Of HIG, Apple, and User-Centric Design

[Scott Rossi]

> I think Dan was talking about checkboxes that are *enabled* but can't be
> unchecked (or checked for that matter). If a checkbox is disabled, it is
> expected that you can't check or uncheck it. If I'm wrong, I'll step
> back and let you two talk it out.

Maybe I missed this so I can step back as well.  I didn't catch this
distinction anywhere in the past discussion, but some nice tangents have
appeared as a result. :-)


[OT RAMBLING FOLLOWS]

Speaking for myself, I question such absolutist statements as:

> Never surprise the user.
> 
> A surprised user is a confused user is a distressed user is a user who
> is not going to be a user one second longer than s/he has to be.

IMO, the above statement is valid to a point, but it's a bit nearsighted to
proclaim this to be one of the Ten Commandments of UI Design.  Yes, there
are times when I want to get something done, but there are times when I want
to be surprised.  I enjoy seeing (and need to see) experiments in UI and
interaction, even if the effectiveness is questionable.  Experiments lead to
new ideas.

The past cited example of the Web browser is a good one.  Some folks might
recall this application brought to light the first mainstream appearance of
the "Back" button.  I, along with other HI colleagues, rolled my eyes at
this ridiculous and simplistic UI solution, and yet it has become
commonplace in browser and non-browser applications alike.  It's initial
meaning was unclear: back where?  To the last thing I looked at at?  To
where I started?  To the point I was before I scrolled?  But after time, one
could argue this button has (generally) assumed a consistent
meaning/behavior.  A generalized learning took place and now, for the most
part, users and developers have come to expect a certain behavior from this
control.

Of course users have expectations that should be catered to, but users are
also willing to learn.  In fact, UI pundits such as Jef Raskin are banking
on this.  Raskin's THE system relies on learning a text-based means of
interaction to be effective, and Raskin seems sure this will (or should) be
the means of future human-computer interaction.  Who knows.

So yes, let's try to make computer-human interface effective and useful, etc
etc, but I would propose there's room for thinking "beyond the guidelines".

PS. OT topic for discussion: is it preordained that we will forever be using
buttons, hyperlinks, scrolling fields and draggable windows to display
information on computers?  3D navigation appears to have been all but
abandoned and most folks I've chatted with think that current voice-control
technology is impractical for all intents and purposes.  Has CHI gone as far
as it can go?  Talk amongst yourselves...

Regards,

Scott Rossi
Creative Director
Tactile Media, Multimedia & Design
-----
E: scott at tactilemedia.com
W: http://www.tactilemedia.com