Re: Options and choises rant

[Dennis Leeuw]

Riccardo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sunday, January 15, 2006, at 11:28 AM, Dennis Leeuw wrote:
>
> > Maybe the less is more idea should be more often used. Maybe the idea 
> > should be that a menu should be not longer then 10 entries, next to 
> > being not deeper then 3 menus. How do others on this list view this? 
> > Have other people experiences with users and how programs are percieved?
>
>
> I understand your concern. I would not however change GNUMail opr other 
> programs and DARE NOT make a program act in both "simple" and "advanced" 
> mode. that is the most stupid thing ever done (see the auto-hiding items 
> in windows menu).

Its not so much that I want to change GNUMail..., its just the example I 
know best of a long menu list which illustrates what I meant.

> I think that for your needs, a new application needs to be conceived 
> from ground up, Possibly with having all the settings "set once and 
> forget" and requiring only a couple of menus/buttons for daily work, in 
> places clearly visible and with self-explaining names. But not thinking 
> about a "dumb" user how windows and gnome approach and entangling 
> everything, but more with the thought about a user "who doesn't care to 
> get in the detail".

Excelent description! That's exactly what I mean. My dad is not dumb, he 
just doesn't care. And that is what I often see with users. They don't care.

> I want a remote control with a channel selector, volume control and a 
> power button... and nothing more. Think of i-pod like design or, in the 
> past, Agfa digital cameras (push the red button).

That was exactly what I was thinking about, the iPod design, but I also 
recongnize the need for people to have control (esp. on a system that is 
used for development).
So I was wondering how the two could work together. Creating another 
application for other users seems like an option, but it again creates 
more choice.

> I think instead of my VCR remote, which has two, levels, you can open a 
> first "level" and underneath you have a maze of technical buttons... the 
> idea seems nice like those "simple/expert" computer interfaces, but if 
> you sometimes need to access a button which is not on the first level 
> (and you do sometimes, because of the design of the device is both 
> advanced and easy) you get even more lost than it would be normally in 
> the maze of technical, strange and unusual buttons.

But isn't that just a lack of structuring. I think most humans can 
understand very complex things if the structure is right. Meaning there 
has to be some simple logic, like an Advanced tab. Although the name 
advanced is complely wrong, because it doesn't say what it means.
And that is in my opinion the problem with the simple/expert choice. Who 
decides what is an expert option.

Lets take GNUMail again as an example (because it has an Expert button 
for configuration, that also addes an Advanced option). Here I think 
that more would be better. Regrouping the functions in a more logical 
structure would prevent exactly the confusion you describe.

The fact that there is an Expert mode creates the need for a manual. Its 
not always the need for less but more a call for thinking from, what you 
put so beautifuly, from a users point of view, when the user doesn't care.

With the replies I received think it might even be more about structure. 
Create a clean simpel menu (which should be less) and use the right 
popup panels for certain features that request more then simpel input.

As I expected this is more complex then it initially looked like.

Thanks for your input.

Dennis


--
"It is not necessary to change.
 After all, survival is not mandatory."
        Dr. W. Edwards Deming