Re: ::scr Drooling GUI

[Simon Batistoni <simon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 07/03/02 08:03 -0800, celia romaniuk wrote:
> 
> First up: one of my pet hates is the word 'intuitive'. 'Familiar' is
> much more descriptive. This article explains well:
> http://www.asktog.com/papers/raskinintuit.html
> (apologies to those who have heard me go on about this before, and had me
> death-stare them when they say the forbidden word).

Okay, death stare me next time we meet, but I don't think it's the word
"intuitive" you hate, but the frequent misuse of it.

If I'm to understand the Raskin piece correctly, the problem is that people
talk about something being intuitive when they mean "familiar in the context
of a user's previous experience". 

So the concept of an "Edit" menu containing the "Program Preferences" option
may not be intuitive (it's very, very unlikely a user will intuit that
"Preferences" will be under "Edit" the first time they sit down at a
computer), but it is in common usage, and someone with experience will often
look under "Edit" for "Preferences". 

Sorry if I'm overstating the obvious here.

I think that intutiveness is a laudable goal for software. If I can sit down
in front of something, and with minimal reference to anything but the
software, learn how to use it, then all is well with the world.

I don't know whether it's a realistic goal, but the following occurs to my
painkiller-addled brain:

A mallet is pretty intuitive. I mean, "Whack". What else can you do with
it?[0] To swivel round and address one of Simon's pet themes, perhaps a
document-centric interface can be closer to true intuitiveness than most
current paradigms.

Assuming that people understand the overall concept, because each "tool"
that you use is a distinct entity with a single function, it will be easier
to discern that function, and simply use the tool as intended.


[0] - Don't answer that. Just nod sagely and ignore the flaws in my
argument.