[OT] Pigs Fly

[Lynch, Jonathan]

As someone who has not used a Mac in 12 years, and has never used any
system ending in 'nix'...

I have to say that right-clicking is completely ingrained in my
thinking. If I want to add a shortcut to the desktop, I right-click on
the desktop. If I want to open an explorer window, I right-click on the
Start button.

And this has translated to my programming. All of my software uses
right-clicking all over the place. My spreadsheet objects use
right-clicking on the row and column buttons to get row and column
options, and uses left-click and drag for moving the rows and columns
around.

Other folks using my software have not complained about having to
right-click - but then, they are all using it on Windows as well, and
are undoubtedly used to right-clicking.

This sounds funny, but I think I would find it much more difficult to
create a convenient interface without using the right-click. 




-----Original Message-----
From: use-revolution-bounces at lists.runrev.com
[mailto:use-revolution-bounces at lists.runrev.com] On Behalf Of Judy Perry
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 2:22 AM
To: How to use Revolution
Subject: Re: [OT] Pigs Fly

Still, you will have those who are learning it for the first time (e.g.,
my heart surgeon previously mentioned, children, etc.) for whom  a
single
buttoned mouse is preferrable.

Also -- for how many of the 'average' users will right-clicking be well
understood?

> While learnability is important, learning happens exactly once.  From
> then on it's all about productivity for the rest of one's computing
life.

-Yup, which goes on to translate as "if learning doesn't happen..."
hence
the importance of the uni-button mouse.  It is agreed that 2- and 3- and
n-button mice are for advanced audiences' and their productivity
enhancements...  if they don't learn uni-button mice, well, ... you have
Chipp's proposition.

>
> By providing a mouse that people's productivity can grow with, Apple
may
> indeed be risking the learning curve for a subset of their market.
But
> given Apple's dedication to learnability I have to trust their
judgement
> on this.

--I agree with this.  It functions as a uni-button mouse but adapts for
a
multi-button mouse user.  Very Apple.

>
> Besides, even if I disagreed with them, would they listen to me?

--In singular, I don't know.  In aggregate, yes (witness the furor over
the 'candy' apple doing nothing in the menu bar in the OS X beta).

> > Another issue I have with the right-clicking is that it sometimes
> > seriously violates Schneiderman's articulation of the direct
manipulation
> > paradigm in that the user can sometimes right-click on nothing in
the
> > middle of nowhere.
>
> Where in a modern GUI is "nowhere"?  Even the Desktop is a place, and
> has properties.

--That's an abstraction, not a concrete thing.  Right-clicking on
_nothing_ violates the concept.  The articulation is 'visible items of
interest' in which nothing is not an item of interest.

--And, in any case, the purpose (unless anyone can correct me;
corrections
clearly sought) is that right-clicking is for a short-cut.  The problem
is
that on Window side, too often it is suggested as the ONLY route.

--I have no problems with short-cuts.  As long as more conventional
solutions are provided.  That way, both (or all) camps are provided for.

> Apple's new mouse a multi-button mouse in terms of functionality.
> Whether Apple succeeds in a cleaner design to provide that
> functionality, or instead confuses people by making the delineation
> between left and right unclear, remains to be seen.  Sometimes they
get
> it right (the iPod wheel) and sometimes not (the hockey puck iMac
mouse).

--I sincerely doubt that Apple can make left versus right-clicking any
more confusing than it already is.  What is important is that it remain
a
secondary access rather than a primary access to commands, info., etc.

--Here's the gist of my argument:

(1) You see something of interest;
(2) You click on it;
(3) Something happens.

You (and/or others) would seem to suggest that it's better that:

(1) You see something
----Or a void
(2) You click on something
----Or the void
(3) Something happens
----Or something else happens

And, for the user, either what they want happens or they get confused.

It is inarguable that, for expert users, anything exceeding 1 mouse
button
is 'expert' and hence more productive (even up to an 8-button chording
device for court reporters).

The question is that, where for x = 1 + n, what does "n" equal?  For
Windows (semi-expert) users, the answer is clearly n=1.  But for unix
users, it is n=2.  For other expert  users, it us n=7.

Where is the line to be drawn? Clearly as "n" gets larger, so does the
possibility for error/confusion.

More simply put, how would the legion of Windows users feel about the
imposition of a mouse button = 3 feel?

My Windows students indicate tha N=1 (thus, x= 1+1) is the correct
number
of buttons.  Less than that is lame, more than that is confusing.

Unix students indicate that n should = 2 (thus, 1 +2 = 3) mouse buttons.
Less restricts expert usage, more would be confusing.

Hence my argument.

Judy




_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution