Are preferences good or bad?

At 06:01 -0800 UTC, on 2007-11-16, Lukas Mathis wrote:

[...]

> tekelenb wrote:

[... having both Cmd-C and Edit->Copy is not a problem]

> That's not what research tells us. Choice remains confusing, even if
> you do not consciously experience it as confusing once you get used to
> it. Every time you do a task, having a choice means that your brain
> spends a small amount of time making that choice.

I understand what you're sying. But after having hit cmd-c a few million
times over the last 10 or 15 years, does my mind really think of the copy
command as making a choice? Now and then I watch a user. I think along with
what they're doing and get confused when they obviously are about to copy
something, they grab their mouse and move towards the Menu Bar. Then when the
Edit menu is opened and the move to the Copy entry, I am reminded of that
other option.

I'm no brain specialist, but it doesn't seem likely to me that my brain
activity before cmd-c can be called "making a choice" (other than in strictly
puristic terms, perhaps). In fact, I wouldn't be surprised at all if a brain
specialist could tell us that in the case of such repetitive tasks, 'the part
of the brain that makes choices' is completely by-passed. The brain isn't
static. It adjusts, adapts, changes. It would make perfect sense if it would
apply such optimisations.

I can't imagine how Cmd-tabbing back and forth between two apps could be
faster with the mouse, *unless* you're actually switching back and forth
between two windows (that happen to be owned by different apps) and you're
already holding the mouse, and both windows are at least partly visual. But
that's a relatively uncommon condition.

So, I can imagine that mousing towards an obect that's already visible can in
some cases be faster, yes. But, for example, commands that are hidden in
menus are never visible. You have to search for them. I find it hard to
believe that, under comparable conditions, that would actually be faster than
a keyboard shortcut.

Even when from experience you know exactly where in which menu the command
is. becaus then there are still the physical aspects: the keyboard, and thus
its keys, are always in the same position and thus easy to find, whereas the
mouse is only easy to find when you continuously hold it (which increeases
your chances at RSI), and the mouse cursor takes an effort to steer to the
required position. (For comparison: as a musician I've learned to ensure that
my instrument is always in the same position, so that I can predict where to
put my fingers. It doesn't look hip enough for MTV, but at least I can play
in tune ;))

[...]

> Even if a solution
> should be usable, and even if the solution feels good, unless you've
> done usability tests on it, you don't *know* whether the solution is
> good.

Agreed.

[...]

> actual tests show that the mouse is consistently faster
> than keyboard shortcuts. Bruce Tognazzini, who worked on the Mac
> interface for Apple, wrote about this:
> <http://www.asktog.com/TOI/toi06KeyboardVMouse1.html>
>
> To quote:
>>We've done a cool $50 million of R & D on the Apple Human Interface. We
>>discovered, among other things, two pertinent facts:
>> * Test subjects consistently report that keyboarding is faster than
>>mousing.
>> * The stopwatch consistently proves mousing is faster than keyboarding.
>>This contradiction between user-experience and reality apparently forms the
>>basis for many user/developers' belief that the keyboard is faster.

To put it very clear, perhaps at the cost of sounding impolite: There is no
test there. Just a claim.

I would like to believe it, and would like to find it interesting, and would
like to have to adjust my opinion :) But there is no mention of the details
of the research, which makes it hard to take the claims very serious. (What
sort of tasks did subjects have to perform; how comfortable were subjects
with those tasks; how comfortable were subjects with the tests' UI -- did
they already know where to find commans with the mouse, or with the keyboard,
or both; exactly which system was used in the test, and to what extent did it
provide a 'good' mouse and/or keyboard UI, or was either designed to be
quicker than the other; etc.?)

I'm the first to admit that I'm merely talking from experience (my own 'puter
use, and observing many other users), no actual research. But I find it hard
to believe that for *common* tasks, using keyboard 'shortcuts' work slower
than using the mouse. Obviously when you need to think "hmm, what was that
copy command again?", the mouse will likely be faster. And I understand that
Tog is saying that even a split second is needed to recall Cmd-c. But he
ignores that while mousing around doesn't require digging up something from
memory, it *does* require the time it takes to find and grab the mouse
itself, move the cursor around, and recognize everyting your eyes register so
as to realize when you've found the command you're looking for. Takes a lot
of brain activity, no doubt.

> As I said: just because something *should* theoretically be more
> usable, and just because it *feels* more usable doesn't actually
> *mean* it's more usable.

Tog claims that mousing is faster keyboarding. He doesn't say that faster
equals more usable.

The mere fact that a UI feels 'good/natural' to a user is, I assume, likely
to result in her being more productive. (I may be wrong, but I get the
feeling from Tog's claim that the research he mentions measured individual
commands, and jumps straight to qualifying that as productivity. However, to
measure actual real world productivity, you'd have to measure over longer
periods. If people generally feel slower with a mouse, I wouldn't be
surprised if over a longer period, say an hour, they in fact *are* less
productive with a mouse.)

>>My point is really much more that I disagree that a single
>>optionless "best" does exist. If the Sharing prefs only contains a single
>>"Share" button that makes all mounted volumes available to anyone, without a
>>passphrase, and only over afp, that would be easiest. But it would serve only
>>some users well, and hurt many others.
>
> But that's a configuration, not a preference.

Fair enough. That's indeed an important distinction.

[...]

> Of course, as you say, not everyone can use a Computer without an
> effort. That doesn't mean that this ideal shouldn't be our goal.

Absolutely agreed.


--
Sander Tekelenburg, <http://www.euronet.nl/~tekelenb/>

Dan Frakes on 11/17/07 wrote something to the effect of:

>> No, because actual tests show that the mouse is consistently faster
>> than keyboard shortcuts. Bruce Tognazzini, who worked on the Mac
>> interface for Apple, wrote about this:
>> <http://www.asktog.com/TOI/toi06KeyboardVMouse1.html>
>
>As much as I respect Tog, this is a flawed argument, for several reasons.

I tend to agree with Dan -- those early user interface studies are quite old and may not apply
to modern computers. Today's programs have a LOT more commands and options.

Dan has some good points but leaves out one really important one: repetitive actions. There are
times when I need to do the same action several times in a row (i.e. repeat a filter in
Photoshop). For those situations, keyboard shortcuts are MUCH faster than going to a menu every
time.

What I don't like is when there's a command _I_ use frequently and there's no keyboard shortcut
available. (The big example that's annoying me lately is the File > Compress option in the
Finder: I often need to create ZIP archives each of different files and I have to choose the
menu over and over again. System Pref's assign keyboard shortcut feature won't work because the
menu name changes depending on the file you have selected.)


>Third, related to #2, keyboard shortcuts benefit from muscle memory:

But menus benefit from this also. I've been astonished at how I tend to remember certain menu
commands instinctively based on location. When I notice this is when I upgrade a frequently
used software program and they've moved menu commands around or inserted a new one so the one I
usually use is now one row lower -- I find I will consistently choose the wrong menu option
without realizing it. The mouse just jumps to the old location instinctively. Quite amazing,
but I think it has something to do with the human brain's powerful *visual* memory (which is
different from the memory used to remembering a keyboard shortcut).

Of course this only happens in programs you're *extremely* familiar with.

-- Marc

______________________________________________________________________
      Marc Zeedar * Publisher * REALbasic Developer Magazine
                    <http://www.rbdeveloper.com/>

On Nov 18, 2007, at 5:28 AM, <tidbits-talktidbits.com> <tidbits-talktidbits.com
 > wrote:

> This isn't to take away from the mouse -- any well-designed program
> should
> make *all* of its functions easily-accessible via the mouse. I'm just
> pointing out the obvious flaws in the blanket argument that "mousing
> is
> faster than keyboarding."

These arguments tend to go in the same way. The issue of mousing vs.
keyboarding comes up, the HI studies that suggest that mousing is
faster than keyboarding are cited, and a wave of responses arrive
arguing with those conclusions. They usually cite the same issues:
lack of experienced users tested, the issue of muscle memory, the fact
that menus are complex as well. What I have not seen mentioned
however, is actual evidence that any of the previous points are, in
fact, true. Rather, they usually rely on the "it seems to me" argument.

For example, "But after having hit cmd-c a few million times over the
last 10 or 15 years, does my mind really think of the copy command as
making a choice?"

I don't know the answer to that, and neither, I would suggest, do
you. Are there any cognitive studies that do answer that question?

"I'm no brain specialist, but it doesn't seem likely to me that my
brain activity before cmd-c can be called "making a choice" (other
than in strictly
puristic terms, perhaps)."

Lots of things that "don't seem likely" to me nonetheless appear to be
true.

So I will ask the question I always ask. Are there in fact studies
that show that keyboarding is faster than mousing or that answer any
of the issues brought up here?

cheers,
David

David Silbey History Alvernia College
silbeysilbey.net

kevinv wrote:
> >> > (There is nothing wrong with
> >> > having multiple ways to copy&paste, to move a cursor around through
> >> > text, to switch between applications, etc.)
> >> But there *is* something wrong with it: It's confusing.
> It's only confusing if you try to learn and use them all at once.

Well, no: The feature is there even if you do not use it. For example,
say you usually close windows with Alt-F4. You're in a Windows
Explorer window and want to select all files using Ctrl-A. If you
accidentally hit Ctrl-W instead, the window will close, and it will be
non-obvious as to *why* it has closed, because the you know that the
keyboard shortcut to close windows should be Alt-F4, which isn't
anywhere near Ctrl-A.

Each new way to achieve a goal is a potential pitfall to those who
want to achieve a different goal.

What's more, all these features have to be documented and maintained.
So you end up with documentation that overflows with ways to achieve
goals or with undocumented features (both are bad, for obvious
reasons), and you end up with ways to achieve goals that only work in
specific applications or situations. I can close the frontmost window
in Windows Explorer with Ctrl-W; I can't close it in Notepad with
Ctrl-W.


tekelenb wrote:
> > To quote:
> >>We've done a cool $50 million of R & D on the Apple Human Interface. We
> >>discovered, among other things, two pertinent facts:
> >> * Test subjects consistently report that keyboarding is faster than
> >>mousing.
> >> * The stopwatch consistently proves mousing is faster than keyboarding.
> >>This contradiction between user-experience and reality apparently forms
> >>the basis for many user/developers' belief that the keyboard is faster.
> To put it very clear, perhaps at the cost of sounding impolite: There is no
> test there. Just a claim.

All I can say is that Tog's test results agree with our own usability
tests: Using the mouse is on average faster than using a combination
of mouse and keyboard, or using the keyboard alone. There are
exceptions, but as a general rule, it holds. You are, of course, free
to not believe the results, or do your own tests, or keep using
keyboard shortcuts (I do; using keyboard shortcuts just *feels* right,
even if I know it to be wrong :-), but these results are no fluke.

Tog goes into more details about these tests in his books, which I do
not have with me at the moment, so I can't look up the specifics. But
the results are real.

Of course, we still include keyboard shortcuts in our applications.
People are unhappy if we don't :-)


Let me finish by reiterating that it actually makes little sense to
discuss these things on a theoretical level. How you feel about human
interfaces often has little to do with how well they work in an actual
usability test. People's (my own included) experience and feelings
about things like keyboard shortcuts, options, multiple ways to
achieve goals and UI elements are not objective, but highly biased and
surprisingly incorrect. If you can, I would encourage everyone to
attend a usability test as an observer; seeing how people stumble,
what parts of an UI they find confusing, or which UI works faster or
creates fewer errors can be a humbling experience, reminding us how
little our feelings and experience have to do with reality. Also,
two-way mirrors are just cool :-)

lukas

On 11/19/2007 9:33 AM, "Marc Zeedar" wrote:
> Dan has some good points but leaves out one really important one: repetitive
> actions. There are times when I need to do the same action several times in a
> row (i.e. repeat a filter in Photoshop). For those situations, keyboard
> shortcuts are MUCH faster than going to a menu every time.

Very good point.


>> Third, related to #2, keyboard shortcuts benefit from muscle memory:
>
> But menus benefit from this also. I've been astonished at how I tend to
> remember certain menu commands instinctively based on location. When I notice
> this is when I upgrade a frequently used software program and they've moved
> menu commands around or inserted a new one so the one I usually use is now one
> row lower -- I find I will consistently choose the wrong menu option without
> realizing it.

I was thinking more of commands common across applications. For example, in
pretty much every Mac application, Command+C is copy. In those applications,
there's also likely a Copy command in the Edit menu, but the Edit menu
itself is rarely in the same physical location (one of the Bad UI
consequences of Mac OS X's application-name-titled menu on the left side of
the screen).

But you're right that *within* a menu, you do get some degree of muscle
memory, and I've experienced the same phenomenon as you when an item is
moved within a menu between versions of an application.

On 19-Nov-2007, at 10:43, David Silbey wrote:
> So I will ask the question I always ask. Are there in fact studies
> that show that keyboarding is faster than mousing or that answer any
> of the issues brought up here?

As far as I know, no studies on this have been done in.. well, since
the original ones.

There's another cut/paste and copy/paste method I haven't seen
mentioned yet.

I tend to use it a lot (forgetting Option regularly when working
within a document--Apple may or may not have gotten that backward, but
it's to late to change now).

In fact, I bailed on one of the nice alternatives to Terminal because
of the lack of drag and drop.

   --John

At 09:43 -0800 UTC, on 2007-11-19, David Silbey wrote:

[...]

> These arguments tend to go in the same way. The issue of mousing vs.
> keyboarding comes up, the HI studies that suggest that mousing is
> faster than keyboarding are cited, and a wave of responses arrive
> arguing with those conclusions.

I think that's an incorrect observation. No studies have been provided at all.

[...]

> "I'm no brain specialist, but it doesn't seem likely to me that my
> brain activity before cmd-c can be called "making a choice" (other
> than in strictly
> puristic terms, perhaps)."
>
> Lots of things that "don't seem likely" to me nonetheless appear to be
> true.

Absolutely. But you quoted me too selectively. I specifically said about
Tog's claim: "I would like to believe it, and would like to find it
interesting, and would like to have to adjust my opinion". I mean that. Life
is more fun when it now and then surprises you.

Also, let's be fair: when someone says "it seems likely to me" or "I
suspect", then he's being very clear that he's just giving an opinion -- not
claiming any truth. (I'm not saying that Lukas or Tog are lying. Just that
when it is claimed that "research shows", that research will need to be
available. Else, for all pratical purposes, there is no research, just a
claim/opinion.)


--
Sander Tekelenburg, <http://www.euronet.nl/~tekelenb/>

--On November 19, 2007 9:48:43 AM -0800 Lukas Mathis <Lukas.Mthis.li>
wrote:

> Well, no: The feature is there even if you do not use it. For example,
> say you usually close windows with Alt-F4. You're in a Windows
> Explorer window and want to select all files using Ctrl-A. If you
> accidentally hit Ctrl-W instead, the window will close, and it will be
> non-obvious as to *why* it has closed, because the you know that the
> keyboard shortcut to close windows should be Alt-F4, which isn't
> anywhere near Ctrl-A.
>
> Each new way to achieve a goal is a potential pitfall to those who
> want to achieve a different goal.

The mouse interface is not exempt from this, in fact I see more mistakes
made using the mouse than keyboard. Accidentally double-click the title
bar and the window closes, accidentally drag one folder into another (i saw
this ALL the time when I was on help desk, at one time I'd estimate 10% of
our backup recoveries were for directories that "someone had deleted" when
in reality they had been dragged by accident into another folder).


> What's more, all these features have to be documented and maintained.

I'm sorry but eliminating flexibility from software just so it's easier on
the programmer, rather than being able to fit the workflow of the user is a
poor interface. Documentation that just spews out every way of doing
something is poor documentation. Most documentation that I like typically
shows the mouse way, and the shortcuts are relegated to an appendix or a
power users chapter.

> I can close the frontmost window
> in Windows Explorer with Ctrl-W; I can't close it in Notepad with
> Ctrl-W.

I'll never argue that an inconsistent interface is a good interface, but
this is more a Windows issue than a Mac issue.

> All I can say is that Tog's test results agree with our own usability
> tests: Using the mouse is on average faster than using a combination
> of mouse and keyboard, or using the keyboard alone. There are
> exceptions, but as a general rule, it holds.

Hmmm, I wonder what type of application or tests you're specifically
looking at.

Here are a couple that I think would disagree with your results, and some
are not exactly in the category of "exception" but rather are things that
most users will have to do every day:

Find a web form (or a database form, or a spreadsheet, etc...) with lots of
text (not number) entries. Type each field in and do not tab between
fields. Instead switch between the mouse and the keyboard to select the
next field. Repeat tabbing between each field. I can guess which is going
to be faster. If in a spreadsheet, count number of times the wrong cell
was selected by user.

On a 20" monitor, click an app in the dock then mouse to the close button
on the window. Try it on a 30" monitor. Try it with Dual screens and the
window on the non-dock screen. Now click the app then hit cmd+w (this is
really fast if you mouse right handed and your hand doesn't have to lift
from the mouse.) Try with alt+tab, cmd+w (this will be slow if you have
lots of apps open and the one you want is last -- and you don't remember
alt+shift+tab goes backwards.)

Same test with any program that is primarily text driven: word processor,
e-mail. Type the body of what you're working on, pick up mouse and save or
send message. Repeat with shortcut for that action. I'm so paranoid about
power outages that I save everytime I hit enter. It's enter, cmd+s. Try
writing a 12 paragraph document using just the mouse to save at every
paragraph. Repeat with a programming IDE where you save after every line
(yes, I do this. It has saved me countless times.) I can make this kind of
fast with a mouse by pre-positioning the mouse over the save button. But it
is pretty much ruined as soon as I want to select a body of text with the
mouse, or switch to another program and then back and I need to reposition
the mouse again.

Open a nice long document (say 20 pages) that you want to enter text at the
end of. Use the scollbar to move to the end. Then try again, but this
time click the document, then ctrl+end (even if you first try end by
itself, then ctrl+end it's going to be faster.) Don't stop timing until
you've actually entered the text in it's proper place.

Some less common examples:

In a graphical program, use only the mouse to precisely place a graphical
object. Now try using the mouse to place it approximately, then use arrow
keys to nudge it into place. This one is really fast if you mouse left
handed (I like mousing left handed because it allows me to use the mouse,
arrow keys and number pad all at the same time. although it hurts for
things like closing windows, selecting/copying/pasting text since those
shortcuts tend to be on the left-side of the keyboard.

In a cadd package enter a line that is 1.2358 meters long with a mouse.



I do think there are programs that work best with one or the other
interface only (for example I don't think I've ever used a keyboard
shortcut in iTunes except maybe cmd+q). But your software should be geared
to allowing your users to perform their tasks with your software more
quickly, especially after they've used it for awhile. Using only a mouse
(or only a keyboard) interface because of some usability test performed on
software doing different things than your own is a very bad idea. And
generalizing your own usability tests on your software to all other
software is equally a bad idea.

On Nov 20, 2007, at 5:40 PM, Sander Tekelenburg wrote:

> Absolutely. But you quoted me too selectively. I specifically said
> about
> Tog's claim ...

Tog does UI very well, and I usually agree with him. (And often
change my mind so that I agree with him.)

I do remember what he was doing before joining Apple: running a San
Francisco area electronics store (which sold Apple ][s but not as
anything like a primary business). He also created the essentially UI-
less* but fun, well-done, and easy to watch "Great American
Probability Machine" and "Infinite Number of Monkeys".

* The UI: Load cassette. Watch. Listen.

Perhaps he was a UI expert pre-Apple, and the store was a resting
place in the career. Perhaps he became a UI expert (with help from
Jef Raskin????). He certainly is one, regardless. (And I'm assuming
that there aren't TWO Bruce Tognazini people involved, but no one I
noticed ever claimed that.)

   --John (who was in ComputerLand of San DIego when one of the owners
(Norm) came out of the back room with a message from headquarters
which he read to the other owner (Dave) which said that IBM Boca Raton
had just ordered 100 Apple ][s from ComputerLand of Boca Raton)

At 06:48 -0800 UTC, on 2007-11-23, johnbaxterlistsmac.com wrote:

> On Nov 20, 2007, at 5:40 PM, Sander Tekelenburg wrote:
>
>> Absolutely. But you quoted me too selectively. I specifically said
>> about Tog's claim ...
>
> Tog does UI very well, and I usually agree with him.

I don't mean to suggest that I dismiss Tog. All I'm saying is that on the
cited Web page, Tog says that research shows something, yet he doesn't
provide that research. Given his reputation, we can qualify that as a
valuable expert opinion, but not as evidence.


--
Sander Tekelenburg, <http://www.euronet.nl/~tekelenb/>

[Last time I'll bug the list with the difference between providing evidence,
and saying "evidence exists". I promise.]

At 06:48 -0800 UTC, on 2007-11-23, David Silbey wrote:

> On Nov 21, 2007, at 5:18 AM, <tidbits-talktidbits.com>
><tidbits-talktidbits.com
> > wrote:
>
>> I think that's an incorrect observation. No studies have been
>> provided at all.
>
> Tog's studies have been cited a number of times in this thread.

Where? I've only seen a pointer to
<http://www.asktog.com/TOI/toi06KeyboardVMouse1.html>, which contains no
study whatsoever. Just Tog saying that "study shows".

[...]

> Or gone looking for his studies?

I can't find them. If those studies are available, why is noone pointing to
them?

[...]

> $29.95 from Amazon:
><http://www.amazon.com/Tog-Interface-Bruce-Tognazzini/dp/0201608421/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195647797&sr=1-1>

The reviews all speak of "ideas, opinions, intuitive insights" etc. Nothing
that suggests that this book contains actual research. I'm sure it's probably
a good read. But that wasn't the point ;)


--
Sander Tekelenburg, <http://www.euronet.nl/~tekelenb/>

On 11/23/2007 6:48 AM, "David Silbey" wrote:
> My larger point is that the arguments have tended to be carried out
> with evidence (studies, research, etc--possibly flawed) on one side,
> and 'it seems likely to me' on the other. Those things are not of
> equal weight.

The only "evidence" that has been posed is Tog's comments, based on
usability studies performed in the early '80s. And those studies did not
show that it's always faster to use a mouse.

On the other hand, as far back as 1986, Buxton showed that keyboard
shortcuts allow users to work more efficiently -- meaning faster -- in many
situations; for example, in editing text, where you need to select and
copy/cut/paste frequently. Tog even acknowledges this in the very article to
which you're referring.


On 11/19/2007 9:48 AM, "Lukas Mathis" wrote:
> All I can say is that Tog's test results agree with our own usability
> tests: Using the mouse is on average faster than using a combination
> of mouse and keyboard, or using the keyboard alone. There are
> exceptions, but as a general rule, it holds.

The problem with that claim is that there is no "general rule" when you're
talking about a metric that changes dramatically depending on the context.
To achieve a predictable result, you have to define the circumstances to a
point where the rule is no longer general -- it applies only to the
circumstances of a particular study.

Specifically, whether mousing or the keyboard is faster in a given scenario
depends on many factors: the particular command; which key(s) are used for
the shortcut; whether the user will have their hand on the keyboard or the
mouse when the command is likely to be invoked; whether the onscreen command
is a button or buried in a menu; how long the person has been using the
program; how often the command is used; whether the command is typically
used several times sequentially; and so on. (And, of course, different users
are faster or slower with one approach relative to the other.) Because so
many factors influence the relative speeds of each method, the concept of
"average speed" is pretty much useless here.

Or, to put it another way, say I asked you, "Which is faster: using the
mouse to choose a command from the menu bar or using the equivalent keyboard
shortcut?" Would you wager your own hard-earned money that your answer would
be correct without knowing more about the program, command, shortcut, and
user? I wouldn't ;-)

That's the only point I, and several others, have been making, and one that
even Tog acknowledges. I don't think anyone is arguing that keyboard
shortcuts are *always* faster or "better."


And let's not forget that keyboard shortcuts are not designed to be used for
every command. Rather, they're designed to be an alternative way to access
frequently-used commands, with "frequently-used" being the key phrase. If
you use a particular command frequently enough to memorize and recall its
keyboard shortcut, you've decided for yourself that the effort it takes to
use that particular shortcut is outweighed by the increased efficiency that
comes from using it; for those commands you don't use very often, it's
easier to continue to use the mouse. In other words, in *real-world* use,
keyboard shortcuts are almost by-definition faster because they're selected
by the user to be so.

And that's really the problem with most "usability studies" that claim
mousing is faster than keyboard shortcuts: they don't take into account
real-world use and the fact that people choose to use *particular* keyboard
shortcuts, based on their own workflows, rather than using shortcuts
exclusively.

On 11/23/2007 08:48 AM, "David Silbey" <silbeysilbey.net> wrote:

Tog's studies have been cited a number of times in this thread. Have you read his book on interface design? Or gone looking for his studies?

Tog has some interesting opinions on UI design. Some I agree with, some I don't. However, he has a rather bad habit of making it look like he helped create the Mac UI rules, when he had nothing to do with the creation, just the documentation.

He is however *entirely* too rigid in his ideas on muscle/nerve memory, as he thinks that it is impossible, or really hard, to develop muscle/nerve memory in a dynamic environment. That somehow, the fact that the Dock is static will kill such things.

After having studied martial arts for almost twenty years, I can say that his ideas here are hogwash. Muscle/nerve memory functions quite well in a dynamic environment, as the nigh-200 joint locks I've learned at multiple angles, moving and from static "sets" have shown me. That one issue right there makes me discount a great many of his, and in fact, most of the OMGOSXUISUXXOR crowd's arguments.

As well, the idea that Mac OS 9 was some great bastion of consistency is absolutely laughable, but again, Tog, and to some extent, Siracusa both push that meme, so again, I have a rather hard time taking any of that POV's points seriously.

-- John C. Welch

On 23-Nov-2007, at 07:48, David Silbey wrote:

My larger point is that the arguments have tended to be carried out with evidence (studies, research, etc--possibly flawed) on one side, and 'it seems likely to me' on the other. Those things are not of equal weight.

Since the studies are based on data that is 20 years old, I don't think the studies are at ALL relevant. They also did not test how people actually use a computer, but rather how neophytes can follow and remember instructions on how to use a computer.

Is anyone seriously going to defend the notion that pasting something 10 times is faster via the menu and mouse than simply pressing command- v 10 times in rapid succession?

mousing is 'faster' for infrequently performed tasks because you have to remember far less specific information, just a general spacial 'it's over in this area' sort of memory. For frequent tasks though, the time taken to move to the mouse, orient the mouse, move to the menu, click and move again, and possibly wait for a secondary menu and move some more is MUCH longer than hitting a specific key combo you already have learned. I don't care how many studies there are, that is a simple fact. Even if the target is an icon on the screen with no menus (say a toolbar) just the act of moving from the keyboard to the mouse, orienting, selecting, and THEN MOVING BACK (something Tog ignores completely), is going to be longer for any task where you know the keyboard short-cut.

What's the fastest way for me to open an application on my computer. It is NOT to go to the Finder, go to the Applications, find the app, and double-click on it. I can time that easily, and it can take well over 10 seconds. I can open any app on my computer in less than a three seconds with the keyboard though, and if it's an app I use frequently, it might take less than one. It will never take 10.

Until there are studies done that 1) replicate how people actually USE computers and 2) use people who are not tyros; the studies are worthless.

Look at it this way, how do you learn to be a better tennis player? Do you go out and film a bunch of 6 year-olds who've never even SEEN a racket, analyze their movements and say "Hey, we can extrapolate from this the best way to play tennis" or do you look at professional tennis players and analyze their movements and motions. Which one tells you about the most efficient way to hit the ball?

Tog's studies looked at 6 year-olds who'd never seen a racket and claim to know how a Wimbledon Champion should play.

On 11/24/2007 06:21 AM, "John C. Welch" <jwelchbynkii.com> wrote:


> That somehow, the fact that the Dock is static will kill such things.
                                                          ^
                                                          not

sigh
--
John C. Welch

There has been little mention in this thread that people are
different, in addition to tasks being different.

This person has never been able to learn more than a few keyboard
shortcuts at a time. As one example, there is the series of arrow
plus modifier keyboard commands which select text or extend
selections. Those had settled down and become reasonably consistent
in text situations by the late 1980 or early 1990s. I've never been
able to learn them. (Yet I already use control-arrow happily moving
amongst "spaces"; so I'm not consistent in my lack of learning.)

That's one of the two reasons I never installed QuickKeys--the other
being the obvious trouble those who did had with every revision to the
system (CE Software did a great job of keeping up with the problems).

Many of you who are contributing to the thread would be seriously
annoyed if the keyboard commands you use were to vanish, just as I
would be if my mouse and menus vanished.

   --John

At 5:42 AM -0800 11/25/07, johnbaxterlistsmac.com wrote:
>Many of you who are contributing to the thread would be seriously
>annoyed if the keyboard commands you use were to vanish, just as I
>would be if my mouse and menus vanished.

I agree with John.

I also believe that we're beating this one in a little bit too much.
If someone shows me that they interact with OS X (or Windows XP/Vista
or XWindows) exclusively with the mouse (excluding text entry) or
exclusively with the keyboard I'll buy you a bag of cookies.

I think its been explored quite well, and there has been many
interesting observations and assertions on this thread, but its
getting to the point of fighting the OS X/Windows religious wars
here.. Both are necessary and both are valid ways to use the
computer. Certain users will be faster with one method than with the
other, and this will vary by user as well as other factors.

Respectfully,
~Nick
http://www.inmff.net

On Nov 21, 2007, at 5:18 AM, <tidbits-talktidbits.com> <tidbits-talktidbits.com
 > wrote:

> I think that's an incorrect observation. No studies have been
> provided at all.


Tog's studies have been cited a number of times in this thread. Have
you read his book on interface design? Or gone looking for his studies?

> Also, let's be fair: when someone says "it seems likely to me" or "I
> suspect", then he's being very clear that he's just giving an
> opinion -- not
> claiming any truth. (I'm not saying that Lukas or Tog are lying.
> Just that
> when it is claimed that "research shows", that research will need to
> be
> available. Else, for all pratical purposes, there is no research,
> just a
> claim/opinion.)


$29.95 from Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Tog-Interface-Bruce-Tognazzini/dp/0201608421/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195647797&sr=1-1

or Tog has a web site: asktog.com

My larger point is that the arguments have tended to be carried out
with evidence (studies, research, etc--possibly flawed) on one side,
and 'it seems likely to me' on the other. Those things are not of
equal weight.

cheers,
David

David Silbey History Alvernia College
silbeysilbey.net

The statement

> I don't care how many studies there are, that is a simple fact

Seems appropriate to go along with:

> but its
> getting to the point of fighting the OS X/Windows religious wars
> here

It's interesting to note that my comment--that the discussion of
mousing vs. keyboarding is dominated by anecdotal evidence with the
only data available (whatever its flaws) suggest that mousing is
faster--was greeted almost entirely by more anecdotal evidence. Dan
Frakes mentioned a study that contradicted the Apple UI studies, which
was kind of him.

I'm deeply skeptical that there hasn't been any research that advances
this, especially since the "Human Factors and Ergonomics Society" has
it's own peer-reviewed journal, the creatively named "Human Factors:
The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society." (http://www.hfes.org/Publications/ProductDetail.aspx?ProductId=1
).

I'm beginning to suspect that folks have pretty much decided what they
believe, and that evidence of one sort or another is essentially
irrelevant at this point.

cheers,
David

David Silbey History Alvernia College
silbeysilbey.net