On 23.04.2015 22:59, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
And in the case I mentioned (flight deck displays and user interfaces) were are talking about*specialists* in ergonomics who have conducted a not one but a series of studies and experiments involving a large group of*expert* users and costing tons of money. And the result is quite different. So whom do you think I should believe ?
Writing a letter sitting safely at a desk leads to slightly different requirements for a UI than piloting an airplane ...
You do not seriously believe common aspects of mainstream desktop environments and core applications like the behavior of radio buttons, checkboxes, menus, dialogs and so on came to be without many rounds of research and refinement, do you?
There may admittedly be a problem with cargo-cult guideline writing, copying without taking first principles into account. Plus the people now working at Microsoft, Apple or Gnome and KDE are at risk of forgetting some of the things the GUI pioneers already understood.
Now in intensity and information load, applications like Blender or Ardour may come closer to a cockpit than a spreadsheet application does. But I guess the glass cockpits, just the screens, are not meant for direct manipulation, which surely influences the design. Centralized pure display combined with a shitload of buttons and doodads do not lend themselves as a model for a multi-purpose computer UI.
-- Thorsten Wilms thorwil's design for free software: http://thorwil.wordpress.com/ _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
