5 ms·

No! The Apple Dialog has the same information repeated FOUR times. #1 Do you want to save the changes you made in the document "test doc" #2 Your changes wil

No! The Apple Dialog has the same information repeated FOUR times. #1 Do you want to save the changes you made in the document "test doc" #2 Your changes will be lost if you don't save them. #3 Don't Save #4 Save FOUR times I am told what I'm doing, "Saving". Yeah, each iteration has a little more information added to it. "Saving what document?" "Saving is important why?" "What is the alternative to saving?" Thanks for the slowly unfolding tutorial there... Okay. Listen, the MSFT dialog works like this. It's a boolean. It's very short and simple: The answer is "yes" or "no". The user gets used to this yes/no format. Save? yes/no Print? yes/no [<-- doesn't really exist] Restore settings? yes/no The consistency of this reduces one's need to actually read-and-process-and-understand what are extremely simple questions inherently.

altrux 18y ago
i really think this has a lot to do with user base, while i mostly agree with you, i dont think most users think in terms of boolean values.
- mynameishere 18y ago
  I think most people indeed understand the concept of a "yes/no" question.
rkts 18y ago
The problem is that users typically read as little as is necessary to figure out what to do next--and very often, not even that much. Since the Windows dialog must be read entirely to be understood, it's more likely to be misinterpreted. E.g., a user may accidentally press "close," see the dialog, and think, "No, I didn't mean to close"... and then lose all their work.
- mynameishere 18y ago
  read as little as is necessary Exactly. The Windows dialog is very, very short. The apple dialog is a miniature tutorial on the purpose and consequences of this thing called "save".
  - rkts 18y ago
    The Mac dialog has a lot of text, yes, but it requires less reading to be understood, which, empirically, is what seems to matter most. If you watch people use your software, one thing you notice right away is that many of them don't read ANY text. When a dialog shows up, they go straight to the buttons and click whichever one seems right--even if they don't know what the dialog is asking! It sounds crazy, but it's what people do.
    - mynameishere 18y ago
      I'm not sure where the confusion is. #1 User presses "Save". #2 Is met with "Yes/no". #3 Presses "yes". Where am I confused? I'm getting downmodded by the mac-bots as usual, but the purposeless verbosity remains purposeless as far as I can see...
      - puns 18y ago
        The user doesn't press save in #1 -- the user exits the app. If the user pressed save, they would be met with a save dialog, which is something completely different. What the article discusses is a dialog the user didn't expect. Something pops up and they have to figure out what it is. Now you can make the user read the message, or you can make the window scannable by sticking actions on button labels. Reading the buttons is much faster than reading the sentence above. Sure, you're gonna save like 2 seconds of the user's time, but these 2 seconds are going to be multiplied by thousands in the course of the user using the app or OS. Little touches like this help make a good product.
radley 18y ago
Your approach forces the user to always read the full text message and then select yes/no, merely out of fear of redundancy. The Apple approach focuses on the action targets first, which 99% of users will go to (i.e. after they've done it the first time). The verbose message is only there as a point of clarity. When you get into user-interaction design, you learn that redundancy is important. You don't put something in one place and make them look for it. You put it where they'd naturally look. For example, if you go to a large store, masking tape won't be only in one place because people are seeking different "core" uses. So the same brand/package of tape will be found in the hardware section, the painting section, the crafts section, and school supplies. The fallacy with Boolean yes/no buttons for every dialog window is that if the user doesn't read the message, they may not get the results they expected. For example, you try to print, and the computer freezes and wants to shut down. You think you're printing, so you hit "yes" and shut down the computer instead. A slightly ridiculous example, but you get the point...

altrux 18y ago

i really think this has a lot to do with user base, while i mostly agree with you, i dont think most users think in terms of boolean values.

mynameishere 18y ago
I think most people indeed understand the concept of a "yes/no" question.

rkts 18y ago

The problem is that users typically read as little as is necessary to figure out what to do next--and very often, not even that much. Since the Windows dialog must be read entirely to be understood, it's more likely to be misinterpreted. E.g., a user may accidentally press "close," see the dialog, and think, "No, I didn't mean to close"... and then lose all their work.

mynameishere 18y ago
read as little as is necessary Exactly. The Windows dialog is very, very short. The apple dialog is a miniature tutorial on the purpose and consequences of this thing called "save".
- rkts 18y ago
  The Mac dialog has a lot of text, yes, but it requires less reading to be understood, which, empirically, is what seems to matter most. If you watch people use your software, one thing you notice right away is that many of them don't read ANY text. When a dialog shows up, they go straight to the buttons and click whichever one seems right--even if they don't know what the dialog is asking! It sounds crazy, but it's what people do.
  - mynameishere 18y ago
    I'm not sure where the confusion is. #1 User presses "Save". #2 Is met with "Yes/no". #3 Presses "yes". Where am I confused? I'm getting downmodded by the mac-bots as usual, but the purposeless verbosity remains purposeless as far as I can see...
    - puns 18y ago
      The user doesn't press save in #1 -- the user exits the app. If the user pressed save, they would be met with a save dialog, which is something completely different. What the article discusses is a dialog the user didn't expect. Something pops up and they have to figure out what it is. Now you can make the user read the message, or you can make the window scannable by sticking actions on button labels. Reading the buttons is much faster than reading the sentence above. Sure, you're gonna save like 2 seconds of the user's time, but these 2 seconds are going to be multiplied by thousands in the course of the user using the app or OS. Little touches like this help make a good product.

radley 18y ago

Your approach forces the user to always read the full text message and then select yes/no, merely out of fear of redundancy. The Apple approach focuses on the action targets first, which 99% of users will go to (i.e. after they've done it the first time). The verbose message is only there as a point of clarity. When you get into user-interaction design, you learn that redundancy is important. You don't put something in one place and make them look for it. You put it where they'd naturally look. For example, if you go to a large store, masking tape won't be only in one place because people are seeking different "core" uses. So the same brand/package of tape will be found in the hardware section, the painting section, the crafts section, and school supplies. The fallacy with Boolean yes/no buttons for every dialog window is that if the user doesn't read the message, they may not get the results they expected. For example, you try to print, and the computer freezes and wants to shut down. You think you're printing, so you hit "yes" and shut down the computer instead. A slightly ridiculous example, but you get the point...