OT: For Snit and Hadron
cc
in the blanks. I'm not going to go around and around on this, so I'm
also providing a demonstration for you to follow. This should take one
post from you (or I guess one from both of you), then one additional
response post from me. If you feel you've already answered the
question, then you'll have to answer it again. You can reference
papers, etc in your responses if you wish, but it's not necessary. A
single link as an answer won't do. Failure to answer the question will
be noted (as Snit would say). Take your time, because you only get one
shot, and the end result *should* be me admitting you guys were right
if you truly are. I've marked the example statements/questions with an
'a', the questions/statements for you guys are with a 'b'. That should
have been obvious, but you know... Also, I stress again, for Snit,
that everything marked with an 'a' is an example, a hypothetical, and
in no way am I saying you or I EVER said them. They are there as a
template.
1a) Statement from Snit: The square root of 2 is irrational.
1b) Statement from Snit: You can't find a well designed UI that does
not follow the general principle of consistency.
2a) Statement from cc: No, it's not. It's rational, what does
irrational even mean?
2b) Statement from cc: Yes I can, if you define what the general
principle of consistency is for me.
3a) Snit: An irrational number is any real number than cannot be
expressed as a fraction of integers. [Note that this is not THE
definition, but A definition. I'm sure there are others out there]
3b) Snit: [This is where you fill in. Again, it's just a definition
but not necessarily the one true definition, I realise that]
4a) Snit: If you think the square root of 2 is rational, then you
should be able to find a square root of 2 = a/b where a and b are
integers and b is not zero [note how this example is the exact
opposite of the definition].
4b) Snit: If you think you can find a well designed UI that breaks the
general principle of consistency you should be able to find a UI that
[here's where you fill in again with what you think I'll never be able
to find, and it should be the exact opposite of the definition you
gave].
5a) cc: Well you're right, I can't find a square root of 2 that is
rational according to those definitions and examples you gave. I'm
sorry I questioned it.
5b) cc: [I'll fill this in when you've answered].
Okay, there you go. An easy template for either of you to follow. When
you're done tickling and goosing each other, feel free to respond.
Only one response per person though. I'll give one response to each.
Considering that the general principle of consistency is a real thing,
this should end with me apologizing and saying you're right. That was
sarcasm Snit. Once again, for the dummy of the two, Snit, you get ONE
response before you're ignored. So take your time, and before you hit
the send button remember that this is your shot to convince me I'm
wrong, don't blow it by being a dumbass and refusing to answer.
Snit's list of HCI classes he claims to have taken:
"data visualization, HCI general concepts, graphics and multimedia,
design technologies, experiments in UIs, cross cultural UI design and
others"
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/f1ad3fbe212ea898?hl=en&dmode=source
Hahahahahaha
Snit
43d19208-945e-4bae...@a11g2000pri.googlegroups.com on 3/8/11
10:22 AM:
> Here is a simple way to prove your points.
Already done. My point is that there are well respected interface
guidelines... and this has been shown repeatedly. It has been shown with
quotes from people well respected in the HCI / UI design community such as
Shneiderman, Nelson, Tognazzini and Booth as well as others who do not focus
as much on just the principles. Even your own self-selected expert,
Carroll, talks some about the main principle we discussed (consistency).
This is quite telling, esp. given how Carroll focused on Column 1 topics and
the topic of guidelines is in Column 3 (see below)
<http://pages.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/~saul/481/process_diagram.html>
Additionally I have pointed you to well respected specific UI guides which
are largely based on these principles - including Apple's (which also has
done a lot of research) and GNOME. For that matter, KDE and Windows also
have similar standards - and they all support these basic principles.
Even more: you were shown many classes - often intro classes - which clearly
discussed these principles and guidelines you deny exist.
The idea that these things do not exist or that they are not well respected
is just absurd. The claim was silly of you to make and it is clearly just
flat out against common sense and against the data.
And in response you have... denial.
Nothing more than denial. Every relevant expert we can find disagrees with
you. Every relevant class noted disagrees with you. Every peer reviewed
study and every relevant relevant book disagrees with you.
You went so far as to insist a section of material called "General
Principles" was, somehow, supportive of your denial. Utter insanity. And
completely dishonest of you - you have *nothing* but empty denial in the
fact of *massive* support which contradicts your denial.
And this is shown by your utter failure to find a single UI that *you* think
is done well but does not follow those principles... heck, I made it easy
and said just to find one that ignores the "consistency" ideas we have been
talking about. You picked GNOME, as if GNOME did not follow the GNOME
guidelines. Utter self-nuke by you. And you denied you could tell if the
examples I showed you were poorly done and examples of arbitrary
inconsistency - though you could not defend a single one of the many
examples. Again: utter failure on your part.
You failed to refute my point. You failed to support yours.
And you have been given ample opportunity.
> All you have to do is fill in the blanks.
Incorrect. I have already proved my point. For you to deny this is
dishonest of you.
> I'm not going to go around and around on this, so I'm also providing a
> demonstration for you to follow.
You know you have made a complete fool of yourself so you hope we play your
game.
> This should take one post from you (or I guess one from both of you), then one
> additional response post from me. If you feel you've already answered the
> question, then you'll have to answer it again.
You have made a complete fool of yourself and now think you get to set
"rules" to try to dig yourself out of your hole.
Nope. If you want to prove your bizarre denial you cannot demand others
help you.
> You can reference papers, etc in your responses if you wish, but it's not
> necessary. A single link as an answer won't do. Failure to answer the question
> will be noted (as Snit would say).
Note what you want - that does not mean you are making any point.
Remember: you have already been proved wrong. Repeatedly.
> Take your time, because you only get one shot, and the end result *should* be
> me admitting you guys were right if you truly are.
Incorrect: you have already shown you will ignore *all* facts and just deny,
deny, deny. You will lie and make things up. So, no, playing your game
would not change your behavior and prevent you from denying facts.
Really, that is just an absurd claim to make - wah wah, if only we two will
play with me you will stop lying and denying. Who do you think is foolish
enough to fall for that BS?
> I've marked the example statements/questions with an 'a', the
> questions/statements for you guys are with a 'b'. That should have been
> obvious, but you know... Also, I stress again, for Snit, that everything
> marked with an 'a' is an example, a hypothetical, and in no way am I saying
> you or I EVER said them.
So why have BS about what we said when you know we did not?
> They are there as a template.
Hey, I will play, but you have to answer my question, too! How about that!
>
> 1a) Statement from Snit: The square root of 2 is irrational.
>
> 1b) Statement from Snit: You can't find a well designed UI that does
> not follow the general principle of consistency.
And you have not. When you tried you pointed to GNOME, which clearly does
(though it does have its failures).
> 2a) Statement from cc: No, it's not. It's rational, what does
> irrational even mean?
>
> 2b) Statement from cc: Yes I can, if you define what the general
> principle of consistency is for me.
No, you failed at that. I pointed you to many examples and said you can use
any. I also noted why there is no one definition. But you can go with any
of these:
<http://www.asktog.com/basics/firstPrinciples.html#consistency>
-----
Consistency
The following principles, taken together, offer the interaction
designer tremendous latitude in the evolution of a product without
seriously disrupting those areas of consistency most important to
the user.
* Levels of consistency: The importance of maintaining strict
consistency varies. The following list is ordered from those
interface elements demanding the most faithful consistency effort
to those demanding the least. Paradoxically, many people assume
that the order of items one through five should be exactly the
reverse, leading to applications that look alike, but act
completely different in unpredictable ways:
1) Interpretation of user behavior, e. g., shortcut keys
maintain their meanings.
2) Invisible structures.
3) Small visible structures.
4) The overall "look" of a single application or service--
splash screens, design elements.
5) A suite of products.
6) In-house consistency.
7) Platform-consistency.
"Invisible structures" refers to such invisible objects as
Microsoft Word's clever little right border that has all kinds of
magical properties, if you ever discover it is there. It may or
may not appear in your version of Word. And if it doesn't, you'll
never know for sure that it isn't really there, on account of it's
invisible. Which is exactly what is wrong with invisible objects
and why consistency is so important. Other objects are, strictly
speaking, visible, but do not appear to be controls, so users,
left to their own devices, might never discover their
manipulability. The secret, if you absolutely insist on one,
should be crisp and clean, for example, "you can click and drag
the edges of current Macintosh windows to size them," not, "You
can click and drag various things sometimes, but not other things
other times."
"Small visible structures" refers to icons, size boxes, scroll
arrows, etc. The appearance of such objects needs to be strictly
controlled if people are not to spend half their time trying to
figure out how to scroll or how to print. Location is only just
slightly less important than appearance. Where it makes sense to
standardize location, do so.
-----
And since you also like to talk about inconsistency and when that makes
sense:
-----
* Inconsistency: It is just important to be visually inconsistent
when things must act differently as it is to be visually
consistent when things act the same.
Avoid uniformity. Make objects consistent with their behavior.
Make objects that act differently look different.
-----
Now, of course there can still be debate about any given UI, without direct
testing esp. - though often the principles are easy to see (as with the
examples I have given).
You can also use the OS X guidelines, though - of course, think it terms of
system conventions when the guide talks about OS X and Aqua:
<http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/UserExperience/Concep
tual/AppleHIGuidelines/XHIGHIDesign/XHIGHIDesign.html%23//apple_ref/doc/uid/
TP30000353-TPXREF103> OR <http://goo.gl/HSCUc>
-----
Consistency
Consistency in the interface allows users to transfer their
knowledge and skills from one application to another. Use the
standard elements of the Aqua interface to ensure consistency
within your application and to benefit from consistency across
applications. Ask yourself the following questions when thinking
about consistency in your product:
Is it consistent with Mac OS X standards? For example, does the
application use the reserved and recommended keyboard equivalents
(see ³Keyboard Shortcuts Quick Reference²) for their correct
purposes? Is it Aqua-compliant? Does it use the solutions to
standard tasks Mac OS X provides? (For more information on these
solutions, see ³Using Mac OS X Technologies.²)
Is it consistent within itself? Does it use consistent terminology
for labels and features? Do icons mean the same thing every time
they are used? Are concepts presented in similar ways across all
modules? Are similar controls and other user interface elements
located in similar places in windows and dialogs?
Is it consistent with earlier versions of the product? Have the
terms and meanings remained the same between releases? Are the
fundamental concepts essentially unchanged?
Is it consistent with people¹s expectations? Does it meet the
needs of the user without extraneous features? Does it conform to
the user¹s mental model? (For more information on this concept,
see ³Reflect the User¹s Mental Model.²)
Meeting everyone¹s expectations is the most difficult kind of
consistency to achieve, especially if your product is likely to be
used by an audience with a wide range of expertise. You can
address this problem by carefully weighing the consistency issues
in the context of your target audience and their needs. See ³Know
Your Audience²
-----
Or from KDE, short and sweet:
<http://developer.kde.org/documentation/design/ui/neilsensprinciples.html>
-----
Consistency and standards Users should not have to wonder whether
different words, situations, or actions mean the same thing.
Follow platform conventions
-----
But keep in mind, this is not a black and white situation... often *thought*
has to be put into these things... and, when possible, testing (we cannot
really do that here, though). Still, with the examples I have given, they
are so clear as to really be undeniable.
And now for my question.
Given this:
<http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=269861>
-----
Designing user interfaces with consistent visual and textual
properties is difficult. To demonstrate the harmful effects of
inconsistency, we conducted an experiment with 60 subjects.
Inconsistent interface terminology slowed user performance by 10
to 25 percent.
-----
Question 1:
How can you deny consistency is a well respected principle of HCI and UI
design?
Your answer goes here:
---------
---------
> 3a) Snit: An irrational number is any real number than cannot be
> expressed as a fraction of integers. [Note that this is not THE
> definition, but A definition. I'm sure there are others out there]
>
> 3b) Snit: [This is where you fill in. Again, it's just a definition
> but not necessarily the one true definition, I realise that]
See above. Or past debates. You just keep running.
> 4a) Snit: If you think the square root of 2 is rational, then you
> should be able to find a square root of 2 = a/b where a and b are
> integers and b is not zero [note how this example is the exact
> opposite of the definition].
>
> 4b) Snit: If you think you can find a well designed UI that breaks the
> general principle of consistency you should be able to find a UI that
> [here's where you fill in again with what you think I'll never be able
> to find, and it should be the exact opposite of the definition you
> gave].
... breaks the general principle of consistency that you still consider to
be designed well.
But you cannot.
And now my question for you:
Question 2:
Given that you claim to have taken HCI classes and yet have been shown that
many such classes, even intro classes are focused on the principles you deny
exist, how can you deny such principles exist? Here are links to some of
these classes:
<http://hamilton.bell.ac.uk/btech/hci/hciintro.pdf>
<http://hamilton.bell.ac.uk/btech/hci/hcinotes16.pdf>
<http://ep.jhu.edu/course-homepages/viewpage.php?homepage_id=3134>
<http://pages.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/~saul/hci_topics/pdf_files/introduction_481.p
df> OR <http://goo.gl/Yc7Uq>
<http://hit.uncc.edu/requirements/ITIS%206400%20Syllabus.pdf>
<http://pages.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/~saul/481/>
More details about those classes have been given elsewhere.
Your answer goes here:
---------
---------
> 5a) cc: Well you're right, I can't find a square root of 2 that is
> rational according to those definitions and examples you gave. I'm
> sorry I questioned it.
>
> 5b) cc: [I'll fill this in when you've answered].
>
>
> Okay, there you go. An easy template for either of you to follow. When
> you're done tickling and goosing each other, feel free to respond.
Why do you need the same questions answered over and over and over? Face
it: even though you have been proved wrong and your above questions were
answered, you will continue to deny *and* you will not answer my questions.
> Only one response per person though. I'll give one response to each.
No, you will not - at least not a reasoned response. You will run.
> Considering that the general principle of consistency is a real thing,
> this should end with me apologizing and saying you're right.
But it will not - you will continue your pattern of lying and denying.
> That was sarcasm Snit.
Good: even you realize you will lie and deny.
> Once again, for the dummy of the two, Snit, you get ONE response before you're
> ignored. So take your time, and before you hit the send button remember that
> this is your shot to convince me I'm wrong, don't blow it by being a dumbass
> and refusing to answer.
>
>
>
> Snit's list of HCI classes he claims to have taken:
>
> "data visualization, HCI general concepts, graphics and multimedia,
> design technologies, experiments in UIs, cross cultural UI design and
> others"
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/f1ad3fbe212ea898?hl=
> en&dmode=source
>
> Hahahahahaha
You think your lies are funny. Lovely.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
cc
> cc stated in post
>
> > I've marked the example statements/questions with an 'a', the
> > questions/statements for you guys are with a 'b'. That should have been
> > obvious, but you know... Also, I stress again, for Snit, that everything
> > marked with an 'a' is an example, a hypothetical, and in no way am I saying
> > you or I EVER said them.
>
> So why have BS about what we said when you know we did not?
Jesus Christ, you're a fucking moron.
> > They are there as a template.
>
> Hey, I will play, but you have to answer my question, too! How about that!
>
I suppose, but considering you failed to answer the questions, I don't
see why I should.
> <http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/UserExperience/...
> tual/AppleHIGuidelines/XHIGHIDesign/XHIGHIDesign.html%23//apple_ref/doc/uid/
> TP30000353-TPXREF103> OR <http://goo.gl/HSCUc>
>
> -----
> Consistency
>
> Consistency in the interface allows users to transfer their
> knowledge and skills from one application to another. Use the
> standard elements of the Aqua interface to ensure consistency
> within your application and to benefit from consistency across
> applications. Ask yourself the following questions when thinking
> about consistency in your product:
>
> Is it consistent with Mac OS X standards? For example, does the
> application use the reserved and recommended keyboard equivalents
> (see �Keyboard Shortcuts Quick Reference�) for their correct
> purposes? Is it Aqua-compliant? Does it use the solutions to
> standard tasks Mac OS X provides? (For more information on these
> solutions, see �Using Mac OS X Technologies.�)
>
> Is it consistent within itself? Does it use consistent terminology
> for labels and features? Do icons mean the same thing every time
> they are used? Are concepts presented in similar ways across all
> modules? Are similar controls and other user interface elements
> located in similar places in windows and dialogs?
>
> Is it consistent with earlier versions of the product? Have the
> terms and meanings remained the same between releases? Are the
> fundamental concepts essentially unchanged?
>
> Is it consistent with people�s expectations? Does it meet the
> needs of the user without extraneous features? Does it conform to
> the user�s mental model? (For more information on this concept,
> see �Reflect the User�s Mental Model.�)
>
> Meeting everyone�s expectations is the most difficult kind of
> consistency to achieve, especially if your product is likely to be
> used by an audience with a wide range of expertise. You can
> address this problem by carefully weighing the consistency issues
> in the context of your target audience and their needs. See �Know
> Your Audience�
> -----
>
> Or from KDE, short and sweet:
>
> <http://developer.kde.org/documentation/design/ui/neilsensprinciples.html>
> -----
> Consistency and standards Users should not have to wonder whether
> different words, situations, or actions mean the same thing.
> Follow platform conventions
> -----
>
> But keep in mind, this is not a black and white situation... often *thought*
> has to be put into these things... and, when possible, testing (we cannot
> really do that here, though). Still, with the examples I have given, they
> are so clear as to really be undeniable.
I asked for a definition, and you gave me quotes of which none seem
like a definition for the general principle of consistency. How hard
is it to sum it up in a few sentences? Snit fails.
> And now for my question.
>
> Given this:
>
> <http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=269861>
> -----
> Designing user interfaces with consistent visual and textual
> properties is difficult. To demonstrate the harmful effects of
> inconsistency, we conducted an experiment with 60 subjects.
> Inconsistent interface terminology slowed user performance by 10
> to 25 percent. �
> -----
>
> Question 1:
>
> How can you deny consistency is a well respected principle of HCI and UI
> design?
>
> Your answer goes here:
>
> ---------
I never said to not take into account consistency. I said there is no
"general principle of consistency" in HCI. If your design needs
consistency (which can be shown) you need to make it consistent. If
your design needs inconsistency (which can be shown) you need to make
it inconsistent.
> ---------
>
> > 3a) Snit: An irrational number is any real number than cannot be
> > expressed as a fraction of integers. [Note that this is not THE
> > definition, but A definition. I'm sure there are others out there]
>
> > 3b) Snit: [This is where you fill in. Again, it's just a definition
> > but not necessarily the one true definition, I realise that]
>
> See above. Or past debates. You just keep running.
Snit fails to answer. Noted. Above is nothing but snips from
guidelines that contain the word consistency. All you had to do was
make a few sentences that started with "The general principle of
consistency is..." and you could not even do that. Massive failure. I
could choose any of them you said, so is this the general principle of
consistency: "Consistency in the interface allows users to transfer
their knowledge and skills from one application to another."
> > 4a) Snit: If you think the square root of 2 is rational, then you
> > should be able to find a square root of 2 = a/b where a and b are
> > integers and b is not zero [note how this example is the exact
> > opposite of the definition].
>
> > 4b) Snit: If you think you can find a well designed UI that breaks the
> > general principle of consistency you should be able to find a UI that
> > [here's where you fill in again with what you think I'll never be able
> > to find, and it should be the exact opposite of the definition you
> > gave].
>
> ... breaks the general principle of consistency that you still consider to
> be designed well.
>
> But you cannot.
So by filling it in it becomes "Snit: If you think you can find a well
designed UI that breaks the general principle of consistency you
should be able to find a UI that breaks the general principle of
consistency that you still consider to be designed well." HAHAHA you
are a massive moron. Can you not even follow the examples? Do you know
what the word "opposite means?" Please tell me how you answered the
question considering I asked for the exact opposite of the definition
(that you did not give). Snit fails again.
> And now my question for you:
>
> Question 2:
>
> Given that you claim to have taken HCI classes and yet have been shown that
> many such classes, even intro classes are focused on the principles you deny
> exist, how can you deny such principles exist? Here are links to some of
> these classes:
>
> <http://hamilton.bell.ac.uk/btech/hci/hciintro.pdf>
> <http://hamilton.bell.ac.uk/btech/hci/hcinotes16.pdf>
> <http://ep.jhu.edu/course-homepages/viewpage.php?homepage_id=3134>
> <http://pages.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/~saul/hci_topics/pdf_files/introduction...
> df> OR <http://goo.gl/Yc7Uq>
> <http://hit.uncc.edu/requirements/ITIS%206400%20Syllabus.pdf>
> <http://pages.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/~saul/481/>
>
> More details about those classes have been given elsewhere.
>
> Your answer goes here:
>
> ---------
No such general principles exist. Your effort to quote anything with
the word principle in it is meaningless. You cannot even give a 3
sentence or less definition for the general principle of consistency
that you claim to exist. I also asked John Carroll directly if there
are general principles (which you can too) and he agreed with me that
there aren't.
> ---------
>
> > 5a) cc: Well you're right, I can't find a square root of 2 that is
> > rational according to those definitions and examples you gave. I'm
> > sorry I questioned it.
>
> > 5b) cc: [I'll fill this in when you've answered].
>
> > Okay, there you go. An easy template for either of you to follow. When
> > you're done tickling and goosing each other, feel free to respond.
>
> Why do you need the same questions answered over and over and over? Face
> it: even though you have been proved wrong and your above questions were
> answered, you will continue to deny *and* you will not answer my questions.
You've never answered any of the questions. You fail again. Massively.
You had your chance and you blew it because you're too dumb to follow
the simple example I gave you. You're too dumb to even make up a
definition for your made up term.
> > Only one response per person though. I'll give one response to each.
>
> No, you will not - at least not a reasoned response. You will run.
I gave a reasoned response. You failed to answer a single question,
thus proving my point.
> > Considering that the general principle of consistency is a real thing,
> > this should end with me apologizing and saying you're right.
>
> But it will not - you will continue your pattern of lying and denying.
I have never lied. And yes I deny that you are right, because you're
wrong.
> > That was sarcasm Snit.
>
> Good: even you realize you will lie and deny.
You're literally the dumbest person I have ever seen. I hope Hadron
will respond. He's at least not a total clueless moron like you.
> > Once again, for the dummy of the two, Snit, you get ONE response before you're
> > ignored. So take your time, and before you hit the send button remember that
> > this is your shot to convince me I'm wrong, don't blow it by being a dumbass
> > and refusing to answer.
>
> > Snit's list of HCI classes he claims to have taken:
>
> > "data visualization, HCI general concepts, graphics and multimedia,
> > design technologies, experiments in UIs, cross cultural UI design and
> > others"
> >http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/f1ad3fbe212...
> > en&dmode=source
>
> > Hahahahahaha
>
> You think your lies are funny. Lovely.
>
That's a link to a post from you where you make those claims. That is
directly from you. Not lies at all. The fact that you think such
bullshit classes are lies is very telling.
Snit fails. Not a shocker. Hadron refuses to answer because he knows
he'll be proven wrong. Not a shocker either. You two can go back to
buttfucking each other now.
Snit
0d76f0a0-5e0b-4d45...@a11g2000pri.googlegroups.com on 3/8/11
1:18 PM:
...
> Snit fails. Not a shocker. Hadron refuses to answer because he knows
> he'll be proven wrong. Not a shocker either. You two can go back to
> buttfucking each other now.
As predicted:
------
> Take your time, because you only get one shot, and the end
> result *should* be me admitting you guys were right if you
> truly are.
Incorrect: you have already shown you will ignore *all* facts and
just deny, deny, deny. You will lie and make things up. So, no,
playing your game would not change your behavior and prevent you
from denying facts.
Really, that is just an absurd claim to make - wah wah, if only we
two will play with me you will stop lying and denying. Who do
you think is foolish enough to fall for that BS?
-----
I answered your every question. And you had no explanation as to why your
view is contrary to every relevant expert, OS guideline, standard and peer
reviewed study.
So why is it the whole world is wrong and you are right? Oh, I forgot,
accept Carroll who you claim renounced his public opinion in a private email
to you... but says nothing about this huge revelation of his *anywhere* in
public.
From the post you replied to... but you snipped in fear:
-----
<http://pages.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/~saul/481/process_diagram.html>
-----
And you have *no* reply other than to run. Nothing changes - you have no
refutation for my massive evidence... and not a word of support to back your
rather idiotic denial of the principles you used to deny existed... though
you did finally admit:
I never said to not take into account consistency.
So why would you take it into account if there is no general consensus that
you should? Really... you just self-nuked again.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
cc
> 1:18 PM:
>
> ...
>
> > Snit fails. Not a shocker. Hadron refuses to answer because he knows
> > he'll be proven wrong. Not a shocker either. You two can go back to
> > buttfucking each other now.
>
"Consistency implies reduced flexibility in the design of individual
products so that they may not be able to be as tailored to application
specific requirements or contexts"
"I agree that there is some value in user interface standards, and
that there are aspects of standardization that we need to adopt. But
centralized standards are also problematic and rarely successful."
"I do however recoil when designers and non-designers embark on
missions to “standardize for consistency”, assuming that once all the
products “look the same”, they will by some magic also be “designed
well”."
http://uitrends.com/2010/04/13/are-user-interface-standards-any-good/
"The case against user interface consistency"
"A close examination suggests that consistency is an unreliable guide
and that designers would often do better to focus on users' work
environments."
"There has been little progress in these matters. In 1981 Reisner [45]
wrote, "What is (not) clear, however, is precisely what we mean by
consistency and, more importantly how to identify its absence."
"In informal studies most people said that they would expect all of
the documents in the folder to be printed. However, system architects
have argued that issuing the Print command in this situation should
cause a list of the documents within the folder to be printed. In one
project the implementers argued successfully for this design *on the
basis of consistency with the internal system
architecture*." (emphasis his)
"The advocate for the user must realize that the job often requires
arguing *for inconsistency*" (emphasis his again)
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=67934
It's a widely cited paper within the HCI community.
You and Hadron failed to answer any questions because it was
impossible to answer the questions because the "general principle of
consistency" just isn't real. Yes, that may go against common sense,
that's there's no reliable principle you can start your design with,
but that is the whole reason for HCI in the first place.
cc
> On Mar 8, 4:01 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> > cc stated in post
> > 0d76f0a0-5e0b-4d45-8482-dca2f9809...@a11g2000pri.googlegroups.com on 3/8/11
> > 1:18 PM:
>
> > ...
>
> > > Snit fails. Not a shocker. Hadron refuses to answer because he knows
> > > he'll be proven wrong. Not a shocker either. You two can go back to
> > > buttfucking each other now.
>
"UI guidelines are often too general. On the one hand, to be
guidelines they must be somewhat general. Yet it’s that very
generality that makes them difficult to apply. When you are trying to
make specific decisions within the context of your product, a general
set of guidelines might not give you enough information for you to
make a decision."
"On the other hand, guidelines can be too specific. For example, a
guideline might specify having no more than seven items on a menu.
However, adding additional menus might be more confusing to users than
having more than seven choices on any one menu. Additionally,
guidelines may conflict with one another. For example, one guideline
might specify having no more than seven items on a menu, and another
might specify keeping similar items grouped together on menus. Which
guideline takes precedence? How would you know?"
"Only by gathering empirical data can you find out how well the user
interface for a product fits your users’ needs and expectations."
"The value in UI consistency lies in effective learning, by making it
easy to transfer knowledge from another product. However, sometimes
ease of learning can get in the way of ease of use"
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms997578.aspx
I think I have more somewhere.
cc
> On Mar 8, 4:21 pm, cc <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 8, 4:01 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> > > cc stated in post
> > > 0d76f0a0-5e0b-4d45-8482-dca2f9809...@a11g2000pri.googlegroups.com on 3/8/11
> > > 1:18 PM:
>
> > > ...
>
> > > > Snit fails. Not a shocker. Hadron refuses to answer because he knows
> > > > he'll be proven wrong. Not a shocker either. You two can go back to
> > > > buttfucking each other now.
>
"Consistency has no meaning on its own; It is inherently a relational
concept. Therefore to merely say that an interface is consistent or
that consistency is a goal of user interface design is also
meaningless."
http://books.google.com/books?id=gjNiaLLWu0EC&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=The+case+against+user+interface+consistency&source=bl&ots=JJC6QLF_vr&sig=TJNSCVu9pM9AzqT45YjM6cI1C6Y&hl=en&ei=RqB2TfvRIdT6rAG66szFCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CD4Q6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=The%20case%20against%20user%20interface%20consistency&f=false
Didn't you tell me to read Nielsen? Read around page 8 - 12 I believe.
Snit
5ffc4870-0718-4d43...@34g2000pru.googlegroups.com on 3/8/11
2:21 PM:
> On Mar 8, 4:01 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> cc stated in post
>> 0d76f0a0-5e0b-4d45-8482-dca2f9809...@a11g2000pri.googlegroups.com on 3/8/11
>> 1:18 PM:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> Snit fails. Not a shocker. Hadron refuses to answer because he knows
>>> he'll be proven wrong. Not a shocker either. You two can go back to
>>> buttfucking each other now.
>>
>
>
> "Consistency implies reduced flexibility in the design of individual
> products so that they may not be able to be as tailored to application
> specific requirements or contexts"
> "I agree that there is some value in user interface standards, and
> that there are aspects of standardization that we need to adopt. But
> centralized standards are also problematic and rarely successful."
> "I do however recoil when designers and non-designers embark on
> missions to łstandardize for consistency˛, assuming that once all the
> products łlook the same˛, they will by some magic also be łdesigned
> well˛."
> http://uitrends.com/2010/04/13/are-user-interface-standards-any-good/
>
> "The case against user interface consistency"
> "A close examination suggests that consistency is an unreliable guide
> and that designers would often do better to focus on users' work
> environments."
> "There has been little progress in these matters. In 1981 Reisner [45]
> wrote, "What is (not) clear, however, is precisely what we mean by
> consistency and, more importantly how to identify its absence."
> "In informal studies most people said that they would expect all of
> the documents in the folder to be printed. However, system architects
> have argued that issuing the Print command in this situation should
> cause a list of the documents within the folder to be printed. In one
> project the implementers argued successfully for this design *on the
> basis of consistency with the internal system
> architecture*." (emphasis his)
> "The advocate for the user must realize that the job often requires
> arguing *for inconsistency*" (emphasis his again)
> http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=67934
>
> It's a widely cited paper within the HCI community.
And I have pointed to it repeatedly... and asked you where you think I
disagree? Remember, nobody is saying you should be consistent when there is
a user-based reason not to be. Nobody.
See: you are just clueless.
> You and Hadron failed to answer any questions because it was
> impossible to answer the questions because the "general principle of
> consistency" just isn't real. Yes, that may go against common sense,
> that's there's no reliable principle you can start your design with,
> but that is the whole reason for HCI in the first place.
Sure there are... here:
Look - a source that tells gives you a fine definition... and speaks of the
effects. Remember: you have failed to find a single counter-example, a UI
you think is designed well that does not follow the well accepted principle
of consistency:
Lidwell, Holden, Butler. (2003) Universal Principles of Design.
-----
According to the principle of consistency, systems are more usable
and learnable when similar parts are expressed in similar ways.
Consistency enables people to efficiently transfer knowledge to
new contexts, learn new things quickly, and focus attention on the
relevant aspects of a task ... Internal consistency refers to
consistency with other elements in the system (e.g., signs within
a park are consistent with one another).
Internal consistency cultivates trust with people; it is an
indicator that a system has been designed, not cobbled together.
-----
But maybe you want more (sometimes you whine I give you too much...
sometimes too little - well, I love to just crush your BS with overwhelming
evidence, so here goes). Another source to define the principle of
consistency for you (you know, the thing you deny exists):
http://www.d.umn.edu/~gshute/softeng/principles.html
-----
The principle of consistency is a recognition of the fact that it
is easier to do things in a familiar context.
-----
Boom. One simple sentence. But it goes on to give more detail:
----
Consistency serves two purposes in designing graphical user
interfaces. First, a consistent look and feel makes it easier for
users to learn to use software. Once the basic elements of dealing
with an interface are learned, they do not have to be relearned for
a different software application. Second, a consistent user
interface promotes reuse of the interface components. Graphical
user interface systems have a collection of frames, panes, and
other view components that support the common look. They also have
a collection of controllers for responding to user input,
supporting the common feel. Often, both look and feel are
combined, as in pop-up menus and buttons. These components can be
used by any program.
-----
But, wait, there is more. From another source - the "mythological"
principle of consistency is described quite well:
<http://www.medicalcomputing.org/archives/0agui.php>
-----
The user must be able to anticipate a widget's behavior from its
visual properties. Widgets in this context refer to visual
controls such as buttons, menus, check boxes, scroll bars, and
rulers. So let's call this the Principle of Consistency at the
Widget Level.
-----
Call it the... what? Did you catch that? LOL!
-----
This principle stresses that every widget in your application
should behave consistently. If one button responds to a single
mouse click then every button should respond to a single click.
... If your application requires a new widget that behaves
differently from a common or closely related widget, anticipate
the confusion and give your new widget a distinctive appearance.
Use metaphor affordances whenever possible to make your widget's
appearance tell the user how that widget behaves.
-----
And did you read that... even talks about inconsistency. Man, why would it
mention that? LOL! But let us keep reading:
-----
The user must be able to anticipate the behavior of your program
using knowledge gained from other programs. This is the Principle
of Consistency at the Platform Level.
-----
What is it again? The Principle of... what? Oh come on, try to type it,
cc, without your head exploding. LOL!
And more from the same source:
-----
Consistency is important not only to visual elements like widgets
but to abstractions such as mouse gestures, accelerator keys,
placement of menus, and icons and toolbar glyphs. There are plenty
of decisions regarding GUIs that are arbitrary and
platform-specific. Obtain a good GUI application design guide for
your target platform, and follow it. If you feel compelled to
improve upon conventions, you will more than likely undo your
"improvements" after users complain about them. If you are doing
cross-platform development, maintain consistency with the host
platform. Maintaining consistency with the host platform trumps
achieving consistency of your application across platforms. Your
users will change applications on the same platform far more
frequently than they will run your application on different
platforms.
-----
Surely there cannot be more sources that say what this non-existent
principle is... can there? Why, there can be. There are... to make your
head explode even more:
<http://members.multimania.co.uk/bonstionet/bsc/hci/index.htm>
-----
Finally, the principle of consistency is concerned with the
similarity, especially in terms of input / output behaviour,
arising from similar situations or task objectives.
-----
Wait... what Principle is concerned with similarity? LOL! I challenge you
to just type the words, cc. Too funny! The same source continues:
-----
Consistency is always relative to another element of interface
design - e.g. consistent button usage conventions or consistent
screen formatting. It also forms an underlying component in other
usability principles. It is worth noting at this point that
consistency can be a hindrance when applied incorrectly or in
order to support a task, which intrinsically includes
inconsistencies. Such an example could be found in the design of
first typewriters' keyboards. Having letters arranged consistently
from 'a' to 'z' fails to take into account their inconsistent
usage distribution. This leads to a jammed mechanism or premature
hand fatigue, both attributable to frequently used keys lying
adjacent to one another.
-----
Yeah, it talks about inconsistency as well. Man... gonna blow your mind.
Oh, let's not stop... let's keep watching your head spin (face it, by now
you have already ran away, you will not even read this - you are overwhelmed
by the evidence I use to prove you wrong).
<http://infolab.uvt.nl/research/lap2003/agerfalk.pdf>
-----
The usability principle of consistency refers to interface designs
that keep to the same principles over a set of individual systems
or parts thereof.
-----
Oh, another lovely single sentence to tell you what it is. You know, the
think you said did not exist. And from the same source:
-----
This essential design principle addresses a wide spectrum of
topics including the use of terminology, interaction patterns and
consistency between applications. It is claimed that consistency
facilitates learning since re-learning is minimized when people
already know their way about. Visual consistency also increases
the perceived stability, thus promoting user confidence.
-----
Very much like what I have been saying - as if this is well accepted, eh?
LOL!
And perhaps this will help you (nah, you will just run and deny):
<http://nemaro.de/docs/Studienarbeit_Vogt1999.pdf>
-----
The use of guidelines for designing user interfaces in commercial
software development
-----
Using Guidelines! What? But there are none!
-----
Before I describe the contents of the UI guidelines in detail in
the next chapter I want to mention the different terms that are
used when talking about guidelines. Of course the guidelines can
have a different level of abstraction. In addition to the term
'guideline' someone can also find often the terms 'design
principle', 'design rule', 'style guide' and 'standard' in the
literature. Unfortunately the use of the previous terms is not
consistent in the different sources. Although ironically
consistency is mentioned all the time to be the most important
principle.
-----
Wait: what is listed as the most important principle... and how often? "all
the time"! LOL! You are so far in over your head, cc. And from the same
source:
-----
The importance of consistency is mentioned in all of the papers.
First it is motivated why consistency is necessary for a good UI.
In these parts of the documents the same things are said very
often only with some different words. In [NASA 96] we can read
this: "Consistent visual appearance and consistent response to
user input are required throughout the user interface. [...]
[I]nterface characteristics should be uniform and familiar, with
consistent sequences of actions in similar situations. Terminology
must be used consistently to avoid confusing the user. A user
interface becomes intuitive by
consistently meeting users'
expectations. [...] Allow the user to build-up expectations and
predict system actions based on the system's performance of other
actions. [...] Permit the user to take the general knowledge and
skills learned in one system and transfer them to another like it,
without requiring extensive learning and training exercises."
Following are often some notes where someone has to take special
care on consistency or how it can be achieved.
[Microsoft 97] differentiates between consistency within a
product, within the operating environment and with metaphors.
Consistency within a product means presenting common functions
using a consistent set of commands and interfaces. Consistency
within the operating environment can be achieved by maintaining a
high level of consistency between the interaction and interface
conventions provided by the operating environment so that the
users are able to apply interaction skills they have already
learned. Consistency with metaphors means to give special
attention that the behavior of an object is reflected by its
metaphor. This will make it easier for the user to associate that
behavior with an object.
[NASA 96] suggests to maintain consistency in the design areas of
the display (icon design and meaning, location of title fields,
menu bars and messages, cursor shape and function, cursor home
position, field delimiters, color meaning and data entry prompt),
labeling terminology, system control (command terminology and
meanings, editing procedures, function- and command keys),
abbreviations, acronyms, mnemonics, visual coding, alarms and
warnings.
In [Schumacher 92] we can find some tips how to support
consistency: "Similar interface components should have similar
appearance and behavior. An action should always have the same
result regardless of context (i.e., avoid modes). Standard
functions should be reused across tasks and should be presented in
the same way in each task. By definition, the behavior of standard
functions should be consistent across different task contexts."
-----
Oh, on and on and on. You whine that I just keep repeating the same
things... so now I am finding more sources to rip your ignorant denial
apart.
And I am having fun. Now don't trip on those laces of yours!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
26c83612-4afd-425f...@j13g2000pro.googlegroups.com on 3/8/11
2:33 PM:
> On Mar 8, 4:21 pm, cc <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 8, 4:01 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>> cc stated in post
>>> 0d76f0a0-5e0b-4d45-8482-dca2f9809...@a11g2000pri.googlegroups.com on 3/8/11
>>> 1:18 PM:
>>
>>> ...
>>
>>>> Snit fails. Not a shocker. Hadron refuses to answer because he knows
>>>> he'll be proven wrong. Not a shocker either. You two can go back to
>>>> buttfucking each other now.
>>
>
> "UI guidelines are often too general.
Too general? They do not exist! LOL!
> On the one hand, to be
> guidelines they must be somewhat general. Yet itšs that very
> generality that makes them difficult to apply. When you are trying to
> make specific decisions within the context of your product, a general
> set of guidelines might not give you enough information for you to
> make a decision."
> "On the other hand, guidelines can be too specific. For example, a
> guideline might specify having no more than seven items on a menu.
> However, adding additional menus might be more confusing to users than
> having more than seven choices on any one menu. Additionally,
> guidelines may conflict with one another. For example, one guideline
> might specify having no more than seven items on a menu, and another
> might specify keeping similar items grouped together on menus. Which
> guideline takes precedence? How would you know?"
> "Only by gathering empirical data can you find out how well the user
> interface for a product fits your usersš needs and expectations."
> "The value in UI consistency lies in effective learning, by making it
> easy to transfer knowledge from another product. However, sometimes
> ease of learning can get in the way of ease of use"
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms997578.aspx
>
> I think I have more somewhere.
But do you have anything that is contrary to my views? You know... like a
UI you consider well done that does not follow the principle of consistency?
LOL!
No... you do not. But you have a whole lot of denial!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
cc
>
> http://www.d.umn.edu/~gshute/softeng/principles.html
> -----
> The principle of consistency is a recognition of the fact that it
> is easier to do things in a familiar context.
> -----
>
> Boom. One simple sentence. But it goes on to give more detail:
Finally a definition. Everything else you quoted did was not a
definition. How could you not sum this up before? So continuing our
little thought experiment, a well designed UI that did not follow the
general principle of consistency would be a UI where it is easier to
do things in an unfamiliar context, according to the definition you
gave me? Correct? It's a simple yes or no.
Snit
f8dccdba-a6f7-4cd3...@t15g2000prt.googlegroups.com on 3/8/11
2:39 PM:
Wow! You finally looked at one of the sources I have repeatedly talked
about and quoted from it. And from the snippet it even sounds like maybe it
is contrary to my views. Congratulations! It is awesome! But look at the
same source:
The good designer will always follow this restatement of our Consistency
Principle
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
cc
> 2:39 PM:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 8, 4:33 pm, cc <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mar 8, 4:21 pm, cc <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Mar 8, 4:01 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> cc stated in post
> >>>> 0d76f0a0-5e0b-4d45-8482-dca2f9809...@a11g2000pri.googlegroups.com on 3/8/11
> >>>> 1:18 PM:
>
> >>>> ...
>
> >>>>> Snit fails. Not a shocker. Hadron refuses to answer because he knows
> >>>>> he'll be proven wrong. Not a shocker either. You two can go back to
> >>>>> buttfucking each other now.
>
> > "Consistency has no meaning on its own; It is inherently a relational
> > concept. Therefore to merely say that an interface is consistent or
> > that consistency is a goal of user interface design is also
> > meaningless."
> > inst+user+interface+consistency&source=bl&ots=JJC6QLF_vr&sig=TJNSCVu9pM9AzqT45
> > YjM6cI1C6Y&hl=en&ei=RqB2TfvRIdT6rAG66szFCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnu
> > m=10&ved=0CD4Q6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=The%20case%20against%20user%20interface%20c
> > onsistency&f=false
>
> > Didn't you tell me to read Nielsen? Read around page 8 - 12 I believe.
>
> Wow! You finally looked at one of the sources I have repeatedly talked
> about and quoted from it. And from the snippet it even sounds like maybe it
> is contrary to my views. Congratulations! It is awesome! But look at the
> same source:
You have so many sources that you apparently don't even read, so why
should I bother. All you do is quote out of context without reading
the entire paper.
> The good designer will always follow this restatement of our Consistency
> Principle
>
His consistency principle is now the general principle of consistency
of HCI? His consistency principle is also do whatever you have to do
to improve performance and while causing little confusion to the user.
If you read the entire paper, you'll see that he keeps reformulating
*his* Consistency Principle, showing that there really is no principle
at all. This is why everything you quote from your sources is pure
shit. Because you don't read.
Snit
cc stated in post
f8dccdba-a6f7-4cd3...@t15g2000prt.googlegroups.com on 3/8/11
2:39 PM:
> On Mar 8, 4:33 pm, cc <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 8, 4:21 pm, cc <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 8, 4:01 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> cc stated in post
>>>> 0d76f0a0-5e0b-4d45-8482-dca2f9809...@a11g2000pri.googlegroups.com on 3/8/11
>>>> 1:18 PM:
>>
>>>> ...
>>
>>>>> Snit fails. Not a shocker. Hadron refuses to answer because he knows
>>>>> he'll be proven wrong. Not a shocker either. You two can go back to
>>>>> buttfucking each other now.
>>
>
>
> "Consistency has no meaning on its own; It is inherently a relational
> concept. Therefore to merely say that an interface is consistent or
> that consistency is a goal of user interface design is also
> meaningless."
> http://books.google.com/books?id=gjNiaLLWu0EC&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=The+case+aga
> inst+user+interface+consistency&source=bl&ots=JJC6QLF_vr&sig=TJNSCVu9pM9AzqT45
> YjM6cI1C6Y&hl=en&ei=RqB2TfvRIdT6rAG66szFCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnu
> m=10&ved=0CD4Q6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=The%20case%20against%20user%20interface%20c
> onsistency&f=false
>
> Didn't you tell me to read Nielsen? Read around page 8 - 12 I believe.
Wow! Your snippet sounds like maybe it is contrary to my views.
Congratulations! It is awesome! This is a first for you. But look at the
same source:
-----
The good designer will always follow this restatement of our
Consistency Principle
Do not deviate from published guidelines unless the change will
clearly and distinctly improve the performance of the product
while causing the least possible confusion to the user.
-----
The material you pointed to is about the importance of consistency... the
title is even "Coordinating user interfaces for consistency"... the snippet
you grabbed is about how you cannot tell just by looking at a screenshot of,
in his specific example, three squares with 1, 2 and 3 dots. Is it
consistent? In a meaningful way? Who knows - it depends on what the UI is
for. And that is important to understanding consistency. Excellent point -
and completely consistent with what I have been telling you. And then he
end that section on the difficulty of understanding consistency with:
-----
Given this picture of complexity, it might seem plausible to give
up the notion of consistency as a design goal altogether. But let
us consider the concerns raised above more fully with the assistance
of some real applications.
-----
He goes on to speak of different types of consistency and how they can be at
odds - and why a single sentence definition of this principle is not
something you will find, but then notes, as I have, that the Macintosh team
at Apple handles these things very well.
Yeah, he completely rips you apart and supports my view. And this is your
best effort yet to contradict my view with the use of a source.
Really, how can you think the book "Coordinating user interfaces for
consistency" supports your completely absurd idea that there is no general
consensus that this is an important goal / guideline to work toward.
Heck, look at the back cover of the book (as if the title was not enough for
you):
-----
There has been exponential growth in the opportunities for following
or disregarding the principles of interface consistency...
-----
The principles of what...??? LOL!
Face it, this is another amazing self-nuke by you.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
cc
> Sorry... hit the wrong button and sent this out incomplete the first time:
>
> cc stated in post
> 2:39 PM:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 8, 4:33 pm, cc <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mar 8, 4:21 pm, cc <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Mar 8, 4:01 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> cc stated in post
> >>>> 0d76f0a0-5e0b-4d45-8482-dca2f9809...@a11g2000pri.googlegroups.com on 3/8/11
> >>>> 1:18 PM:
>
> >>>> ...
>
> >>>>> Snit fails. Not a shocker. Hadron refuses to answer because he knows
> >>>>> he'll be proven wrong. Not a shocker either. You two can go back to
> >>>>> buttfucking each other now.
>
> > "Consistency has no meaning on its own; It is inherently a relational
> > concept. Therefore to merely say that an interface is consistent or
> > that consistency is a goal of user interface design is also
> > meaningless."
> > inst+user+interface+consistency&source=bl&ots=JJC6QLF_vr&sig=TJNSCVu9pM9AzqT45
> > YjM6cI1C6Y&hl=en&ei=RqB2TfvRIdT6rAG66szFCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnu
> > m=10&ved=0CD4Q6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=The%20case%20against%20user%20interface%20c
>
> > Didn't you tell me to read Nielsen? Read around page 8 - 12 I believe.
>
> Wow! Your snippet sounds like maybe it is contrary to my views.
> Congratulations! It is awesome! This is a first for you. But look at the
> same source:
>
> -----
> The good designer will always follow this restatement of our
> Consistency Principle
>
> Do not deviate from published guidelines unless the change will
> clearly and distinctly improve the performance of the product
> while causing the least possible confusion to the user.
> -----
Do not deviate unless you have to. What a principle. Also if you'll
notice the word "restatement" because he redefines his own Consistency
Principle a bunch of times in the book.
> The material you pointed to is about the importance of consistency... the
> title is even "Coordinating user interfaces for consistency"... the snippet
> you grabbed is about how you cannot tell just by looking at a screenshot of,
> in his specific example, three squares with 1, 2 and 3 dots. Is it
> consistent? In a meaningful way? Who knows - it depends on what the UI is
> for. And that is important to understanding consistency. Excellent point -
> and completely consistent with what I have been telling you. And then he
> end that section on the difficulty of understanding consistency with:
>
> -----
> Given this picture of complexity, it might seem plausible to give
> up the notion of consistency as a design goal altogether. But let
> us consider the concerns raised above more fully with the assistance
> of some real applications.
> -----
>
> He goes on to speak of different types of consistency and how they can be at
> odds - and why a single sentence definition of this principle is not
> something you will find, but then notes, as I have, that the Macintosh team
> at Apple handles these things very well.
>
> Yeah, he completely rips you apart and supports my view. And this is your
> best effort yet to contradict my view with the use of a source.
Yeah he really rips me apart by making a joke of his Consistency
Principle and constantly restating it.
> Really, how can you think the book "Coordinating user interfaces for
> consistency" supports your completely absurd idea that there is no general
> consensus that this is an important goal / guideline to work toward.
>
> Heck, look at the back cover of the book (as if the title was not enough for
> you):
>
> -----
> There has been exponential growth in the opportunities for following
> or disregarding the principles of interface consistency...
> -----
>
> The principles of what...??? LOL!
Yes, and he makes a point that it is his Consistency Principle, that
having a Consistency Principle is useless because it has to be
redefined so many times, and that they're better off disregarded.
> Face it, this is another amazing self-nuke by you.
>
You still haven't read the book have you?
Snit
0bc6d7b9-4352-4480...@18g2000prd.googlegroups.com on 3/8/11
2:48 PM:
...
...
>> Sure there are... here:
>>
>> Look - a source that tells gives you a fine definition... and speaks of the
>> effects. Remember: you have failed to find a single counter-example, a UI
>> you think is designed well that does not follow the well accepted principle
>> of consistency:
>>
>> Lidwell, Holden, Butler. (2003) Universal Principles of Design.
>> -----
>> According to the principle of consistency, systems are more usable
>> and learnable when similar parts are expressed in similar ways.
>> Consistency enables people to efficiently transfer knowledge to
>> new contexts, learn new things quickly, and focus attention on the
>> relevant aspects of a task ... Internal consistency refers to
>> consistency with other elements in the system (e.g., signs within
>> a park are consistent with one another).
>>
>> Internal consistency cultivates trust with people; it is an
>> indicator that a system has been designed, not cobbled together.
>> -----
>> But maybe you want more (sometimes you whine I give you too much... sometimes
>> too little - well, I love to just crush your BS with overwhelming evidence,
>> so here goes). Another source to define the principle of consistency for you
>> (you know, the thing you deny exists):
>>
>> http://www.d.umn.edu/~gshute/softeng/principles.html
>> -----
>> The principle of consistency is a recognition of the fact that it
>> is easier to do things in a familiar context.
>> -----
>>
>> Boom. One simple sentence. But it goes on to give more detail:
And you did not answer the question. What is it called? The Principle
of...
Come on, cc, you can do it!
>> -----
>> This principle stresses that every widget in your application
>> should behave consistently. If one button responds to a single
>> mouse click then every button should respond to a single click.
>> ... If your application requires a new widget that behaves
>> differently from a common or closely related widget, anticipate
>> the confusion and give your new widget a distinctive appearance.
>> Use metaphor affordances whenever possible to make your widget's
>> appearance tell the user how that widget behaves.
>> -----
>>
>> And did you read that... even talks about inconsistency. Man, why would it
>> mention that? LOL! But let us keep reading:
>>
>> -----
>> The user must be able to anticipate the behavior of your program
>> using knowledge gained from other programs. This is the Principle
>> of Consistency at the Platform Level.
>> -----
>>
>> What is it again? The Principle of... what? Oh come on, try to type it, cc,
>> without your head exploding. LOL!
Another question you ran from. The above is talking about the principle
of... what?
Come on, can't you figure that out?
What is the principle concerned with? You snipped that, too. Just ran
away.
I really like that wording... of the principle you deny exists.
>> -----
>> This essential design principle addresses a wide spectrum of
>> topics including the use of terminology, interaction patterns and
>> consistency between applications. It is claimed that consistency
>> facilitates learning since re-learning is minimized when people
>> already know their way about. Visual consistency also increases
>> the perceived stability, thus promoting user confidence.
>> -----
>>
>> Very much like what I have been saying - as if this is well accepted, eh?
>> LOL!
>>
>> And perhaps this will help you (nah, you will just run and deny):
And you did! Wow... who would have guessed (hint: everyone).
>> <http://nemaro.de/docs/Studienarbeit_Vogt1999.pdf>
>> -----
>> The use of guidelines for designing user interfaces in commercial
>> software development
>> -----
>>
>> Using Guidelines! What? But there are none!
>>
>> -----
>> Before I describe the contents of the UI guidelines in detail in
>> the next chapter I want to mention the different terms that are
>> used when talking about guidelines. Of course the guidelines can
>> have a different level of abstraction. In addition to the term
>> 'guideline' someone can also find often the terms 'design
>> principle', 'design rule', 'style guide' and 'standard' in the
>> literature. Unfortunately the use of the previous terms is not
>> consistent in the different sources. Although ironically
>> consistency is mentioned all the time to be the most important
>> principle.
>> -----
>>
>> Wait: what is listed as the most important principle... and how often? "all
>> the time"! LOL! You are so far in over your head, cc. And from the same
>> source:
Yeah, the principle of consistency is deemed the most important "all the
time", according to this source. But you, as such an expert, do not even
think it exists!
> Finally a definition. Everything else you quoted did was not a
> definition.
I have quoted many... and explained why there is not just one. But you can
pretend otherwise.
But why not just admit all those sources rip you apart on your denial of
there even being such a principle? Come on? What is wrong with you to be
in such denial? You did not even read the above... you just snipped and
ran.
Then will whine that I am repeating it.
Poor cc: all he can do is run.
> How could you not sum this up before? So continuing our little thought
> experiment, a well designed UI that did not follow the general principle of
> consistency would be a UI where it is easier to do things in an unfamiliar
> context, according to the definition you gave me? Correct? It's a simple yes
> or no.
That would be part of it - but you need to read more than just one
sentence... hence why I provided you with more. Now *read* it and stop
running.
As if! LOL! Of course you will run from yet more proof of how wrong you
are.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
cc
> > experiment, a well designed UI that did not follow the general principle of
> > consistency would be a UI where it is easier to do things in an unfamiliar
> > context, according to the definition you gave me? Correct? It's a simple yes
> > or no.
>
> That would be part of it - but you need to read more than just one
> sentence... hence why I provided you with more. Now *read* it and stop
> running.
I read it, and it's not a definition. How can you not answer a simple
yes or no question? So I gave you a well designed UI where it is easer
to do things in an unfamiliar context, then that would be a well
design UI that does not follow the general principle of consistency in
HCI, correct? I just want it to be understood what I'm giving you, if
you feel that I defined it wrong, or easy in an unfamiliar context is
not enough, then please add to it.
> As if! LOL! Of course you will run from yet more proof of how wrong you
> are.
You're the only one who's running. I just showed you how you quote out
of context on your sources because you don't fucking read them. I'm
not doing it for all your sources, particularly ones that deal with
the specific principle of consistency for widgets in a particular OS.
Just answer yes or no above.
Snit
11ea4e29-840f-4c87...@18g2000prd.googlegroups.com on 3/8/11
3:03 PM:
...
>> Wow! You finally looked at one of the sources I have repeatedly talked
>> about and quoted from it. And from the snippet it even sounds like maybe it
>> is contrary to my views. Congratulations! It is awesome! But look at the
>> same source:
>
> You have so many sources that you apparently don't even read, so why
> should I bother. All you do is quote out of context without reading
> the entire paper.
LOL! You claim I do not read my sources... but you self nuked on this one.
And then just ran. Here, what you snipped:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
But look at the same source:
-----
The good designer will always follow this restatement of our
Consistency Principle
Do not deviate from published guidelines unless the change will
clearly and distinctly improve the performance of the product
while causing the least possible confusion to the user.
-----
The material you pointed to is about the importance of consistency... the
title is even "Coordinating user interfaces for consistency"... the snippet
you grabbed is about how you cannot tell just by looking at a screenshot of,
in his specific example, three squares with 1, 2 and 3 dots. Is it
consistent? In a meaningful way? Who knows - it depends on what the UI is
for. And that is important to understanding consistency. Excellent point -
and completely consistent with what I have been telling you. And then he
end that section on the difficulty of understanding consistency with:
-----
Given this picture of complexity, it might seem plausible to give
up the notion of consistency as a design goal altogether. But let
us consider the concerns raised above more fully with the assistance
of some real applications.
-----
He goes on to speak of different types of consistency and how they can be at
odds - and why a single sentence definition of this principle is not
something you will find, but then notes, as I have, that the Macintosh team
at Apple handles these things very well.
Yeah, he completely rips you apart and supports my view. And this is your
best effort yet to contradict my view with the use of a source.
Really, how can you think the book "Coordinating user interfaces for
consistency" supports your completely absurd idea that there is no general
consensus that this is an important goal / guideline to work toward.
Heck, look at the back cover of the book (as if the title was not enough for
you):
-----
There has been exponential growth in the opportunities for following
or disregarding the principles of interface consistency...
-----
The principles of what...??? LOL!
Face it, this is another amazing self-nuke by you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, your source was all about the principle you deny exists... and you
tried to use it to support your denial.
Complete self-nuke on your part. And instead of admitting it, you accuse me
of doing as you just were proved to do.
Your denial is just amazing.
>> The good designer will always follow this restatement of our Consistency
>> Principle
>>
>
> His consistency principle is now the general principle of consistency
> of HCI?
I think it is a fine statement of the principle. Sure.
> His consistency principle is also do whatever you have to do to improve
> performance and while causing little confusion to the user. If you read the
> entire paper, you'll see that he keeps reformulating *his* Consistency
> Principle, showing that there really is no principle at all. This is why
> everything you quote from your sources is pure shit.
His "paper" is a book... LOL! And as I noted, it rips your claims apart.
The very title shows you are wrong... you have no idea what the "paper"
(which is a book) is about!
"the entire paper"... lol! You mean the book!
> Because you don't read.
Oh, the irony. Face it, even you know you self-nuked - hence the reason you
snipped and ran.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
cc
> 3:03 PM:
>
> ...
>
> >> Wow! You finally looked at one of the sources I have repeatedly talked
> >> about and quoted from it. And from the snippet it even sounds like maybe it
> >> is contrary to my views. Congratulations! It is awesome! But look at the
> >> same source:
>
> > You have so many sources that you apparently don't even read, so why
> > should I bother. All you do is quote out of context without reading
> > the entire paper.
>
> LOL! You claim I do not read my sources... but you self nuked on this one.
>
> And then just ran. Here, what you snipped:
That wasn't in this post you fucking moron. You only posted that
later. And I responded to it.
You realize that was like the 4th or 5th time he stated *his*
Consistency Principle because he was showing how useless a consistency
principle is, don't you? You of course, have read the book, right? So
you must know this.
> > His consistency principle is also do whatever you have to do to improve
> > performance and while causing little confusion to the user. If you read the
> > entire paper, you'll see that he keeps reformulating *his* Consistency
> > Principle, showing that there really is no principle at all. This is why
> > everything you quote from your sources is pure shit.
>
> His "paper" is a book... LOL! And as I noted, it rips your claims apart.
> The very title shows you are wrong... you have no idea what the "paper"
> (which is a book) is about!
>
> "the entire paper"... lol! You mean the book!
Yes, I typed the wrong word. In the next post it was corrected. You
have no idea what the title means because you didn't read the book.
> > Because you don't read.
>
> Oh, the irony. Face it, even you know you self-nuked - hence the reason you
> snipped and ran.
>
Snipped and ran from what? That's your entire post retard.
Snit
82ee0f22-70a5-4e28...@d26g2000prn.googlegroups.com on 3/8/11
3:19 PM:
...
>>> Didn't you tell me to read Nielsen? Read around page 8 - 12 I believe.
>>
>> Wow! Your snippet sounds like maybe it is contrary to my views.
>> Congratulations! It is awesome! This is a first for you. But look at the
>> same source:
>>
>> -----
>> The good designer will always follow this restatement of our
>> Consistency Principle
>>
>> Do not deviate from published guidelines unless the change will
>> clearly and distinctly improve the performance of the product
>> while causing the least possible confusion to the user.
>> -----
>
> Do not deviate unless you have to. What a principle. Also if you'll
> notice the word "restatement" because he redefines his own Consistency
> Principle a bunch of times in the book.
Oh! Oh! Show these multiple definitions. Pleeeeease!
LOL!
>> The material you pointed to is about the importance of consistency... the
>> title is even "Coordinating user interfaces for consistency"... the snippet
>> you grabbed is about how you cannot tell just by looking at a screenshot of,
>> in his specific example, three squares with 1, 2 and 3 dots. Is it
>> consistent? In a meaningful way? Who knows - it depends on what the UI is
>> for. And that is important to understanding consistency. Excellent point -
>> and completely consistent with what I have been telling you. And then he
>> end that section on the difficulty of understanding consistency with:
>>
>> -----
>> Given this picture of complexity, it might seem plausible to give
>> up the notion of consistency as a design goal altogether. But let
>> us consider the concerns raised above more fully with the assistance
>> of some real applications.
>> -----
>>
>> He goes on to speak of different types of consistency and how they can be at
>> odds - and why a single sentence definition of this principle is not
>> something you will find, but then notes, as I have, that the Macintosh team
>> at Apple handles these things very well.
>>
>> Yeah, he completely rips you apart and supports my view. And this is your
>> best effort yet to contradict my view with the use of a source.
>
> Yeah he really rips me apart by making a joke of his Consistency
> Principle and constantly restating it.
Please quote his multiple restatements.
>> Really, how can you think the book "Coordinating user interfaces for
>> consistency" supports your completely absurd idea that there is no general
>> consensus that this is an important goal / guideline to work toward.
>>
>> Heck, look at the back cover of the book (as if the title was not enough for
>> you):
>>
>> -----
>> There has been exponential growth in the opportunities for following
>> or disregarding the principles of interface consistency...
>> -----
>>
>> The principles of what...??? LOL!
You do not even answer the question. The principle of what? Come on, can't
you even type it?
> Yes, and he makes a point that it is his Consistency Principle, that
> having a Consistency Principle is useless because it has to be
> redefined so many times, and that they're better off disregarded.
So in a book about the importance of consistency, entitled "Coordinating
user interfaces for consistency", you think the main idea is that
consistency should be "disregarded". LOL!
You are so far over your head... so far lost. Seriously, look at the back
cover of the book. Here, an image for you:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/CUIfC.png>
And you think *that* book supports your denial. That book (the book you
called a "paper"). LOL!
And the you whine about me not having read it. Too damned funny!
And another self-nuke by you.
>> Face it, this is another amazing self-nuke by you.
>>
>
> You still haven't read the book have you?
You mean the "paper" you think supports you but clearly does not? LOL!
You self-nuked.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
1be8d6bf-4a6a-48b0...@z3g2000prz.googlegroups.com on 3/8/11
3:27 PM:
> On Mar 8, 5:22 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> cc stated in post
>>>
>>> How could you not sum this up before? So continuing our little thought
>>> experiment, a well designed UI that did not follow the general principle of
>>> consistency would be a UI where it is easier to do things in an unfamiliar
>>> context, according to the definition you gave me? Correct? It's a simple yes
>>> or no.
>>
>> That would be part of it - but you need to read more than just one
>> sentence... hence why I provided you with more. Now *read* it and stop
>> running.
>
> I read it,
No. You sipped and ran. Here is what you keep running from - more proof of
how absurd your denial is:
-----
This principle stresses that every widget in your application
should behave consistently. If one button responds to a single
mouse click then every button should respond to a single click.
... If your application requires a new widget that behaves
differently from a common or closely related widget, anticipate
the confusion and give your new widget a distinctive appearance.
Use metaphor affordances whenever possible to make your widget's
appearance tell the user how that widget behaves.
-----
And did you read that... even talks about inconsistency. Man, why would it
mention that? LOL! But let us keep reading:
-----
The user must be able to anticipate the behavior of your program
using knowledge gained from other programs. This is the Principle
of Consistency at the Platform Level.
-----
What is it again? The Principle of... what? Oh come on, try to type it,
cc, without your head exploding. LOL!
And more from the same source:
-----
-----
This essential design principle addresses a wide spectrum of
topics including the use of terminology, interaction patterns and
consistency between applications. It is claimed that consistency
facilitates learning since re-learning is minimized when people
already know their way about. Visual consistency also increases
the perceived stability, thus promoting user confidence.
-----
Very much like what I have been saying - as if this is well accepted, eh?
LOL!
And perhaps this will help you (nah, you will just run and deny):
<http://nemaro.de/docs/Studienarbeit_Vogt1999.pdf>
-----
The use of guidelines for designing user interfaces in commercial
software development
-----
Using Guidelines! What? But there are none!
-----
Before I describe the contents of the UI guidelines in detail in
the next chapter I want to mention the different terms that are
used when talking about guidelines. Of course the guidelines can
have a different level of abstraction. In addition to the term
'guideline' someone can also find often the terms 'design
principle', 'design rule', 'style guide' and 'standard' in the
literature. Unfortunately the use of the previous terms is not
consistent in the different sources. Although ironically
consistency is mentioned all the time to be the most important
principle.
-----
Wait: what is listed as the most important principle... and how often? "all
the time"! LOL! You are so far in over your head, cc. And from the same
source:
-----
And boom! You are overwhelmed and just run.
> and it's not a definition. How can you not answer a simple
> yes or no question? So I gave you a well designed UI where it is easer
> to do things in an unfamiliar context, then that would be a well
> design UI that does not follow the general principle of consistency in
> HCI, correct? I just want it to be understood what I'm giving you, if
> you feel that I defined it wrong, or easy in an unfamiliar context is
> not enough, then please add to it.
>
>> As if! LOL! Of course you will run from yet more proof of how wrong you
>> are.
>
> You're the only one who's running. I just showed you how you quote out
> of context on your sources because you don't fucking read them. I'm
> not doing it for all your sources, particularly ones that deal with
> the specific principle of consistency for widgets in a particular OS.
> Just answer yes or no above.
You snipped and ran. But, no, you cannot just take a sentence out of
context and get a good feel for what you are running from. Not at all.
You have to stop being a scared little bunny.
But since you want a very short definition, I will go with this one (though
it splits it into two categories... internal and external, to a large
extent):
<http://www.medicalcomputing.org/archives/0agui.php>
-----
The user must be able to anticipate a widget's behavior from its
visual properties. Widgets in this context refer to visual
controls such as buttons, menus, check boxes, scroll bars, and
rulers. So let's call this the Principle of Consistency at the
Widget Level.
-----
The user must be able to anticipate the behavior of your program
using knowledge gained from other programs. This is the Principle
of Consistency at the Platform Level.
-----
But can't you at least admit all these sources contradict your denial? I
mean, really, are you so stuck in your many denials you cannot even admit to
that?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
638f4916-6a9b-4aee...@j35g2000prb.googlegroups.com on 3/8/11
3:35 PM:
> On Mar 8, 5:27 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> cc stated in post
>> 11ea4e29-840f-4c87-acdf-449054827...@18g2000prd.googlegroups.com on 3/8/11
>> 3:03 PM:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>> Wow! You finally looked at one of the sources I have repeatedly talked
>>>> about and quoted from it. And from the snippet it even sounds like maybe it
>>>> is contrary to my views. Congratulations! It is awesome! But look at the
>>>> same source:
>>
>>> You have so many sources that you apparently don't even read, so why
>>> should I bother. All you do is quote out of context without reading
>>> the entire paper.
>>
>> LOL! You claim I do not read my sources... but you self nuked on this one.
>>
>> And then just ran. Here, what you snipped:
>
> That wasn't in this post you fucking moron. You only posted that
> later. And I responded to it.
Well, two things went on here:
1) I was mistaken... so my apologies.
2) You still snipped and ran. The evidence I provided overwhelmed you.
Every one of these sources contradicts your BS denial about the principle of
consistency. You keep begging for a short statement of it... and I have
said this one is pretty good:
<http://www.medicalcomputing.org/archives/0agui.php>
-----
The user must be able to anticipate a widget's behavior from its
visual properties. Widgets in this context refer to visual
controls such as buttons, menus, check boxes, scroll bars, and
rulers. So let's call this the Principle of Consistency at the
Widget Level.
-----
The user must be able to anticipate the behavior of your program
using knowledge gained from other programs. This is the Principle
of Consistency at the Platform Level.
-----
But it goes beyond your ability to understand.
So show where he did so. The sad thing is you think this book:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/CUIfC.png>
Supports your denial of consistency as a general principle of good UI
design.
Really - you are just lost.
>>> His consistency principle is also do whatever you have to do to improve
>>> performance and while causing little confusion to the user. If you read the
>>> entire paper, you'll see that he keeps reformulating *his* Consistency
>>> Principle, showing that there really is no principle at all. This is why
>>> everything you quote from your sources is pure shit.
>>
>> His "paper" is a book... LOL! And as I noted, it rips your claims apart.
>> The very title shows you are wrong... you have no idea what the "paper"
>> (which is a book) is about!
>>
>> "the entire paper"... lol! You mean the book!
>
> Yes, I typed the wrong word. In the next post it was corrected. You
> have no idea what the title means because you didn't read the book.
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/CUIfC.png>
And you think this book supports you.
You are just self-nuking left and right.
...
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
cc
> 3:19 PM:
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> Didn't you tell me to read Nielsen? Read around page 8 - 12 I believe.
>
> >> Wow! Your snippet sounds like maybe it is contrary to my views.
> >> Congratulations! It is awesome! This is a first for you. But look at the
> >> same source:
>
> >> -----
> >> The good designer will always follow this restatement of our
> >> Consistency Principle
>
> >> Do not deviate from published guidelines unless the change will
> >> clearly and distinctly improve the performance of the product
> >> while causing the least possible confusion to the user.
> >> -----
>
> > Do not deviate unless you have to. What a principle. Also if you'll
> > notice the word "restatement" because he redefines his own Consistency
> > Principle a bunch of times in the book.
>
> Oh! Oh! Show these multiple definitions. Pleeeeease!
>
> LOL!
>
So you didn't read the book. Thanks for admitting it. Read pages 61 -
63. He gives many ideas of what consistency should be as a summary of
what they discussed before in the book. Then he finally restates their
consistency principle to be a catch-all "do what you have to do"
because you can't follow a particular guideline. Do I need to quote
all three pages, or can you read them yourself?
Some choice quotes from his summary of what was discussed in his
book:
"Fixed Standards can seriously impede the evolution of new
applications."
"Software development is still an art."
>
>
> >> The material you pointed to is about the importance of consistency... the
> >> title is even "Coordinating user interfaces for consistency"... the snippet
> >> you grabbed is about how you cannot tell just by looking at a screenshot of,
> >> in his specific example, three squares with 1, 2 and 3 dots. Is it
> >> consistent? In a meaningful way? Who knows - it depends on what the UI is
> >> for. And that is important to understanding consistency. Excellent point -
> >> and completely consistent with what I have been telling you. And then he
> >> end that section on the difficulty of understanding consistency with:
>
> >> -----
> >> Given this picture of complexity, it might seem plausible to give
> >> up the notion of consistency as a design goal altogether. But let
> >> us consider the concerns raised above more fully with the assistance
> >> of some real applications.
> >> -----
>
> >> He goes on to speak of different types of consistency and how they can be at
> >> odds - and why a single sentence definition of this principle is not
> >> something you will find, but then notes, as I have, that the Macintosh team
> >> at Apple handles these things very well.
>
> >> Yeah, he completely rips you apart and supports my view. And this is your
> >> best effort yet to contradict my view with the use of a source.
>
> > Yeah he really rips me apart by making a joke of his Consistency
> > Principle and constantly restating it.
>
> Please quote his multiple restatements.
I said where to find it above. If you want me to quote 3 pages, I
guess I can though.
> >> Really, how can you think the book "Coordinating user interfaces for
> >> consistency" supports your completely absurd idea that there is no general
> >> consensus that this is an important goal / guideline to work toward.
>
> >> Heck, look at the back cover of the book (as if the title was not enough for
> >> you):
>
> >> -----
> >> There has been exponential growth in the opportunities for following
> >> or disregarding the principles of interface consistency...
> >> -----
>
> >> The principles of what...??? LOL!
>
> You do not even answer the question. The principle of what? Come on, can't
> you even type it?
interface consistency. Yay. For following OR disregarding them! Yay!
You don't know what you're reading obviously.
> > Yes, and he makes a point that it is his Consistency Principle, that
> > having a Consistency Principle is useless because it has to be
> > redefined so many times, and that they're better off disregarded.
>
> So in a book about the importance of consistency, entitled "Coordinating
> user interfaces for consistency", you think the main idea is that
> consistency should be "disregarded". LOL!
No. That is not what I said. I said he makes a point that a
Consistency Principle should be disregarded. There is no principle.
"Fixed standards can seriously impede the evolution of new
applications." His final "principle" that you quote explicitly points
out that you have to do what you have do, not follow principles. The
entire book is written by multiple people by the way, and each person
is talking about a different kind of consistency in a section, and how
it conflicts with the consistency described in other sections. Did you
read it?
> You are so far over your head... so far lost. Seriously, look at the back
> cover of the book. Here, an image for you:
>
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/CUIfC.png>
>
> And you think *that* book supports your denial. That book (the book you
> called a "paper"). LOL!
You didn't read the book, so of course you think it doesn't support
me. And yes, I accidentally typed paper. Whoopee.
RonB
> You didn't read the book, so of course you think it doesn't support me.
> And yes, I accidentally typed paper. Whoopee.
You always know you've won when your opponent has to descend to attacking
your typos.
Congratulations.
--
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.5 or VectorLinux Deluxe 6.0
cc
> >
> > and it's not a definition. How can you not answer a simple
> > yes or no question? So I gave you a well designed UI where it is easer
> > to do things in an unfamiliar context, then that would be a well
> > design UI that does not follow the general principle of consistency in
> > HCI, correct? I just want it to be understood what I'm giving you, if
> > you feel that I defined it wrong, or easy in an unfamiliar context is
> > not enough, then please add to it.
>
> >> As if! LOL! Of course you will run from yet more proof of how wrong you
> >> are.
>
> > You're the only one who's running. I just showed you how you quote out
> > of context on your sources because you don't fucking read them. I'm
> > not doing it for all your sources, particularly ones that deal with
> > the specific principle of consistency for widgets in a particular OS.
> > Just answer yes or no above.
>
> You snipped and ran. But, no, you cannot just take a sentence out of
> context and get a good feel for what you are running from. Not at all.
How did I take it out of context? It was your quote! You said "Boom.
One simple sentence." So now it's not a definition? Okay.
> You have to stop being a scared little bunny.
>
> But since you want a very short definition, I will go with this one (though
> it splits it into two categories... internal and external, to a large
> extent):
>
> <http://www.medicalcomputing.org/archives/0agui.php>
> -----
> The user must be able to anticipate a widget's behavior from its
> visual properties. Widgets in this context refer to visual
> controls such as buttons, menus, check boxes, scroll bars, and
> rulers. So let's call this the Principle of Consistency at the
> Widget Level.
> -----
> The user must be able to anticipate the behavior of your program
> using knowledge gained from other programs. This is the Principle
> of Consistency at the Platform Level.
> -----
So will you finally answer the question, now that you've given me a
new definition? If I find a well designed UI that user can anticipate
the behavior of without using knowledge gained from other programs,
this would violate your general principle of consistency, wouldn't it?
Or using the other one, If I find a well designed UI where a user can
anticipate a widget's behavior without using its visual properties,
this would also violate your general principle of consistency,
wouldn't it? Do you have a preference, or do you want both?
> But can't you at least admit all these sources contradict your denial? I
> mean, really, are you so stuck in your many denials you cannot even admit to
> that?
>
They don't contradict because you don't even know what you're quoting.
You don't even read surrounding text. You don't even realize that your
*general* principle of consistency has now been split into consistency
at the platform level and consistency at the widget level, neither of
which are general if you read the surrounding text. Try to answer a
question now please.
Snit
03b0573e-6a28-4ff2...@s18g2000prg.googlegroups.com on 3/8/11
4:00 PM:
> On Mar 8, 5:43 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> cc stated in post
>> 82ee0f22-70a5-4e28-9250-4acf41217...@d26g2000prn.googlegroups.com on 3/8/11
>> 3:19 PM:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> Didn't you tell me to read Nielsen? Read around page 8 - 12 I believe.
>
>>
>>>> Wow! Your snippet sounds like maybe it is contrary to my views.
>>>> Congratulations! It is awesome! This is a first for you. But look at the
>>>> same source:
>>
>>>> -----
>>>> The good designer will always follow this restatement of our
>>>> Consistency Principle
>>
>>>> Do not deviate from published guidelines unless the change will
>>>> clearly and distinctly improve the performance of the product
>>>> while causing the least possible confusion to the user.
>>>> -----
>>
>>> Do not deviate unless you have to. What a principle. Also if you'll
>>> notice the word "restatement" because he redefines his own Consistency
>>> Principle a bunch of times in the book.
>>
>> Oh! Oh! Show these multiple definitions. Pleeeeease!
>>
>> LOL!
>>
>
> So you didn't read the book.
LOL! Ah, your tell - you spew accusations and BS.
> Thanks for admitting it. Read pages 61 - 63. He gives many ideas of what
> consistency should be as a summary of what they discussed before in the book.
> Then he finally restates their consistency principle to be a catch-all "do
> what you have to do" because you can't follow a particular guideline. Do I
> need to quote all three pages, or can you read them yourself?
You should read the book. Page 61 is about "Key Applications". And in that
section he says:
------
While this childhood didn't do much for the Apple's bottom line
in the short run, it proved, once and for all, the value of the
consistent visual interface.
------
Now: a test for you.
Q) What was, according to the author, on the pages you pointed to, "proved":
A)
He then talks about "Flexibility". And he starts with:
-----
While many might argue that flexibility is a counterforce to
consistency, our experience has shown that it is vital to the
maintenance of consistency: ...
-----
And page 63 has the quote on the restatement of the design principle you
whined about.
Oh, and when you keep talking about how "he" said this or that - you do
realize he *edited* the book. *He* is not the one who wrote all those
things... LOL!
You whine how I did not read the "paper" by him... when it is a book by
multiple people.
Really, you just cannot help but self-nuke.
...
>>>> Heck, look at the back cover of the book (as if the title was not enough
>>>> for you):
>>
>>>> -----
>>>> There has been exponential growth in the opportunities for following
>>>> or disregarding the principles of interface consistency...
>>>> -----
>>
>>>> The principles of what...??? LOL!
>>
>> You do not even answer the question. The principle of what? Come on, can't
>> you even type it?
>
> interface consistency. Yay. For following OR disregarding them! Yay!
> You don't know what you're reading obviously.
Wait: the principle of what? Interface consistency. So it is a principle.
And yes, as tech has grown there has been more chance for people to
disregard this very important principle. You sound like this is somehow
contrary to my ideas... even saying I do not understand that.
But the reality is you just showed how lost you are. Again.
And you just noted that the book was about the Principle of Interface
Consistency. The book you pointed to. The book you claimed supported your
denial of that.
Do you see how you self nuked *again*?
>>> Yes, and he makes a point that it is his Consistency Principle, that
>>> having a Consistency Principle is useless because it has to be
>>> redefined so many times, and that they're better off disregarded.
>>
>> So in a book about the importance of consistency, entitled "Coordinating
>> user interfaces for consistency", you think the main idea is that
>> consistency should be "disregarded". LOL!
>
> No. That is not what I said. I said he makes a point that a
> Consistency Principle should be disregarded. There is no principle.
No, he does not. Again, look at even just the cover:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/CUIfC.png>
And you think this book is against the idea of the principle it finds so
important as to mention in the first paragraph on the back cover.
-----
But the Principles of User Interface Consistency are as
persistent and valuable as ever.
-----
Seriously, you can *not* be that incapable. You have to be just messing
with me now. How can you read that and think the book is an ignorant
*denial* of that very principle? Really? It boggles the mind how absurdly
stupid one would have to be to actually believe that.
Are you really claiming to be so stupid to think the book is denying the
existence of its own topic, which it calls "as persistent and valuable as
ever"? Really? I cannot believe you are that completely idiotic.
> "Fixed standards can seriously impede the evolution of new
> applications." His final "principle" that you quote explicitly points
> out that you have to do what you have do, not follow principles. The
> entire book is written by multiple people by the way, and each person
> is talking about a different kind of consistency in a section, and how
> it conflicts with the consistency described in other sections. Did you
> read it?
I am the one who told you that you were wrong to say it was written by one
person. Glad to hear you learned.
>> You are so far over your head... so far lost. Seriously, look at the back
>> cover of the book. Here, an image for you:
>>
>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/CUIfC.png>
>>
>> And you think *that* book supports your denial. That book (the book you
>> called a "paper"). LOL!
>
> You didn't read the book, so of course you think it doesn't support
> me. And yes, I accidentally typed paper. Whoopee.
You did not even read the back cover. You self-nuked:
-----
But the Principles of User Interface Consistency are as
persistent and valuable as ever.
-----
That is the book you think is ignorantly denying the existence of these very
principles.
My goodness... that is just, well, unbelievable.
>> And the you whine about me not having read it. Too damned funny!
>>
>> And another self-nuke by you.
>>
>>>> Face it, this is another amazing self-nuke by you.
>>
>>> You still haven't read the book have you?
>>
>> You mean the "paper" you think supports you but clearly does not? LOL!
>>
>> You self-nuked.
>>
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
d4c7fa0c-bab9-427b...@z27g2000prz.googlegroups.com on 3/8/11
4:09 PM:
> On Mar 8, 5:48 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> and it's not a definition. How can you not answer a simple
>>> yes or no question? So I gave you a well designed UI where it is easer
>>> to do things in an unfamiliar context, then that would be a well
>>> design UI that does not follow the general principle of consistency in
>>> HCI, correct? I just want it to be understood what I'm giving you, if
>>> you feel that I defined it wrong, or easy in an unfamiliar context is
>>> not enough, then please add to it.
>>
>>>> As if! LOL! Of course you will run from yet more proof of how wrong you
>>>> are.
>>
>>> You're the only one who's running. I just showed you how you quote out
>>> of context on your sources because you don't fucking read them. I'm
>>> not doing it for all your sources, particularly ones that deal with
>>> the specific principle of consistency for widgets in a particular OS.
>>> Just answer yes or no above.
>>
>> You snipped and ran. But, no, you cannot just take a sentence out of
>> context and get a good feel for what you are running from. Not at all.
>
> How did I take it out of context? It was your quote! You said "Boom.
> One simple sentence." So now it's not a definition? Okay.
It is one... though perhaps not the best of the many I showed you. But,
sure, I can see your desire to pick what you see is the weakest of the lot
to try to make a point you know is wrong.
By the way, do you at least understand that every source I pointed to talks
about the principles you deny exist? Do you? You have not shown that you
even understand that.
I suspect you have not yet figured that out... but now that I have told you,
why do you think *every* source we can find supports my view and not a
single one, not even the ones you point to, back your denial?
Not one, cc. Not a single one.
But since you will deny that... why do the mass not? Let us even pretend
one or two do not (in other words, pretend your lie is not a lie). Why
would so many support me and talk about the very principle you deny exists?
>> You have to stop being a scared little bunny.
>>
>> But since you want a very short definition, I will go with this one (though
>> it splits it into two categories... internal and external, to a large
>> extent):
>>
>> <http://www.medicalcomputing.org/archives/0agui.php>
>> -----
>> The user must be able to anticipate a widget's behavior from its
>> visual properties. Widgets in this context refer to visual
>> controls such as buttons, menus, check boxes, scroll bars, and
>> rulers. So let's call this the Principle of Consistency at the
>> Widget Level.
>> -----
>> The user must be able to anticipate the behavior of your program
>> using knowledge gained from other programs. This is the Principle
>> of Consistency at the Platform Level.
>> -----
>
> So will you finally answer the question, now that you've given me a
> new definition? If I find a well designed UI that user can anticipate
> the behavior of without using knowledge gained from other programs,
> this would violate your general principle of consistency, wouldn't it?
Nope. They might be able to make good guesses based on other knowledge,
too.
To violate the principle, find what you consider to be a good UI which does
*not* allow a user to do as described (and has no good user-based reason to
go against these things, as is seen in some games and the like). That would
be a good counter.
I gave you many examples of where this principle had been violated - and you
just ran. None of them came close to being a good example of a UI feature.
They were all bad - all examples of arbitrary inconsistency. No good
user-based reason.
> Or using the other one, If I find a well designed UI where a user can
> anticipate a widget's behavior without using its visual properties,
> this would also violate your general principle of consistency,
> wouldn't it?
Of course not. Nobody said other things cannot allow you to anticipate...
such as, say, metaphors with the real world. You are just lost.
> Do you have a preference, or do you want both?
I prefer you work to *understand* what you read and that you stop lying and
denying.
>> But can't you at least admit all these sources contradict your denial? I
>> mean, really, are you so stuck in your many denials you cannot even admit to
>> that?
>
> They don't contradict because you don't even know what you're quoting.
Bzzzzzt. This is just you running and denying. They clearly all talked
about the principle of consistency.
Why can't you just admit to that? Why is it so hard for you to understand
simple concepts?
> You don't even read surrounding text. You don't even realize that your
> *general* principle of consistency has now been split into consistency
> at the platform level and consistency at the widget level, neither of
> which are general if you read the surrounding text. Try to answer a
> question now please.
For crying out loud - you are just clueless beyond belief. You just spew
nonsense.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
PM:
> On Tue, 08 Mar 2011 15:00:01 -0800, cc wrote:
>
>> You didn't read the book, so of course you think it doesn't support me.
>> And yes, I accidentally typed paper. Whoopee.
>
> You always know you've won when your opponent has to descend to attacking
> your typos.
>
> Congratulations.
He was whining I had not read the "paper" by "him"... when it was a book by
multiple authors.
He self-nuked.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
> No. That is not what I said. I said he makes a point that a
> Consistency Principle should be disregarded. There is no principle.
While there is some variation on each "side", look at your "sides" lack of
support compared to the massive support I have.
How can you expect anyone even begin to take your denial seriously? Oh,
that is right: you will just deny. That is all you can do now - just spew
empty denials of the facts.
Snit RonB
Hadron Rick
Tim Smith Gregory Shearman
KDE docs Peter Köhlmann
Gnome docs JEDIDIAH
OpenOffice docs El Tux
Firefox docs vs. chrisv
Screen shots 7
Videos Linonut
Tim Berners-Lee William Poaster
Peer Reviewed Studies [1] Don Zeigler
Shuttleworth, Mark HPT
UI / HCI Experts [2] chrisv
Standards Bodies [3] cc
Common sense
Bloggers
Jim Zemlin
ZnU
Matthias Ettrich
[1] Including, but not limited to:
Andrew Howes & Richard M Young: Learning Consistent,
Interactive, and Meaningful Task-Action Mappings: A
Computational Model. Cognitive Science(1996), 20, 301-356.
Carole A George, "Usability testing and design of a
library website: an iterative approach" 2005
Cheul Rhee, et. al., "Web interface consistency in
e-learning. Online Information Review" Social
Science Module database" 2006
John W Satzinger, Lorne Olfman "User Interface Consistency
Across End-User Applications: The Effects on Mental
Models" 1998
R. Chimera, ³The Carm Group: Designing GUIs for
Usability² 1996.
R. Chimera and B. Shneiderman, ³User Interface Consistency:
An Evaluation of Original and Revised Versions for a
Videodisk Library² 1993
C. Marlin Brown in "Human-Computer Interface Design
Guidelines"
Kellogg, W. A. in "Coordinating User Interfaces for
Consistency"
McAfee Inc. "Clean, cutting-edge UI design cuts McAfee's
support calls by 90%"
<http://www.softwareceo.com/discussions/com070604.
aspx>
Nelson, J in "Designing and Using Human-Computer
Interaction and Knowledge Based Systems"
Rubenstein and Hirsh in "The Human Factor"
Satzinger, John W. & Olfman, Olfman: User Interface
Consistency across End-User Applications: The Effects on
Mental Models. Journal of Management Information Systems
Vol. 14, No. 4 (Spring, 1998), pp. 167-193
Smith, SL, and Mosier in "Guidelines for Designing
User Interface Software"
[2] Including, but not limited to:
Ågerfalk, Pär J.: Actability Principles in Theory and
Practice
Booth, Paul A.: An introduction to human-computer interaction.
Carroll, John M.: Human-computer interaction: psychology as a
science of design.
Carroll, John M. and Rosson, Mary Beth: Usability engineering:
scenario-based development of human-computer interaction
Cortes, Leslie: Designing a Graphical User Interface
KDE / Gnome developers: <http://osnews.com/story/2997>
Lidwell, Holden, Butler. (2003) Universal Principles of
Design.
Richard Chimera of the Human-Computer Interaction
Laboratory at the University of Maryland and ASU,
etc.
<http://sci.asu.edu/directory/page.php?profile=575>
Jakob Nielsen: <http://www.useit.com/> and in
"Coordinating User Interfaces for Consistency"
Rick Oppedisano, published in Usabilities Professionals
Association <http://snipurl.com/oppedisano>
Henry P. Ledgard in The Case Against User Interface
Consistency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_User_Access
Jeff Johnson in "GUI Bloopers 2.0"
Matthew Ward <http://web.cs.wpi.edu/~matt/>
Marshall C. Yovits in "Advances in Computers"
Vogt, Thomas: The use of guidelines for designing user
interfaces in commercial software development
Shneiderman, Ben: Eight Golden Rules of Interface Design
<http://goo.gl/4q3zf>
Tognazzini, Bruce: First Principles of Interaction Design
Stone, Deborah L.: User interface design and evaluation
Jacko, Julie A. & Stephanidis, Constantine: Human-computer
interaction: theory and practice
[3] Including, but not limited to:
ISO 9241
HFS 600
ISO 13407
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
cc
> 4:09 PM:
>
>
>
> > So will you finally answer the question, now that you've given me a
> > new definition? If I find a well designed UI that user can anticipate
> > the behavior of without using knowledge gained from other programs,
> > this would violate your general principle of consistency, wouldn't it?
>
> Nope. They might be able to make good guesses based on other knowledge,
> too.
This is hilarious. You've given a definition of the general principle
of consistency. I write down the exact opposite, and now you say it
won't violate the general principle of consistency. Why is that?
Because you know I can find it too easy. We're done here Snit. You're
a moron and you would be laughed out of any HCI class. What were those
classes you took? Oh right (and that was hilarious that you thought I
made up those classes, obviously you were lying about your education).
"data visualization, HCI general concepts, graphics and multimedia,
design technologies, experiments in UIs, cross cultural UI design and
others"
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/f1ad3fbe212ea898?hl=en&dmode=source
"You think your lies are funny. Lovely."
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/3bb9dd8a2c898e5c?hl=en&dmode=source
Hahahahaha.
> To violate the principle, find what you consider to be a good UI which does
> *not* allow a user to do as described (and has no good user-based reason to
> go against these things, as is seen in some games and the like). That would
> be a good counter.
>
You have not described anything! You have quoted multiple sources for
their own principle of consistency (specific to an OS, example app,
etc) then when I claimed I could violate them and give the way how,
you start screeching that those really weren't the general principle
of consistency or they were somehow your weakest example. Hilarious. I
can't believe Hadron has hitched his wagon and lips to this retard.
Last word, as always, is yours.
If Snit brings up consistency again without actually proving his
point, I encourage you all to point him to this quote "Consistency has
cc
>
>
> You did not even read the back cover. You self-nuked:
>
> -----
> But the Principles of User Interface Consistency are as
> persistent and valuable as ever.
> -----
>
> That is the book you think is ignorantly denying the existence of these very
> principles.
>
> My goodness... that is just, well, unbelievable.
>
I snipped the rest of your retardation to focus on this. What does the
back cover say? PrincipleS. Plural. Why does it say that? Why isn't it
a general principle, singular? Because in the book they describe
multiple instances where you want to use consistency (notice this book
is purely focused on consistency and not those instances where you
would want to use inconsistency) and how they can conflict with each
other. This is why the author says: "Consistency has no meaning on its
own; It is inherently a relational concept. Therefore to merely say
that an interface is consistent or that consistency is a goal of user
interface design is also meaningless." This is why they come up with a
Principle that is "do whatever you need to do." Read the book Snit.
PrincipleS, Snit, why is that? Anyway you refuse to read, so I'm done
with this conversation. One last post.
Snit
e0e0c724-7a4d-404b...@z27g2000prz.googlegroups.com on 3/9/11
5:42 AM:
>> You did not even read the back cover. You self-nuked:
>>
>> -----
>> But the Principles of User Interface Consistency are as
>> persistent and valuable as ever.
>> -----
>>
>> That is the book you think is ignorantly denying the existence of these very
>> principles.
>>
>> My goodness... that is just, well, unbelievable.
>
> I snipped the rest of your retardation to focus on this.
You do run a lot. A whole lot. But let us just focus on the one thing you
want to. That makes it more fun to rip your BS apart - let you pick the
focus and show where you are *still* 100% wrong. Maybe it speaks poorly of
me, but I enjoy doing that to you. :)
> What does the back cover say? PrincipleS. Plural. Why does it say that? Why
> isn't it a general principle, singular? Because in the book they describe
> multiple instances where you want to use consistency (notice this book is
> purely focused on consistency and not those instances where you would want to
> use inconsistency) and how they can conflict with each other. This is why the
> author says: "Consistency has no meaning on its own; It is inherently a
> relational concept. Therefore to merely say that an interface is consistent or
> that consistency is a goal of user interface design is also meaningless." This
> is why they come up with a Principle that is "do whatever you need to do."
> Read the book Snit. PrincipleS, Snit, why is that? Anyway you refuse to read,
> so I'm done with this conversation. One last post.
Ok, you want to focus on this one book. Excellent! As I noted, when you
take that one quote out of context it is the first time you have found
*anything* that even looks like it *might* be contrary to my position.
After all this time... and I welcome that. After all, that is what makes
for a more interesting conversation. But, alas, your quote still fails
*miserably* to support your denial of the idea that consistency is a well
established principle of GUI design (and other design, but we can stick to
GUIs, since that is what the book focuses on). So let us look at this one
book in detail, and see what it supports. You say it supports you. I say
it supports me. You have, as evidence, *one* quote from the book, taken
from context, that has already been explained to you as to why it is *not*
really contrary to my views - you simply misread it. But let us look at
that one piece of evidence from the book before we look at other evidence in
and about the book and its author (or, really, editor). OK, your quote:
-----
Consistency has no meaning on its own; It is inherently a
relational concept. Therefore to merely say that an interface is
consistent or that consistency is a goal of user interface design
is also meaningless.
-----
My goodness! Taken completely out of context this is your best evidence.
Well, your only evidence. As a side note, this quote is from Wendy A.
Kellogg - not Jakob Nielsen, but he included it, in all likelihood, because
it supported the general premise of the book. We will get back to that.
So what is this quote about. Well, this is what that section is in
reference to, a picture sort of like this:
+----------+ +----------+ +-------,-.+
| | | ,-. | | ( )
| ,-. | | ( ) | | ,-. `-'|
| ( ) | | ,-. `-' | | ( ) |
| `-' | |( ) | |,-.`-' |
| | | `-' | ( ) |
+----------+ +----------+ +`-'-------+
Without context, is that "UI" consistent? Is it good? Who knows - we do
not have any context - we do not know the goal of those buttons.
Consistency has no meaning out of context - it is a relational concept. To
say you want those buttons to be "consistent" and to have that as a goal, in
isolation, is meaningless. This is completely consistent with my view. But
let us look at what the book says, about the same topic and in the same
area. Let us look at the context:
-----
The answer, of course, is that it is consistent with respect to
some things and inconsistent with respect to others. The elements
of the display are consistent with respect to overall shape, the
fact that they all have dots, with the sequence of the first three
whole numbers, and with dice in the real world. With this
elaborated description, we can ask whether this particular
configuration of consistency "features" is advantageous or
disadvantageous. Once more, it depends. If the display were to
be used to demonstrate the concept of "two" to a child, for
example, then the inconsistency with respect to the number of dots
might be a problem. On the other hand, if the goal were to teach
the child how to count, the inconsistency with respect to the
number of dots and the consistency with respect to sequence of
numbers become advantages.
-----
Already sorta ripping your claim apart. To know if the consistent and
inconsistent elements are good or bad we, of course, need to know what the
UI is for. Of course. But once we know the goal and reason for the UI, we
can evaluate it and decide which parts of consistency and inconsistency are
good or bad. Just as I have been telling you. Now let us continue.
-----
This simple example reveals several pertinent concerns in
assessing consistency in user interfaces. There is a descriptive
component... There is an evaluative component... [etc. - other
challenges]
Given this picture of complexity, it might well seem plausible to
give up the notion of consistency as a design goal altogether.
-----
Do you see where this is heading? It is making an argument *for* the idea
that you should not give up consistency as a design goal. It is arguing
*against* your view and for mine. It then goes on to discuss how you *can*
and *should* look at consistency and have that as a design goal. When you
do so, though, you need to understand there are different elements of
consistency (which also answers your question as to why some people talk
about consistency as a principle and others as principles - depends on how
you break it down).
So, when we look at the context of your quote - it is clearly in a section
arguing *against* your denial of there being no such principle in UI design.
But you *will* deny this. It is what you do. So now let's expand our look
not just at Kellogg's work in the book, but to the book in general. That
will show you *even more* that your claim is just absurd. Absolutely absurd
to the point of being unbelievable.
Let's start with the front and back covers of the book:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/CUIfC.png>
As I have noted, the first paragraph on the back cover is:
-----
In the years since Jakob Nielsen's classic collection on interface
consistency first appeared, much has changed, and much has stayed
the same. On the one hand, there's been exponential growth in the
opportunities for following or disregarding the principles of
interface consistency-more computers, more applications, more
users, and of course the vast expanse of the Web. On the other,
there are the principles themselves, as persistent and as valuable
as ever.
-----
That is right: the *point* of the book, the reason it was written, was to
show that the principles you deny exist are "as persistent and as valuable
as ever." Yeah, real strong support you have their for your BS.
And let us look at the Preface to the First Printing. It starts with:
-----
Consistency is considered one of the most desirable attributes of
user interfaces. By observing the interfaces of the world today
we will notice, however, that they are frequently very
inconsistent, leading to learning problems, increased frequency of
user errors, and a generally increased level of grief.
Consistency is just hard to achieve if one does not work for it.
-----
Amazing! Almost quoting my list of benefits (I talk about error reduction,
increased efficiency and greater enjoyment... the same list, worded a bit
differently!) And *this* is the book you use to try to "prove" me wrong...
one that was written to support the same view I have. The preface
continues:
-----
This book tells you how to work for consistency.
-----
Yes. The whole goal of the book is to help support people as they make good
designs by showing them different methods of reaching that goal.
Now let us look at the first chapter - written by Neilson. It will give
more insight into his reasons for publishing this book:
-----
One of the most important aspects of usability is consistency in
user interfaces. Consistency should apply both within the
individual applications and across computer systems and even
across product families.
-----
Again: almost exactly what I have been saying. But you think he published
this book to argue *against* my view.
Do you see now why your claim that this book goes contrary to my view is
just flat out wrong. You grabbed one quote - took it *completely* out of
context and did not understand it. You then made an assumption that was
100% wrong, to think that a book that was published in support of my view -
very, very strong support, somehow was written to argue against that view.
You, simple, were wrong. You, simply, got in over your head and self-nuked.
Again.
And, in response, you will just deny. This is 100% predictable. It is what
you do. Your claim has been ripped apart over and over - your claim has no
merit and no support - even when you snip massive amounts of content away to
focus on what you think is your best "evidence". But you will insist that
even books like this, which strongly support my views, are somehow contrary
to my views. It is what you do.
Have fun denying! LOL!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
46333e09-4c98-4ec6...@i35g2000prd.googlegroups.com on 3/9/11
5:50 AM:
> On Mar 8, 6:31 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> cc stated in post
>> d4c7fa0c-bab9-427b-b5d6-5b8a77a2d...@z27g2000prz.googlegroups.com on 3/8/11
>> 4:09 PM:
>>
>>
>>
>>> So will you finally answer the question, now that you've given me a
>>> new definition? If I find a well designed UI that user can anticipate
>>> the behavior of without using knowledge gained from other programs,
>>> this would violate your general principle of consistency, wouldn't it?
>>
>> Nope. They might be able to make good guesses based on other knowledge,
>> too.
>
> This is hilarious. You've given a definition of the general principle
> of consistency. I write down the exact opposite, and now you say it
> won't violate the general principle of consistency. Why is that?
If I say you can see the stars with a telescope, it is not the "exact
opposite" to say you can also see some with the naked eye. It would be the
exact opposite to show me that you cannot possibly see stars through a
telescope.
So while consistency is *one* method to allow users to anticipate behavior,
nobody said it was the only method. So if you found a program that used
another method this would not be contrary to the idea that consistency is
*a* method, or even that it is the most important and most focused on
method.
Again: your ability to use logic is, well, pretty much not there.
If you want to show I am wrong, it is easy: show a UI you think is well done
that lacks the principles of consistency as you have had repeatedly
explained to you - in other words, it uses consistent and inconsistent
elements in ways which are designed to benefit the user. I have shown you
many examples of UI designs which have gone contrary to these ideas... all
you need to do is show why one of those is, contrary to my view, actually a
benefit to the user. Here are my examples:
1) Quit and Exit being used interchangeable.
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/centos.pdf>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/2of4.pdf>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/Mint-menus.pdf>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/ubuntu-menu.pdf>
2) Icons showing or not next to menu items.
3) Inconsistent hot keys for common menu items.
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/PCLOS-menu.pdf>
4) Different Save dialogs being used by different programs.
5) Buttons on similar dialogs being swapped.
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/PCLOS2.pdf>
6) Copy and paste working in different ways in different programs.
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/UbuntuCP.mov>
7) Resize icons sometimes working and sometimes not:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/PCLOS.mov>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/PCLOS2.mov>
Or, perhaps, you can find your own examples. If you could find *one*
example of this you would have shown, at least in some cases, I (and all
relevant sources we have found) are not correct. That would be *excellent*.
But you run from that challenge *every* time. Even you know you have *no*
support for your view. None. Not a shred.
> Because you know I can find it too easy. We're done here Snit. You're
> a moron and you would be laughed out of any HCI class. What were those
> classes you took? Oh right (and that was hilarious that you thought I
> made up those classes, obviously you were lying about your education).
See: when you know you are just flat out wrong you call me names and make
clearly false claims. Oh well. Hey, speaking of classes - remember how I
showed you all those HCI classes which talked about principles of design?
You never did explain why they would have classes on something you deny
exist? Heck, even the college you claim you went to has such classes...
LOL!
Yeah, you self-nuked again. You do that a lot.
Snit
cc stated in post
e0e0c724-7a4d-404b...@z27g2000prz.googlegroups.com on 3/9/11
5:42 AM:
>> You did not even read the back cover. You self-nuked:
>>
>> -----
>> But the Principles of User Interface Consistency are as
>> persistent and valuable as ever.
>> -----
>>
>> That is the book you think is ignorantly denying the existence of these very
>> principles.
>>
>> My goodness... that is just, well, unbelievable.
>
> I snipped the rest of your retardation to focus on this.
You do run a lot. A whole lot. But let us just focus on the one thing you
want to. That makes it more fun to rip your BS apart - let you pick the
focus and show where you are *still* 100% wrong. Maybe it speaks poorly of
me, but I enjoy doing that to you. :)
> What does the back cover say? PrincipleS. Plural. Why does it say that? Why
> isn't it a general principle, singular? Because in the book they describe
> multiple instances where you want to use consistency (notice this book is
> purely focused on consistency and not those instances where you would want to
> use inconsistency) and how they can conflict with each other. This is why the
> author says: "Consistency has no meaning on its own; It is inherently a
> relational concept. Therefore to merely say that an interface is consistent or
> that consistency is a goal of user interface design is also meaningless." This
> is why they come up with a Principle that is "do whatever you need to do."
> Read the book Snit. PrincipleS, Snit, why is that? Anyway you refuse to read,
> so I'm done with this conversation. One last post.
Ok, you want to focus on this one book. Excellent! As I noted, when you
take that one quote out of context it is the first time you have found
*anything* that even looks like it *might* be contrary to my position.
After all this time... and I welcome that. After all, that is what makes
for a more interesting conversation. But, alas, your quote still fails
*miserably* to support your denial of the idea that consistency is a well
established principle of GUI design (and other design, but we can stick to
GUIs, since that is what the book focuses on). So let us look at this one
book in detail, and see what it supports. You say it supports you. I say
it supports me. You have, as evidence, *one* quote from the book, taken
from context, that has already been explained to you as to why it is *not*
really contrary to my views - you simply misread it. But let us look at
that one piece of evidence from the book before we look at other evidence in
and about the book and its author (or, really, editor). OK, your quote:
-----
Consistency has no meaning on its own; It is inherently a
relational concept. Therefore to merely say that an interface is
consistent or that consistency is a goal of user interface design
is also meaningless.
-----
Given this picture of complexity, it might well seem plausible to
give up the notion of consistency as a design goal altogether.
-----
Do you see where this is heading? It is making an argument *for* the idea
that you should not give up consistency as a design goal. It is arguing
*against* your view and for mine. It then goes on to discuss how you *can*
and *should* look at consistency and have that as a design goal. When you
do so, though, you need to understand there are different elements of
consistency (which also answers your question as to why some people talk
about consistency as a principle and others as principles - depends on how
you break it down).
So, when we look at the context of your quote - it is clearly in a section
arguing *against* your denial of there being no such principle in UI design.
But you *will* deny this. It is what you do. So now let's expand our look
not just at Kellogg's work in the book, but to the book in general. That
will show you *even more* that your claim is just absurd. Absolutely absurd
to the point of being unbelievable.
Let's start with the front and back covers of the book:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/CUIfC.png>
As I have noted, the first paragraph on the back cover is:
-----
In the years since Jakob Nielsen's classic collection on interface
consistency first appeared, much has changed, and much has stayed
the same. On the one hand, there's been exponential growth in the
opportunities for following or disregarding the principles of
interface consistency-more computers, more applications, more
users, and of course the vast expanse of the Web. On the other,
there are the principles themselves, as persistent and as valuable
as ever.
-----
That is right: the *point* of the book, the reason it was written, was to
flatfish+++
> Reposted because cc cannot let his loss of a Usenet debate go.
Calm down snit before you pop a blood vessel!
It's not worth it.
--
flatfish+++
Please visit our hall of Linux idiots.
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
Watching Linux Fail:
http://limuxwatch.blogspot.com/
Linux's dismal desktop market share:
http://royal.pingdom.com/2011/05/12/the-top-20-strongholds-for-desktop-linux/
Desktop Linux: The Dream Is Dead
"By the time Microsoft released the Windows 7 beta
in January 2009, Linux had clearly lost its chance at desktop glory."
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/207999/desktop_linux_the_dream_is_dead.html
Snit
6/6/11 8:06 AM:
> On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 08:02:24 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> Reposted because cc cannot let his loss of a Usenet debate go.
>
> Calm down snit before you pop a blood vessel!
> It's not worth it.
Oh, I just like seeing folks like cc freak out over their loss of a Usenet
debate.
The risk, of course, is they will completely lose it and become like
Carroll... still freaking out over half a decade later.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
cc
> flatfish+++ stated in post yw1ilu894aqz$.1vjpunnal7wx4....@40tude.net on
> 6/6/11 8:06 AM:
>
> > On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 08:02:24 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
> >> Reposted because cc cannot let his loss of a Usenet debate go.
>
> > Calm down snit before you pop a blood vessel!
> > It's not worth it.
>
> Oh, I just like seeing folks like cc freak out over their loss of a Usenet
> debate.
>
> The risk, of course, is they will completely lose it and become like
> Carroll... still freaking out over half a decade later.
>
Freak out like copying and pasting stuff (hundreds and hundreds of
lines) over and over again at the slightest criticism? Making multiple
responses to a single post because I'm too wound up and angry to just
sit there and think about what I'm writing? Certainly sounds
like...someone.
Snit
f60f5f66-e735-496f...@j28g2000vbp.googlegroups.com on 6/6/11
10:37 AM:
Oh, I am just reminding you why you freaked out so badly. Oh no!
Consistency and other principles are important in UI design! You had better
call me names and spew absurd accusations about me over and over and over!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
> flatfish+++ stated in post yw1ilu894aqz$.1vjpunnal7wx4....@40tude.net on
> 6/6/11 8:06 AM:
>
> > On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 08:02:24 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
> >> Reposted because cc cannot let his loss of a Usenet debate go.
>
> > Calm down snit before you pop a blood vessel!
> > It's not worth it.
>
> Oh, I just like seeing folks like cc freak out over their loss of a Usenet
> debate.
>
> The risk, of course, is they will completely lose it and become like
> Carroll... still freaking out over half a decade later.
Translation: Snit 'freaks out' when someone challenges his delusion
that no one ever provides proof of his lies and wrongdoings... to the
point where his 'psych degree' delusion kicks in and he's left with
the only type of 'defense' all liars like him are left with... killing
the messenger.
How has that worked out for you. Snit?
Snit
>> You did not even read the back cover. You self-nuked:
>>
>> -----
>> But the Principles of User Interface Consistency are as
>> persistent and valuable as ever.
>> -----
>>
>> That is the book you think is ignorantly denying the existence of these very
>> principles.
>>
>> My goodness... that is just, well, unbelievable.
>
> I snipped the rest of your retardation to focus on this.
You do run a lot. A whole lot. But let us just focus on the one thing you
want to. That makes it more fun to rip your BS apart - let you pick the
focus and show where you are *still* 100% wrong. Maybe it speaks poorly of
me, but I enjoy doing that to you. :)
> What does the back cover say? PrincipleS. Plural. Why does it say that? Why
> isn't it a general principle, singular? Because in the book they describe
> multiple instances where you want to use consistency (notice this book is
> purely focused on consistency and not those instances where you would want to
> use inconsistency) and how they can conflict with each other. This is why the
> author says: "Consistency has no meaning on its own; It is inherently a
> relational concept. Therefore to merely say that an interface is consistent or
> that consistency is a goal of user interface design is also meaningless." This
> is why they come up with a Principle that is "do whatever you need to do."
> Read the book Snit. PrincipleS, Snit, why is that? Anyway you refuse to read,
> so I'm done with this conversation. One last post.
Ok, you want to focus on this one book. Excellent! As I noted, when you
take that one quote out of context it is the first time you have found
*anything* that even looks like it *might* be contrary to my position.
After all this time... and I welcome that. After all, that is what makes
for a more interesting conversation. But, alas, your quote still fails
*miserably* to support your denial of the idea that consistency is a well
established principle of GUI design (and other design, but we can stick to
GUIs, since that is what the book focuses on). So let us look at this one
book in detail, and see what it supports. You say it supports you. I say
it supports me. You have, as evidence, *one* quote from the book, taken
from context, that has already been explained to you as to why it is *not*
really contrary to my views - you simply misread it. But let us look at
that one piece of evidence from the book before we look at other evidence in
and about the book and its author (or, really, editor). OK, your quote:
-----
Consistency has no meaning on its own; It is inherently a
relational concept. Therefore to merely say that an interface is
consistent or that consistency is a goal of user interface design
is also meaningless.
-----
Given this picture of complexity, it might well seem plausible to
give up the notion of consistency as a design goal altogether.
-----
Do you see where this is heading? It is making an argument *for* the idea
that you should not give up consistency as a design goal. It is arguing
*against* your view and for mine. It then goes on to discuss how you *can*
and *should* look at consistency and have that as a design goal. When you
do so, though, you need to understand there are different elements of
consistency (which also answers your question as to why some people talk
about consistency as a principle and others as principles - depends on how
you break it down).
So, when we look at the context of your quote - it is clearly in a section
arguing *against* your denial of there being no such principle in UI design.
But you *will* deny this. It is what you do. So now let's expand our look
not just at Kellogg's work in the book, but to the book in general. That
will show you *even more* that your claim is just absurd. Absolutely absurd
to the point of being unbelievable.
Let's start with the front and back covers of the book:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/CUIfC.png>
As I have noted, the first paragraph on the back cover is:
-----
In the years since Jakob Nielsen's classic collection on interface
consistency first appeared, much has changed, and much has stayed
the same. On the one hand, there's been exponential growth in the
opportunities for following or disregarding the principles of
interface consistency-more computers, more applications, more
users, and of course the vast expanse of the Web. On the other,
there are the principles themselves, as persistent and as valuable
as ever.
-----
That is right: the *point* of the book, the reason it was written, was to