| |||||||||||||
Distribution quotes of the weekDistribution quotes of the weekPosted Sep 28, 2012 21:28 UTC (Fri) by SEMW (guest, #52697)In reply to: Distribution quotes of the week by ebassi Parent article: Distribution quotes of the week
> that definition precludes the idea that new types of user interaction can ever be "intuitive" if they do not conform to an existing one, which is, in itself, an absurdity.
The definition I've always liked is: An intuitive user interface is one that works in the way the user expects it to.
If the user is already used to an old version of your software, this can be achieved by making it work in the same way as that - but that's not the only way. As long as it works as you expect it to, whether that's due to user memory, or well-thought-out visual metaphors, or analogy with another piece of software the user has used, or just good design, the definition is satisfied. If the new software works in a way that violates the user's expectations, and reacts in ways the user doesn't expect, it fails it.
(Log in to post comments)
Distribution quotes of the week Posted Oct 2, 2012 20:59 UTC (Tue) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link]
That's much closer to what I want in UIs. I call it "making sense" and I find it to be more important than what is called "intuitive" these days. As an example, vi "makes sense" (via mnemonics mainly) but is not "intuitive". To be fair, Vim adds things that no longer have good mnemonics if only because there are only so many keys available on a standard keyboard, but that falls under "user memory" for the large part since I doubt I use more than maybe 50 distinct key pattern sequences day-to-day[1].
[1]Number pulled roughly from nowhere, but it sounds about right. I should really keylogger myself to find it out and then try to learn things that minimize those (I'm prone to scrolling by holding j/k lots of times when skimming code).
|
|||||||||||||