Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 13th Nov 2007 16:32 UTC
The past few weeks, as you surely have noticed, I have written a few articles on various usability terms [part I | part II | part III | part IV | part V]. I explain what they mean, their origins, as well as their implications for graphical user interface design. Even though the series is far from over, I would like to offer a bit more insight into why I am diving into these subjects.
Thread beginning with comment 284268
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-05-12
Member since:2006-01-28
Member since:2007-04-29
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2006-05-26
You go into all this introduction about what you're talking about, and then you explain almost nothing! For shame!
Have you thought of going into writing serials, cliffhangers, etc.?
It's very hard to comment on the meat of the article when all that's there is the appetizer, but yes, I could have told you years ago, change for the sake of change in a GUI isn't well-received, and I admit to being one of them: when Windows XP came out with the Luna(tic) interface, I immediately switched it to Windows Classic decor, because it worked perfectly fine, amongst other things. That, and I got the impression that it was faster that way, compared to the newer GUI, and whether that is/was true or not (I wasn't using the latest video card) that was the perception, and really, all that seems to be most important to users about a GUI is perception, until you actually do objective studies with users and a stopwatch.