7 ms·
> Remember that software isn't intuitive, but familiar: Well put. In practice, largely correct. But literally minded me wants software also to be DOCUMENTED.
by graycat 10y ago
> Remember that software isn't intuitive, but familiar:
Well put. In practice, largely correct. But literally minded me wants software also to be DOCUMENTED. E.g., at my Web site, each page has a link Help that explains the page hopefully in simple but clear terms.
But, wait, there's more:
At my Web site, also
a user never has to try to guess what an icon does -- there are no icons. Civilizations had lots of icons, and eventually we got the Roman alphabet which I believe is a huge step forward. So, for links I just use words in the Roman alphabet.
The pages never do anything sudden, e.g., cover up what a user is reading with a pull-down, pop-up, or roll-over -- there aren't any.
For your
> Remember that software isn't intuitive, but familiar:
I do exploit that: The pages all use just the simplest, old HTML, and I've written not even a single line of JavaScript (JS). Microsoft's ASP.NET has a little standard JS for me, maybe having to do with positioning the cursor or some such. But, really, all the pages just use the most standard and elementary HTML controls 2+ billion people already know very well.
For more, the fonts are all relatively large, say, 24 pixels high. The colors all have high contrast, and the 25% of men who are partially red-green color blind will still do just fine.
There is just one Web site with just one user interface (UI), the same for workstations, desktop, laptops, tablets, pads, smartphones, watches, Dick Tracy's watch, Flash Gordon's magic decoder rings, and any toys in Cracker Jacks boxes that can run a Web browser up to date as of about 10 years ago.
Each Web page is exactly 800 pixels wide. The layout is not by HTML div elements but by tables and is always the same for all users.
There are always both vertical and horizontal scroll bars, and the pages should still be usable in a window as narrow as 300 pixels.
For more, how the UI works is simple and intuitive, so much so a 7 year old with a cheap smartphone and who knows no English (the text is all in very simple English with no alternatives) should be able to do fine with three minutes of instruction or 15 minutes of experimentation.
So, one of my key thoughts was
to exploit for basic HTML just your
> Remember that software isn't intuitive, but familiar:
So, I stayed with just the simplest HTML knowing that 2+ billion people were then already quite "familiar".
Where can one see my Web site? At present nowhere! Since just now my development computer is sick from data corruption, e.g., crucial parts of Microsoft's .NET are not available to my software, my software won't run even on my development computer. Right, bummer.
But I've put together a nice list of parts for a new development computer also powerful enough for a good, first Web server for my Web site. Intend to order the parts and plug them together soon! Then I'll get the software and data on the new computer, make some tweaks in the code I have in mind, load a lot of data, and go live.
- dmsnell 10y ago> there are no icons. Civilizations had lots of icons, and eventually we got the Roman alphabet which I believe is a huge step forward. So, for links I just use words in the Roman alphabet icons continue to be a form of universal language around the world for helping people to navigate where they need to go: this way to the bathroom, that bathroom has changing table, no smoking in this area, stop!, play/pause, radioactive, scald-danger, tent-camping, etc… they don't communicate without ambiguity but they do serve a very functional and well-appreciated purpose for rapidly communicating information which would otherwise require more words and more thought. adopting familiar icons around a website and providing a way to remove any ambiguity can enhance the experience; eliminating them altogether is somewhat of an overreaction
- kiriakasis 10y ago>adopting familiar icons around a website and providing a way to remove any ambiguity can enhance the experience; eliminating them altogether is somewhat of an overreaction I think that was the point was that icons familiar to almost everybody are quite rare on the internet. Maybe no icons at all may be excessive but from personal taste I find layout and grouping clearer than icons in complex UI.
- jcranmer 10y agoThe advantage of iconography is that it doesn't require to you use a single language. Many signs in the US, which is largely monolingual, tend to be very wordy. In places like Canada, where bilingualism is mandatory, it's easier to do a cigarette with the red slash through it rather than have two signs, one that says "NO SMOKING" and the other "PAS DE FUMER" (that said, they sometimes do have the latter situation). It's fairly well known that a lot of iconography is actually poorly understood without prior specific instruction. Do you know what this road sign means: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/Zeichen_269.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/Zeichen_... ? How about this one: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/Chile_road_sign_PE-8.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/Chile_ro... ?
- 10y ago