Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 18th Nov 2007 15:46 UTC
Graphics, User Interfaces This is the sixth article in a series on common usability and graphical user interface related terms [part I | part II | part III | part IV | part V]. 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 VI, we focus on the dock.
Thread beginning with comment 286087
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: @google_ninja
by tupp on Fri 23rd Nov 2007 12:56 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: @google_ninja "
tupp
Member since:
2006-11-12

"I see. You only give credence to real world cases, such as your usability "tests." "
Pay the money and I might trouble seeking them again, otherwise why bother? It's you loosing anyway... (as it was a 2s search I will give you it freely: http://www.asktog.com/columns/022DesignedToGiveFitts.html )


Well. You certainly linked to a page that I haven't seen a zillion times already.

You call this a usability "test." This is just Bruce Tognazzini ranting about basic concepts (and acting like he is the gui god).


Since when Xerox had went mainstream?

Yes. Xerox is a corporate cult. It has never been mainstream.


I was talking about implementations that real people used along with tons of apps

The Xerox Alto, Star and the Three Rivers PERQ were used by robots? And now you are claiming that the Apple Lisa and the original Mac had more applications than the Alto or the Star or the PERQ?


I do know that either Mac and Amiga GUIs were way ahead functionality wise then of Xerox that were mainly Primitives of GUI, concepts...

You know that? I don't. Please explain exactly how the original Mac and Amiga guis were more advanced functionality-wise than the Star (or the PERQ).


It would win against a single pixel randomly placed on the center of the screen.

It probably would. However, you challenged the assertion that a target isn't easy to hit just because it is on the top edge of the screen.


What relevance has one pixel whatsoever on the screen when there's NO implementation relying on it? It has no relevance whatsoever, by being right what exactly is your point?

It has relevance in that it will: debunk the common, Mac fanboy notion that the screen-edge is a "magical Fitts' Law wonderland," in and of itself; prove that you are wrong; and put an extra US$1000 into my bank account. I can create the implementation.

I am right, that is why you are balking.

By the way, here is an excerpt from the answer to question #9 in the Tognazzini quiz: "The farther away the target is, the larger it must be to retain access speed." So, my assertion about the importance of target size is correct, even according to the ranting, Mac fanboy usability guru that you cite.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[9]: @google_ninja
by Pixie on Fri 23rd Nov 2007 13:39 in reply to "RE[8]: @google_ninja "
Pixie Member since:
2005-09-30

"You call this a usability "test." This is just Bruce Tognazzini ranting about basic concepts (and acting like he is the gui god). "
I don't call it, I called it a 2s search...

"The Xerox Alto, Star and the Three Rivers PERQ were used by robots? And now you are claiming that the Apple Lisa and the original Mac had more applications than the Alto or the Star or the PERQ?

You know that? I don't. Please explain exactly how the original Mac and Amiga guis were more advanced functionality-wise than the Star (or the PERQ). "

You know what a primitive is? I haven't called xerox primitive, the core is there, but where's the thousand of apps that both Amiga and MacOS has? I though so...

"It probably would. However, you challenged the assertion that a target isn't easy to hit just because it is on the top edge of the screen. "
The only single pixels implementations on gui are the corners, the menu isn't 1 pixel wide, case dismissed, back to your little cave now...

"It has relevance in that it will: debunk the common, Mac fanboy notion that the screen-edge is a "magical Fitts' Law wonderland," in and of itself; prove that you are wrong; and put an extra US$1000 into my bank account. I can create the implementation."
It has none relevance whatsoever, why not calling a zero pixel then, it as as much relevance... it prove if anything that hitting a single pixel is difficult by itself.

"By the way, here is an excerpt from the answer to question #9 in the Tognazzini quiz: "The farther away the target is, the larger it must be to retain access speed." So, my assertion about the importance of target size is correct, even according to the ranting, Mac fanboy usability guru that you cite."
It's always easier to target an known entity then it is to target a changing one. I don't know who that guys is, although I had seen this article in the past, obviously Google has him in pretty much good consideration as he was amongst the first on the search I had done.

Reply Parent Score: 1