![]() Raskin also advocates an unlimited undo feature (even through closing and re-opening documents), and the elimination of dialog boxes asking ‘are you sure?’ These two are linked, giving that level of undo freedom would make ‘are you sure’ unnecessary, and is more technically feasible now than when the book was written. I believe this trend can be seen in current operating systems (such as the amalgamation of windows explorer and IE), and this is one of Google’s main aims with their OS. This improves the quality of interaction by allowing the user to be clear that the methods they have learnt will work anywhere. The elimination of modes extends into the elimination of applications – typing ‘SUM 7 + 6’ should produce ‘13’ everywhere, not just in a calculator. This would include holding the shift key to produce capitals. A useful compromise, Raskin say’s is quasimodes, which is a mode that requires a constant input to achieve (and hence can be part of habit formation). He advocates an elimination of modes, as they introduce cognitive dissonance, and make it harder to form habits. A simple way to explain modes is the ‘caps lock’ key turning on this mode will make ‘TEXT LIKE THIS’, despite my keystrokes being the same as when making ‘text like this’. interactions that do different things in different concepts). Raskin also documents a number of problems with current interaction, with a particular dislike for modes (i.e. ![]() GOMS can be a useful tool to help compare interaction times, but should not be used exclusively. Maybe the computer could press the button for you? This is particularly relevant to the field of videogames, where a purely GOMS based method to check interaction quality would lead to games such as this below: If a task takes a few seconds more, but is considered a lot more fulfilling, GOMS wouldn’t record this. My initial impression of this form of quantitative research is that it would highlight the speed/efficiency of an interaction, but not the quality – which is not necessarily the same thing. (Its important to note that these times will not relate to the real world, as user’s act at different speeds, and can only be used to compare against other GOMS scores.) Then by adding up the times it takes to do these actions, you can compare interaction methods by the time taken. He includes a chapter on GOMS, a method of assigning arbitrary times for actions such as typing a keystroke, moving a mouse, thinking and moving from the mouse to the keyboard. Whereas Cooper’s book favours qualitative data and methodology, through the establishment of persona’s and attempting to get inside user’s heads, Raskin favours quantitative methods. ![]() However, this is likely due to a change in the intended audience, as Cooper’s book intends to sell usability concepts to a business audience, whereas Raskin aims his book directly at computing professionals.Īnother key difference between Cooper and Raskin is they favour different methods of investigating the quality of an interface design. The most readable parts of Raskin’s books are the anecdotes about the development of the Mac and Canon Cat, and these are too few. This book is a harder read than Cooper’s – often going deep into highly technical topics (like how he would like to notate mouse clicks), and lacking the wit or lightness of Inmates. My immediate thoughts are to compare this to Alan Cooper’s the inmates are running the asylum. Having recently finished The Humane Interface, written by a designer of the original Mac (credited with the design of the one button mouse), I will briefly summarise its topics, and give my impressions. Along with Alan Cooper’s book, when starting studying Human Computer Interaction, we were recommended to read Jef Raskin’s The Humane Interface.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |