Re: ::scr Drooling GUI

[David Cantrell <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 12:08:07PM +0000, Clifton Evans wrote:
> You're right, they likely wouldn't want a full kitchen inside a computer.
> But they might be more comfortable with a 'bookshelf' for the things you've
> mentioned. A set of 'cupboards' for different objects that they use. A
> 'Fridge' to store things. And, they just might want a 'Window' or 'Doorway'
> to go through to go check their email.

You are describing Microsoft Bob.  It failed because it got in the way of
users rather than helping them like what was intended.

Again, why try to dress the computer up as something it isn't?  Perhaps I
credit users with more intelligence than you do, but I believe that they
*can* learn new stuff.  That they appear so stupid nowadays is mostly the
fault of the badly designed and non-functional software they are made to
use.

> IA people spend a lot of time on the names and labels of things when
> designing an information product. It couldn't hurt to have a system that at
> least linguistically reflected the world people exist in.
> 
> Here's a good example,
> 
> "Excuse me while I open my phone to scroll a conversation."

In the real world, what do phones have to do with scrolls?  Or scrolls with
conversations?

> As you can see, at the bare minimum we need different languages for
> different environments. I'm just saying that the files and folders don't
> really suit gardening applications, or even mobile operating systems.

You're right there.  Rename them "things" and "groups" if you like, and
hide the underlying hierarchical implementation from the user.  Just
make sure that it's all *available* to the user if he wants.

Oh, GOOD sigmonster!

-- 
Lord Protector David Cantrell | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david

    It's my experience that neither users nor customers can articulate
    what it is they want, nor can they evaluate it when they see it
        -- Alan Cooper