10 ms·
The positioning is not objectively wrong. Where do you get this from? Did you make tests with people who never used a PC before? Who are not biased? Or is this
by macco 4y ago
The positioning is not objectively wrong. Where do you get this from? Did you make tests with people who never used a PC before? Who are not biased? Or is this your opinion, which would be subjectively by definition.
UI usage is mostly learned.
Just to be clear, I don't think GTK is the perfect UI system. In my opinion, there is none.
- randomsearch 4y ago> The positioning is not objectively wrong. Yes, it is. There are lots of UX rules backed by research. Fitts' Law in this case is just one reason why this is wrong.
- TuringTest 4y agoWhy should tests be done with people who never used a PC before? User expectations are a large part of usability. Moreover, which users who never used a PC before would be using Gnome?
- mattkevan 4y agoUI usage is mostly learned, you're right. All UIs are fairly arbitrary, helping users understand the current state of their computer and perform actions, by using metaphors to help construct a mental model of what's happening. But we need to be aware of those learned habits, metaphors and conventions and build those affordances into our own designs if we want people to use our software efficiently. A convention often used in modals and other popup windows is to put the close icon in the top right. So putting the confirm button there could cause a user to click it wanting to close the window and confirm a destructive action instead. Another convention is to put the confirm/cancel buttons at the bottom of a dialogue window. Buttons like those don't normally go in the title/toolbar, and putting them there goes against the top-down, left-to-right way we read things. Putting things in non-conventional places is not 'wrong' per se, but adds extra friction to every interaction.