them. > Read through the 15 years of users studies that have already been done on > the antivirus and web browser pop-ups … > I admit total ignorance to all such studies but with respect, comparisons with dialogues for antivirus may be moot. Viruses, trojans and other forms of malware are -- by design -- malicious, obscure and increasingly mind-bogglingly technical. Studies relating to anti-virus pop-ups will reflect that boggling. A dialogue in Chandler will be -- by design -- respectful of a human-oriented Chandler philosophy. On the subject of understanding how users use the UI, <http://n2.nabble.com/-tp2161607p2161607.html>. Eugene Eric Kim wrote: > > … an easy way to resolve this. Watch users work … > +1 The best surveys and plug-ins can never exceed the value of good old-fashioned watching and listening. In my limited experience: the true value of any alpha, beta or newly released feature/change can not be truly realised without allowing multiple users a period of two, maybe three or months of practical (non-theoretical) use, during which highly interested users (such as us) gain explicit and implicit feedback from the less interested users. Sometimes a silent non-reaction to an un-noticed subtle change is more meaningful than a loud positive reaction to a dramatic change. Regards Graham -- View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/The-troublesome-%27Remove%27-word%3A-alternatives--tp2153098p2161699.html Sent from the Chandler users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list unsubscribe here: http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chandler-users Chandler wiki: http://chandlerproject.org/wikihome
