5 ms·

I really don't get the confusion about clicking. For me, right-click as used in Windows and KDE (at least KDE3) enabled a massive amount of ignorance. I never

by dkarl 16y ago

I really don't get the confusion about clicking. For me, right-click as used in Windows and KDE (at least KDE3) enabled a massive amount of ignorance. I never know how to do anything and it doesn't matter. Want to know what something does and what you can do to it? Right-click and look at the context menu. Left-click doesn't do what you expect? Right-click and look for the command you want. I swear that's all I ever knew about KDE3, and it was almost always enough. It usually works in Windows, too. Just right-click! But, I tried to teach my mom about that, and it just never took. "How do I do open this file with a different program?" "Did you try right-clicking on the icon?" "Oh, there's the 'open with' command." "Always try right-clicking. Right-clicking is magic!" "Okay, I'll try that next time." "I'm not kidding! Write it down! It's magic!" Two days later, "How do I rename a file on my desktop?" I really don't understand how it's a mind-blowing concept. There are only two buttons on the mouse. (That she knows of.) She uses the mouse every day! She knows how to use more than two buttons on her camera, and she uses her camera once a month. I just don't get it. Why are the buttons on the mouse harder than the ones on the camera? Even weirder is that she is capable of learning a lot of specific tasks. She learned how to "Open With" and how to "Rename"; it's been a long time since I had to help her with stuff like that. To me, it seems easier to remember the single rule, "Right click and look at the context menu," than to learn all those specific tasks without understanding the general rule.

dkarl 16y ago
Who the hell down-mods honest confusion? If it's so obvious, then you try explaining it.
megablast 16y ago
So you don't understand that someone who was never bought up with computers, big screens, or even buttons can get confused with new technology? What I don't understand is all the people who haven't quite grasped the fact that people are different, and think about the world differently. While right clicking would be second nature to many of us, a lot of people still don't "get" computers, and a lot of what happens is magic to them.
- dkarl 16y ago
  What's the distinction, though? What's the difference between right-click and all the other things she can do? She can work her digital camera. She can work her cell phone. (She even sends text messages now!) She can work the DVD player, the TV, and her fax machine. She even managed to program her VCR to record shows a few times back in the days when programming a VCR was a real accomplishment. Also, she considered majoring in math in college and became a high school math teacher in her forties, so she's never been averse to abstract thinking. (It also proves she can work a graphing calculator.) She's had Windows in the house since 3.1, and before that we had an Apple IIgs, which had a GUI finder and other mouse-centric apps. So what's the distinction? To say that people who came to computers late have trouble with stuff is an observation, not an explanation.
  - preek 16y ago
    There's no point in denying the fact they have trouble, though. If a similar group of people keep having trouble with the same interface of a user application, then the usability is just plain bad. It's not the fault of the users, it's the design's fault. Don't get me wrong, I feel with you, though. I don't want to count my problems explaing the concept to beginners^
    - Tichy 16y ago
      Or maybe they are just not motivated enough and like a good excuse for not having to do stuff? "Strategic Incompetence" is an amazing concept :-)
      - preek 16y ago
        I wouldn't say that, Tichy. If people buy a computer for their homes, they are motivated to learn new things. If it doesn't work out for them, they certainly could manage with more motivation. But so could anyone achieve a BSc. Everyone with a BSc could have an MSc. All having a MSc should be working on their PHD. You get the idea. If you can go one step, you _could_ always take two. Sometimes you don't want to go that extra step, because there's not enough ROI. And sometimes you don't need to, because it was a design flaw.
Charuru 16y ago
You sound really condescending. I'm sure she'll eventually get it if you keep telling her. Also if you don't tell her, she might figure it out on her own, maybe she keeps asking you because you're too available? :D
what 16y ago
People just need to play some Minesweeper and they'll learn about the existence of right click. That's why Minesweeper was created, isn't it?
- Tichy 16y ago
  In Germany we also had this game called "Moorhuhnjagd".
- sambeau 16y ago
  I have to say that I have watched many people play minesweeper without the right click. In fact it was a while before I realised that you could leave little flags by right clicking and I still rarely do it today if I'm playing.
  - what 16y ago
    So have I, actually. Many people also don't know about clicking with both left and right buttons simultaneously. If you do it on a square that has all of it's flags set, it clicks all other unclicked squares around it.
    - sesqu 16y ago
      This is very nearly the only reason I ever used flags. It took me a while to accidentally flag something, then a tiny bit more to discover how to unflag. Fast forward quite a while, and I discovered the auto-sweep, and now use it nearly exclusively (way harder to misclick that way).
preek 16y ago
My personal opinion is that clicking with the mouse is a flawed design. This makes it hard for beginners. Why would you need to double click to start an application on your desktop while you only need one while you're in your webbrowser? But even more so, I believe that the concept of files is hard to grasp for a real beginner. Modern applications (like Google Docs, Evernote, ..) do not use them at all. The concept of "content" of a certain application is a lot easier to understand. Take the iPhone for example, there's no files at all (for the enduser). There's no need to "rename", to "open with another application". Does this infuse aggrevation in developers because they feel drained of power? Yes, of course! But those are devices created to be used, not to configured.
- Tichy 16y ago
  Files are useful if you want to share data between applications. I thought about it just today - maybe they could just be seen as the most general interface (a blob of bytes, basically). I suppose Apple & Co want to replace that by handlers and plugins - want to send a photo by email? Either you need an email plugin for iPhoto, or an iPhoto plugin for your email program (and how does it work if you use a web based email program?). I don't think this approach will scale well in the long run (there are a lot of file types...). The iPhone is a bad example - I suspect in the long run apps just don't interact enough, which is why they will be superseded by web apps again. They are just good for isolated use cases.
  - preek 16y ago
    Isolated use cases is just what the average user needs. He doesn't want to be distracted by "byte blobs" and "program interaction". Do one thing and do that well, I say.
    - Tichy 16y ago
      The thing is, I am often very confused when I want to do things on a Mac. Maybe it is just because I am used to the old fashioned way of just attaching a file to my email. Like with the right click, files always work the same way. Unless every app comes from Apple (which is probably their goal), not all apps will adhere to my expectations in the same way. And even Apple will probably have a hard time to pull it off. Some tasks simply are complicated by nature. I don't think all use cases are isolated. For example mailing an image is not an isolated use case (or rather, would it really be less confusing to have different apps for mailing images and mailing text?).
adw 16y ago
The mouse is an unnatural abstraction. Just because it was better than everything else at the time - and it was - doesn't make it anything other than a spooky indirection. We get this kind of thing because our superpower is dealing with spooky indirections and weird abstractions. We are not normal.
- Tichy 16y ago
  What is better than the mouse, though? Touchscreens probably only work in your lap, which is not the most ergonomic position for the majority of work. Touchscreens on a monitor are probably too straining since you would have to hold your hand upright all the time. Not saying the mouse is forever, but I don't yet see the better alternative available for the mass market (maybe those brain wave scanners?).
  - dkersten 16y ago
    Touchscreens on an upright monitor would be too straining on your arms as you hold them up. Touchscreens placed flat would be too straining on your neck as you look down. Finally, your hands get in the wa of the screen. Theres plenty of reasons not to prefer touchscreens as an all-purpose input device (though I DO like touchscreens...). PS: Yesterday, I used an ipad for the first time. It left a pretty good impression. Yes, it has the hands-in-the-way problem and I wouldn't want to type on it for too long, but as an I can use it to read stuff and interact with it quickly with my hands when I need to device, it seems to work very well.
  - adw 16y ago
    This is a case where, I reckon, if the mouse is the answer, we're asking the wrong question. What's better than the mouse? Not shoehorning everything we want to do with computing into the form factor of "a computer". OK, this is going off into left field, and I really should blog this, but take the iPad. For what the iPad does - video watching, web browsing, reading extended text, certain classes of creative apps (eg http://hexler.net/software/touchosc http://hexler.net/software/touchosc) - it's easily the best thing on the market. It's the best Web content consumption device anyone's produced, ever, hands down, which means it's the best television and printing press ever produced. But it's not a general-purpose computer. In fact, it's those things because it's not a general-purpose computer. It's in the notebook niche, and by that I don't mean clamshell, I mean spiral-bound; it's the nearest we've yet got to technological paper. If it tried to be a general-purpose computer, it would be much less good at the things it's good at. That points to the ugly truth of our industry - and let's face it, it's something we all know in our hearts: General-purpose computers suck. They really do. They're a kludge. They're a set of dodgy tradeoffs, due to economic and technical limitations. They're unintuitive and fragile. They're expensive. They're rapidly obsolescent. The computer I want to use for programming isn't the same as the research-and-content device I want to use for writing isn't the same as the piano-keyboard-and-touch-screen-and-dials device I'd want for writing music isn't the same as the book-a-like I want to read on before I go to sleep. One device can't be good at all these things. When it comes down to it, the mouse is a hack to make a general-purpose computer sort of acceptable for many of these things. It's a genius hack, but it's a hack.
zandorg 16y ago
I realised the web browser (from Netscape onwards) is easy to use mainly because of the mouse cursor changing to a hand when it hovers over a link. Or a text thingy hovering over an input form. Without the mouse changing cursor, you wouldn't know what was what...
Tichy 16y ago
Same here - it is really just one rule to remember, instant PC expert. That is also why I don't understand everybody raving about Macs. Macs are not consistent with the second mouse button rule (they used to have only one button), therefore there is no way to become an instant expert on a Mac. I always hate using a Mac because it makes me feel so helpless. My mother learned the second mouse button rule after a while, btw. Don't give up :-)
- dkersten 16y ago
  And even if they only have one button, they still have the command+click combo (which, IMHO, is much more complicated than simply having a second dedicated click button).
  - Tichy 16y ago
    command+click is horrible, as are the overhyped gestures. There is no way to accidentally discover them. For several weeks I had to Google whenever I wanted to rename a file on my Mac. I still have to Google for the key combination for showing the desktop (cmd+some function key, but there are 12 function keys).
    - preek 16y ago
      Just hit enter when you clicked on a file. That's the same F2 does in Windows. Just the enter button is closer to regular use than F2. As to showing the desktop: FN+F11. But you can configure that in System Preferences -> Exposé and Spaces. Easy enough. I use it every day. Besides you're a linux guy. You should take a look at the visor terminal (visor.binaryage.com). It enables a Quake2 like terminal via hotkey all the time. That's a great productivity booster!
      - Tichy 16y ago
        I can not remember cmd+f11 (my guess would have been f3). I don't use it often enough. I can remember the little button next to the start menu that looks like the desktop. I can remember to try second mouse button when I want to do something special with a file. Key combinations are impossible to discover by exploration. With the right mouse button, you can solve every problem by exploration.
sirn 16y ago
This is something I noticed when teaching my dad to use a computer; when I said "right" click, he always press the button with his index finger and will continue to do so until I tell him he have to press using the middle finger. So my guess is, it has something to do with the fact that people are used to using their index finger to press something. Multiple buttons on digital camera are pressed using the index finger. Buttons on a TV remote are pressed using the index finger. Right click? Press the button? The intuition kicks in, and the index finger is used. The "right click" that involves alternate pressing apart from what they are used to do so daily might be unfamiliar concept to those people. A vague, unfamiliar concept that is not intuitive to them are more likely to be forgotten. However, a set of rules for a specific task might be easier to remember even though it is unintuitive. A radio dashboard, for example.
glhaynes 16y ago
I identify with you to a great degree: I have to work to imagine how mousing could be hard. Nevertheless: none of our bafflement changes in the slightest way the fact that there are people who are, indeed, so baffled. It delights them to use something that doesn't baffle them. And that delights me.
- dkarl 16y ago
  I don't disagree at all, and I'm mystified why everybody assumes that just because I show a little frustration on a message board with other techies, I must be bent on haranguing users into compliance. I feel a little vindicated by the fact that people have suggested several different explanations here, none of which seem to be universally accepted. Is the mouse unnatural? Are abstractly-minded (with respect to computers) people different from concretely-minded people? Is it a matter of being exposed at a young age? I think there are credible objects to each of these arguments. For instance, the first suggestion, that the mouse is simply unnatural, doesn't account for variation among users, and it's only a constructive criticism to the extent that it stimulates development of superior alternatives. The second suggestion is circular, because "abstract-mindedness" in this context doesn't seem to correlate with any other measure of abstract-mindedness. Are mathematicians or physicists naturally better at right-clicking than salesmen or physical therapists? That doesn't seem to be true, at least among folks who are middle-aged and older. The third suggestion implies that usability problems with well-designed WIMPy interfaces are a historical blip that will naturally disappear unless there's sustained radical innovation in interaction technologies and UI paradigms. I could believe that, but some people strongly believe otherwise. If a single one of these is responsible for the bulk of the difference between me and my mom, then conclusions can be drawn about the future of user interfaces. If the mouse is unnatural, problems will persist until someone invents a superior replacement. If abstractly-minded people are different from concretely-minded people, a way will have to be devised to cater to both. If it's a matter of early exposure, then there are usability generations washing slowly through dimensions of class, culture, age, and geography, and different usability guidelines apply to different generations. It's an interesting question to think about, especially since new form factors have created more room for innovation. Right now, less complexity seems to be the wave of the future. It will be interesting if a new form factor emerges to prove that people can comfortably handle more complexity than current technology allows them to.

by dkarl 16y ago

dkarl 16y ago

Who the hell down-mods honest confusion? If it's so obvious, then you try explaining it.

megablast 16y ago

So you don't understand that someone who was never bought up with computers, big screens, or even buttons can get confused with new technology? What I don't understand is all the people who haven't quite grasped the fact that people are different, and think about the world differently. While right clicking would be second nature to many of us, a lot of people still don't "get" computers, and a lot of what happens is magic to them.

dkarl 16y ago
What's the distinction, though? What's the difference between right-click and all the other things she can do? She can work her digital camera. She can work her cell phone. (She even sends text messages now!) She can work the DVD player, the TV, and her fax machine. She even managed to program her VCR to record shows a few times back in the days when programming a VCR was a real accomplishment. Also, she considered majoring in math in college and became a high school math teacher in her forties, so she's never been averse to abstract thinking. (It also proves she can work a graphing calculator.) She's had Windows in the house since 3.1, and before that we had an Apple IIgs, which had a GUI finder and other mouse-centric apps. So what's the distinction? To say that people who came to computers late have trouble with stuff is an observation, not an explanation.
- preek 16y ago
  There's no point in denying the fact they have trouble, though. If a similar group of people keep having trouble with the same interface of a user application, then the usability is just plain bad. It's not the fault of the users, it's the design's fault. Don't get me wrong, I feel with you, though. I don't want to count my problems explaing the concept to beginners^
  - Tichy 16y ago
    Or maybe they are just not motivated enough and like a good excuse for not having to do stuff? "Strategic Incompetence" is an amazing concept :-)
    - preek 16y ago
      I wouldn't say that, Tichy. If people buy a computer for their homes, they are motivated to learn new things. If it doesn't work out for them, they certainly could manage with more motivation. But so could anyone achieve a BSc. Everyone with a BSc could have an MSc. All having a MSc should be working on their PHD. You get the idea. If you can go one step, you _could_ always take two. Sometimes you don't want to go that extra step, because there's not enough ROI. And sometimes you don't need to, because it was a design flaw.

Charuru 16y ago

You sound really condescending. I'm sure she'll eventually get it if you keep telling her. Also if you don't tell her, she might figure it out on her own, maybe she keeps asking you because you're too available? :D

what 16y ago

People just need to play some Minesweeper and they'll learn about the existence of right click. That's why Minesweeper was created, isn't it?

Tichy 16y ago
In Germany we also had this game called "Moorhuhnjagd".
sambeau 16y ago
I have to say that I have watched many people play minesweeper without the right click. In fact it was a while before I realised that you could leave little flags by right clicking and I still rarely do it today if I'm playing.
- what 16y ago
  So have I, actually. Many people also don't know about clicking with both left and right buttons simultaneously. If you do it on a square that has all of it's flags set, it clicks all other unclicked squares around it.
  - sesqu 16y ago
    This is very nearly the only reason I ever used flags. It took me a while to accidentally flag something, then a tiny bit more to discover how to unflag. Fast forward quite a while, and I discovered the auto-sweep, and now use it nearly exclusively (way harder to misclick that way).

preek 16y ago

My personal opinion is that clicking with the mouse is a flawed design. This makes it hard for beginners. Why would you need to double click to start an application on your desktop while you only need one while you're in your webbrowser? But even more so, I believe that the concept of files is hard to grasp for a real beginner. Modern applications (like Google Docs, Evernote, ..) do not use them at all. The concept of "content" of a certain application is a lot easier to understand. Take the iPhone for example, there's no files at all (for the enduser). There's no need to "rename", to "open with another application". Does this infuse aggrevation in developers because they feel drained of power? Yes, of course! But those are devices created to be used, not to configured.

Tichy 16y ago
Files are useful if you want to share data between applications. I thought about it just today - maybe they could just be seen as the most general interface (a blob of bytes, basically). I suppose Apple & Co want to replace that by handlers and plugins - want to send a photo by email? Either you need an email plugin for iPhoto, or an iPhoto plugin for your email program (and how does it work if you use a web based email program?). I don't think this approach will scale well in the long run (there are a lot of file types...). The iPhone is a bad example - I suspect in the long run apps just don't interact enough, which is why they will be superseded by web apps again. They are just good for isolated use cases.
- preek 16y ago
  Isolated use cases is just what the average user needs. He doesn't want to be distracted by "byte blobs" and "program interaction". Do one thing and do that well, I say.
  - Tichy 16y ago
    The thing is, I am often very confused when I want to do things on a Mac. Maybe it is just because I am used to the old fashioned way of just attaching a file to my email. Like with the right click, files always work the same way. Unless every app comes from Apple (which is probably their goal), not all apps will adhere to my expectations in the same way. And even Apple will probably have a hard time to pull it off. Some tasks simply are complicated by nature. I don't think all use cases are isolated. For example mailing an image is not an isolated use case (or rather, would it really be less confusing to have different apps for mailing images and mailing text?).

adw 16y ago

The mouse is an unnatural abstraction. Just because it was better than everything else at the time - and it was - doesn't make it anything other than a spooky indirection. We get this kind of thing because our superpower is dealing with spooky indirections and weird abstractions. We are not normal.

Tichy 16y ago
What is better than the mouse, though? Touchscreens probably only work in your lap, which is not the most ergonomic position for the majority of work. Touchscreens on a monitor are probably too straining since you would have to hold your hand upright all the time. Not saying the mouse is forever, but I don't yet see the better alternative available for the mass market (maybe those brain wave scanners?).
- dkersten 16y ago
  Touchscreens on an upright monitor would be too straining on your arms as you hold them up. Touchscreens placed flat would be too straining on your neck as you look down. Finally, your hands get in the wa of the screen. Theres plenty of reasons not to prefer touchscreens as an all-purpose input device (though I DO like touchscreens...). PS: Yesterday, I used an ipad for the first time. It left a pretty good impression. Yes, it has the hands-in-the-way problem and I wouldn't want to type on it for too long, but as an I can use it to read stuff and interact with it quickly with my hands when I need to device, it seems to work very well.
- adw 16y ago
  This is a case where, I reckon, if the mouse is the answer, we're asking the wrong question. What's better than the mouse? Not shoehorning everything we want to do with computing into the form factor of "a computer". OK, this is going off into left field, and I really should blog this, but take the iPad. For what the iPad does - video watching, web browsing, reading extended text, certain classes of creative apps (eg http://hexler.net/software/touchosc http://hexler.net/software/touchosc) - it's easily the best thing on the market. It's the best Web content consumption device anyone's produced, ever, hands down, which means it's the best television and printing press ever produced. But it's not a general-purpose computer. In fact, it's those things because it's not a general-purpose computer. It's in the notebook niche, and by that I don't mean clamshell, I mean spiral-bound; it's the nearest we've yet got to technological paper. If it tried to be a general-purpose computer, it would be much less good at the things it's good at. That points to the ugly truth of our industry - and let's face it, it's something we all know in our hearts: General-purpose computers suck. They really do. They're a kludge. They're a set of dodgy tradeoffs, due to economic and technical limitations. They're unintuitive and fragile. They're expensive. They're rapidly obsolescent. The computer I want to use for programming isn't the same as the research-and-content device I want to use for writing isn't the same as the piano-keyboard-and-touch-screen-and-dials device I'd want for writing music isn't the same as the book-a-like I want to read on before I go to sleep. One device can't be good at all these things. When it comes down to it, the mouse is a hack to make a general-purpose computer sort of acceptable for many of these things. It's a genius hack, but it's a hack.

zandorg 16y ago

I realised the web browser (from Netscape onwards) is easy to use mainly because of the mouse cursor changing to a hand when it hovers over a link. Or a text thingy hovering over an input form. Without the mouse changing cursor, you wouldn't know what was what...

Tichy 16y ago

Same here - it is really just one rule to remember, instant PC expert. That is also why I don't understand everybody raving about Macs. Macs are not consistent with the second mouse button rule (they used to have only one button), therefore there is no way to become an instant expert on a Mac. I always hate using a Mac because it makes me feel so helpless. My mother learned the second mouse button rule after a while, btw. Don't give up :-)

dkersten 16y ago
And even if they only have one button, they still have the command+click combo (which, IMHO, is much more complicated than simply having a second dedicated click button).
- Tichy 16y ago
  command+click is horrible, as are the overhyped gestures. There is no way to accidentally discover them. For several weeks I had to Google whenever I wanted to rename a file on my Mac. I still have to Google for the key combination for showing the desktop (cmd+some function key, but there are 12 function keys).
  - preek 16y ago
    Just hit enter when you clicked on a file. That's the same F2 does in Windows. Just the enter button is closer to regular use than F2. As to showing the desktop: FN+F11. But you can configure that in System Preferences -> Exposé and Spaces. Easy enough. I use it every day. Besides you're a linux guy. You should take a look at the visor terminal (visor.binaryage.com). It enables a Quake2 like terminal via hotkey all the time. That's a great productivity booster!
    - Tichy 16y ago
      I can not remember cmd+f11 (my guess would have been f3). I don't use it often enough. I can remember the little button next to the start menu that looks like the desktop. I can remember to try second mouse button when I want to do something special with a file. Key combinations are impossible to discover by exploration. With the right mouse button, you can solve every problem by exploration.

sirn 16y ago

This is something I noticed when teaching my dad to use a computer; when I said "right" click, he always press the button with his index finger and will continue to do so until I tell him he have to press using the middle finger. So my guess is, it has something to do with the fact that people are used to using their index finger to press something. Multiple buttons on digital camera are pressed using the index finger. Buttons on a TV remote are pressed using the index finger. Right click? Press the button? The intuition kicks in, and the index finger is used. The "right click" that involves alternate pressing apart from what they are used to do so daily might be unfamiliar concept to those people. A vague, unfamiliar concept that is not intuitive to them are more likely to be forgotten. However, a set of rules for a specific task might be easier to remember even though it is unintuitive. A radio dashboard, for example.

glhaynes 16y ago

I identify with you to a great degree: I have to work to imagine how mousing could be hard. Nevertheless: none of our bafflement changes in the slightest way the fact that there are people who are, indeed, so baffled. It delights them to use something that doesn't baffle them. And that delights me.

dkarl 16y ago
I don't disagree at all, and I'm mystified why everybody assumes that just because I show a little frustration on a message board with other techies, I must be bent on haranguing users into compliance. I feel a little vindicated by the fact that people have suggested several different explanations here, none of which seem to be universally accepted. Is the mouse unnatural? Are abstractly-minded (with respect to computers) people different from concretely-minded people? Is it a matter of being exposed at a young age? I think there are credible objects to each of these arguments. For instance, the first suggestion, that the mouse is simply unnatural, doesn't account for variation among users, and it's only a constructive criticism to the extent that it stimulates development of superior alternatives. The second suggestion is circular, because "abstract-mindedness" in this context doesn't seem to correlate with any other measure of abstract-mindedness. Are mathematicians or physicists naturally better at right-clicking than salesmen or physical therapists? That doesn't seem to be true, at least among folks who are middle-aged and older. The third suggestion implies that usability problems with well-designed WIMPy interfaces are a historical blip that will naturally disappear unless there's sustained radical innovation in interaction technologies and UI paradigms. I could believe that, but some people strongly believe otherwise. If a single one of these is responsible for the bulk of the difference between me and my mom, then conclusions can be drawn about the future of user interfaces. If the mouse is unnatural, problems will persist until someone invents a superior replacement. If abstractly-minded people are different from concretely-minded people, a way will have to be devised to cater to both. If it's a matter of early exposure, then there are usability generations washing slowly through dimensions of class, culture, age, and geography, and different usability guidelines apply to different generations. It's an interesting question to think about, especially since new form factors have created more room for innovation. Right now, less complexity seems to be the wave of the future. It will be interesting if a new form factor emerges to prove that people can comfortably handle more complexity than current technology allows them to.