On 28 Jun 2009 at 23:30, Owain Sutton wrote: > I think a return put-up-or-show-up is necessary: if the research wasn't > done by observing up-to-date computer-literate users on recent operating > systems, then it's fundamentally flawed for the present discussion.
Look, this research has been done repeatedly over the last 25 years and repeatedly has found the same results. Either show that the research is wrong by citing someone with expertise to criticize the studies Apple and Microsoft has done, or recognize that perhaps you don't know how the majority of users interact with their computers. I'm not saying the studies are right. I'm saying THEY EXIST and they have repeatedly concluded that mousing is faster. I don't know the study designs, nor do I know the nature of the testing or the user population. All I know is that Apple and Microsoft have extensive usability labs with professionals trained in testing usability and that is the conclusion they've reached when they've studied the issue scientifically. If you want to dispute it, by all means -- show how the studies were flawed. But all I hear is anecdote -- "well, *I* function better with the keyboard" -- which has nothing to do with the subject in question, which is not about individual users but about aggregated results from tests of lots and lots of users of different capabilities and backgrounds. It all reminds me of the Republican morons who claim there's no climate change because June has been colder than normal -- in that case it's confusing weather with climate. In the present situation, it's confusing individual experience with the results of testing large populations. Nobody is claiming, including Apple and Microsoft, that for EVERY SINGLE USER, the mouse is faster than the keyboard. But that's what the hostile response seems to me to indicate, that people think a statistical study is invalid if there are any exceptions to its conclusions. I don't get where this kind of statistical illiteracy comes from, or why it's such a religious issue. I function better with the keyboard, but it doesn't bother me in the slightest to find that most people in the studies on the subject manage to do better with the mouse. Why should anyone be upset about such a thing? Puzzled, sure. I'm certainly surprised that so many people function better with the mouse (particularly after watching so many people who are completely inept with the mouse), but so what? I don't have to understand it. Perhaps with proper training in using both the mouse and the keyboard those people's test results would change -- it certainly seems that way to me, as I've done a lot of training of people who have problematic interactions with their computers. But the point remains: At least two companies with a vested interest in creating the best products for their customers have repeatedly found in studies that my "common sense" does not apply to as many people as I would think. So what? -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
