Star Common Usability Terms: pt. VIII: Tabs
Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 16th Aug 2008 16:50 UTC
Graphics, User Interfaces This is the eighth article in a series on common usability and graphical user interface related terms [part I | part II | part III | part IV | part V | part VI | part VII]. On the internet, and especially in forum discussions like we all have here on OSNews, it is almost certain that in any given discussion, someone will most likely bring up usability and GUI related terms - things like spatial memory, widgets, consistency, Fitts' Law, and more. The aim of this series is to explain these terms, learn something about their origins, and finally rate their importance in the field of usability and (graphical) user interface design. In part VIII, we focus on the tab.
E-mail Print r 3   · Read More · 35 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/fkv
Permalink for comment 327151
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Taskbars
by StephenBeDoper on Sat 16th Aug 2008 19:04 UTC
StephenBeDoper
Member since:
2005-07-06

This all comes at a price, however. While tabbed interfaces seemingly reduce clutter, they also add another layer of complexity. Most graphical user environments have a single place to switch between windows/applications (the taskbar), and while tabbed interfaces do reduce the number of entries in the taskbar, it does not in fact eliminate them - it only moves them to another location.


IMO that point illustrates that neither UI convention is going to be ideal for every situation (rather than indicating a deficiency of tabbed interfaces).

Taskbars, in my experience, have a "threshold of usefulness" - it doesn't take long (for me, at least) reach the point where it takes a prohibitively long time to find & select a particular window or application using a global taskbar. E.g., I have over 50 tabs open in Firefox at the moment - it would be nightmarish to try manage those as separate windows via the taskbar (or something like Expose).

So, instead of having one place where the user can go to to switch between documents and applications, he now has multiple locations. Switching from document Abc in a word processor to webpage Xyz in a browser may now require more clicks and attention focus switches than in a non-tabbed interface.


(Emphasis: mine)

That can be a benefit in many instances - it makes sense if you think of it within the context of operating globally vs operating locally. For my own usage patterns at least, I find it fairly helpful to have a global app-switching mechanism that lets you select individual apps, then a local/app-specific mechanism that lets you select documents within those apps.

It should also be kept in mind that tabbed interfaces are usually optional. E.g., I know people who have been using Firefox for 2 or 3 years but have never used tabbed-browsing (if they even know it's available). IMO, tabbed interfaces are one of those rare features that can provide real benefit to more advanced users (and/or those of us seriously afflicted with Nerd Attention Deficit Disorder), without burdening more casual users with extra complexity.

A common sentiment, especially among the Apple and GNOME camps, is that reducing complexity in the graphical user interface is by definition always better than increasing complexity. While this might be true in a lot of cases, the resounding success of the tabbed document interface clearly shows that as with everything in computing, there is no golden rule. The tabbed interface increases complexity, yet it makes working with computers a lot easier for many people.

Sometimes, logic simply doesn't prevail.


There is a fairly simple, logical explanation: people are willing to put up with a bit of extra complexity if there's a significant added benefit.

Edited 2008-08-16 19:12 UTC

Reply Bookmark Score: 2