https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=404286
--- Comment #42 from NSLW <lukasz.wojnilow...@gmail.com> --- (In reply to przem.formela from comment #40) > > I'm not sure after reading "Examples of the similarity principle" on > > https://www.usertesting.com/blog/gestalt-principles/ > > Could you tell me why did you originally think that I ignored the rule of > > similarity? > I'm talking about the wider "perception" of interacting with OS. If things > look similar between different OSes, you expect them to work the same way. I presume, you're expecting from every OS that it should allow a user to use what he has memorized from handling UX of other OS's. I suggest we drop this thread, because I think its essence is out of scope of Gestalt principles, and I believe the essence is touched in some other thread. > Yes' I'd love that. It's one of the reasons I'm not using MacOS nor Ubuntu > in its default form. Why? Because consistency in UX is important to me. I > want to sit in front of a new OS and have the most basic tasks done (like > applying/discarding changes) in a similar way. It seems to me that you need consistency in UX across different OS's to be able to do efficiently everything you want to do without the need to learn new things about those OS's. I had belief that one switches to particular OS because one like the way things are designed in that particular OS better than in any other. Do you switch between those OS's to be able to tell that you're swift with them? You also said that you use neither MacOS nor Ubuntu in its default form. I presume, you're customizing UX on those OS's to your own taste. Are you dissatisfied with their default UX because it's not consistent with Windows UX? > Going after https://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/people/matt.davis/cmabridge/ > TL;DR: When it comes to short words, people don't read them; instead, they > predict the word based on the context. In the article, I found what I think you're referring to in two citations referenced below: "Short words are easy - 2 or 3 letter words don't change at all. The only change that is possible in a 4 letter words is to swap the order of the middle letters which doesn't cause too much difficulty (see 4)." The researchers qualified 2 to 3 letter words as short. "Anuluj", "Zaniechaj", "Zastosuj" are much longer than 3 letters, so I think our words are out of scope. In the article I've neither find nor inferred from the content that researchers claim that words are predicted on context. "Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe." The researchers wrote that it's important that first and last letter stay in place and that middle letters can be total mess. That doesn't mean they can be random letters from the alphabet. That would be illogical, because every word would have to be recognizable only by first and last letter and the combination of such would be only ~ 23^2 = 529 words, where 23 is letters count of basic Latin alphabet, and 2 is count of first, and last letter. > In this particular case, "Zaniechaj" and "Zastosuj" look so similar (both > start with Za- and end with -j) that it's easy to click "Zaniechaj" instead > of "Zastosuj" and vice-versa when a person does that without much thinking > (and in good UX a person shouldn't need to think specifically about which > button they need to click if the two have completely opposite effects). In > case of "Anuluj", it's distinguishable enough from "Zastosuj" that this > problem doesn't occur. I agree with you that "Anuluj" is better distinguishable than "Zaniechaj" in comparison to "Zastosuj" and I think that "Zaniechaj" is distinguishable enough from "Zastosuj" because besides first two and last one letter inside letters are completely different between them. There is similar case in Spanish where: 1) "OK" is translated as "Aceptar" 2) "Apply" is translated as "Aplicar" 3) "Cancel" is translated as "Cancelar" You've got "Aceptar" and "Aplicar" which: 1) both are 7 characters long (close to 9 letters of "Zaniechaj" and 8 letters of "Zastosuj") 2) have first and two last letters the same 3) appear in dialog windows and in close proximity to each other I think, that if Spanish speaking people differentiate two not distant words, which have first and last letter the same, then it should be a proof, that Polish speaking people will differentiate our two words as well, because we share alphabet with Spanish. > Yes. I don't believe that polish words are better just because they are > polish. Then it seems we fundamentally differ in our opinions. I believe some people still use words like: 1) "drajwery/drivery" (English drivers) to denote "sterowniki", 2) "zcancelować/zkancelować" (English cancel) to denote "zaniechaj", 3) "akceleracja" (English acceleration) to denote "przyspieszenie", 4) "simultanicznie" (English simultaneously/in parallel) to denote "równocześnie/równolegle". "Anuluj" has been created in the same way. One just prepends and appends some letters to foreign word, and then puts "Polish word" sticker on it. I think that not using Polish word, when there is one, indicates language poorness of the speaker and I would like to promote language richness. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
