Star Common Usability Terms: pt. IV: Fitts' Law
Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 7th Nov 2007 13:39 UTC
Graphics, User Interfaces This is the fourth article in a series on common usability and graphical user interface related terms [part I | part II | part III]. 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 IV today, we focus on a dead horse Fitts' Law.
E-mail Print r 0   · Read More · 46 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/ekt
Thread beginning with comment 283424
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Some points
by google_ninja on Wed 7th Nov 2007 18:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Some points"
google_ninja
Member since:
2006-02-05

Also, even with training, IIRC Apple (or someone else) showed that because there's a high probability that the user will overshoot their intended target, they automatically slow down their mouse movements, to the point where the time taken to move the shorter distance (compared to the global menu on the side of the screen) actually increases: thus, it still matters for actual speed: the only thing that changes is user's perception of whether it's faster to have a localized menubar or a global menubar.


Pretty sure you read that from Bruce Tognazzini's askTog site, I know thats where I did ;-)

On top of that, according to Jeff Raskin's "The Humane Interface", the brain uses a measurable amount of energy when using a user interface (something we can't accurately or safely measure yet, but still). He says that the amount of brain power required to operate any given interface is an indication of how well it is designed, something that forces the mind to work in ways it doesn't handle well will take more energy, and something designed with cognative psychology in mind will take less.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 3

RE[3]: Some points
by sbergman27 on Wed 7th Nov 2007 19:52 in reply to "RE[2]: Some points"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
On top of that, according to Jeff Raskin's "The Humane Interface", the brain uses a measurable amount of energy when using a user interface (something we can't accurately or safely measure yet, but still).
"""

So we may someday rate interface ergonomics in clicks per gallon of glucose? (Yes, I dare say that we in the U.S will still be using gallons, pints, and onces at that time.)

Gnome gets X CPG? Windows Seven gets Y CPG?

YMMV, of course. ;-)

Edited 2007-11-07 19:53

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 2

RE[4]: Some points
by hobgoblin on Thu 8th Nov 2007 00:26 in reply to "RE[3]: Some points"
hobgoblin Member since:
2005-07-06

only US citizens would have their glucose usage measured in gallons (or liters for that matter) ;)

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 5