4 ms·

> The computer is there to automate repetitive tasks, not create virtual busywork. The GUI eliminated the busy work of setting up your environment to make your

by shawnz 8y ago

> The computer is there to automate repetitive tasks, not create virtual busywork. The GUI eliminated the busy work of setting up your environment to make your workflows easy. It instead provides an environment where a wide variety of workflows are easy by default, although maybe not as easy as they could be with specific configuration like setting up customized keybindings, etc.

TeMPOraL 8y ago
Easy but time consuming. I.e. not ergonomic. Also point&click UIs tend to sacrifice composability, whereas keyboard-driven interfaces tend to allow to chain operations and modifiers in a way that makes it ergonomically cover much larger space of possible workflows.
- shawnz 8y ago
  > Easy but time consuming But learning is time consuming, too. Keyboard-driven interfaces can be more efficient but they are not discoverable. Maybe keyboard-driven interfaces make sense for the domain specific tasks that you do every day, but would you want a keyboard-driven interface for every random website you come across?
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    > would you want a keyboard-driven interface for every random website you come across? Definitely, no. But you can have both at the same time; in fact, in 90s-era applications and in professional desktop software, this is the norm. You build your discoverable UI, but ensure every action is attached to a keyboard shortcut, and that keyboard shortcut is also discoverable. Call it "progressive enhancement" of UI ergonomics, if you like; the point is not to put the ceiling for regular users on the level of your average first-time user. > But learning is time consuming, too. Not as much as time wasted if you don't provide a "faster path" to learn. I'm trying hard to understand, why modern UX designers react to the possibility (not even requirement) of users learning like devil to holy water. That is, beyond the obvious reason - pretty but useless software sells better, as you rate looks on first impression, but ergonomics on repeated use (i.e. after sale).

by shawnz 8y ago

TeMPOraL 8y ago

Easy but time consuming. I.e. not ergonomic. Also point&click UIs tend to sacrifice composability, whereas keyboard-driven interfaces tend to allow to chain operations and modifiers in a way that makes it ergonomically cover much larger space of possible workflows.

shawnz 8y ago
> Easy but time consuming But learning is time consuming, too. Keyboard-driven interfaces can be more efficient but they are not discoverable. Maybe keyboard-driven interfaces make sense for the domain specific tasks that you do every day, but would you want a keyboard-driven interface for every random website you come across?
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  > would you want a keyboard-driven interface for every random website you come across? Definitely, no. But you can have both at the same time; in fact, in 90s-era applications and in professional desktop software, this is the norm. You build your discoverable UI, but ensure every action is attached to a keyboard shortcut, and that keyboard shortcut is also discoverable. Call it "progressive enhancement" of UI ergonomics, if you like; the point is not to put the ceiling for regular users on the level of your average first-time user. > But learning is time consuming, too. Not as much as time wasted if you don't provide a "faster path" to learn. I'm trying hard to understand, why modern UX designers react to the possibility (not even requirement) of users learning like devil to holy water. That is, beyond the obvious reason - pretty but useless software sells better, as you rate looks on first impression, but ergonomics on repeated use (i.e. after sale).