Linked by Eugenia Loli-Queru on Tue 21st Nov 2006 18:05 UTC
In this article Joel talks about the number of choices in applications. "This highlights a style of software design shared by Microsoft and the open source movement, in both cases driven by a desire for consensus and for "Making Everybody Happy," but it's based on the misconceived notion that lots of choices make people happy, which we really need to rethink."
Thread beginning with comment 184871
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2006-01-02
Sleep and hibernate tell you nothing. Now, if sleep said what it did by the option, and so did hibernate, the user would be better informed to start using it.
As a desktop PC user, I use every option but sleep. and like having the options.
However, if the interface just said what each option did, having them would no longer be a problem--we can have our cake and the new users could eat it, too.
So, let's see:
* Switch User: leave the current user on and running. Unix-like thinking.
* Log off: quit all your stuff
* Lock: keep people from seeing your stuff
* Sleep: suspend with quick recovery, but some power use
* Hibernate: suspend with long recovery, but no power use
* Reboot: obvious
* Shut down: obvious
Now, I don't disagree that just showing a list of a bunch of options with no extra information is bad; but I think that adding information is a better way to handle it than removing choices.
I'm also a freak about Fitts, so adding info would make bigger targets, which woud be good, too, since data density isn't a problem for such a menu.