Hi!
Maybe you know new ms office interface called ribbon. It is quite intuitive interface which makes a lot of command much more available. I would be quite happy to see this tabbed-toolbars in tcmd. (Yes I know, this will probably never happen, but I had to say this )
For all of my spouting off in favor of pointer/mouse-centric UIs elsewhere in this forum, I personally find the new "ribbon" from MS to be an example of BAD design.
Very space inefficient, not configurable enough.
I really really hate it and prefer the old style toolbars.
JohnFredC wrote:For all of my spouting off in favor of pointer/mouse-centric UIs elsewhere in this forum, I personally find the new "ribbon" from MS to be an example of BAD design.
Very space inefficient, not configurable enough.
I agree. I would hate it too..but I simply don't use it
JohnFredC wrote:For all of my spouting off in favor of pointer/mouse-centric UIs elsewhere in this forum, I personally find the new "ribbon" from MS to be an example of BAD design.
Very space inefficient, not configurable enough.
I really really hate it and prefer the old style toolbars.
I'm almost in the same mood as you, to many space is taken for nothing !
You must have a 2048X1600 screen resolution to have enough space for working.
For dummy user it is too complicated because too many icon, terms are presented at once and it is difficult to build automatism in such condition.
This presentation layer is really not good for ABC learning ! (Context, topic, Action)
ghisler(Author) wrote:TC7 verwendet nun eine komplett andere Technik - im Prinzip könnte ich nun auch Text anzeigen.
Nur wo? Die Buttons sind einfach zu klein, und mit breiten Textbuttons hätte man vielleicht 3-4 Buttons, dann ist die Buttonleiste voll!
-> Für Text also besser Startermenü oder Verzeichnisliste verwenden.
Babelfish Cyborg :shock: wrote:TC7 uses now completely different technology - in principle I could indicate now also text.
Only where? The Buttons is simply too small, and with broader Textbuttons one would have perhaps 3-4 Buttons, then the Buttonbar would be overcrowded!
-> For text thus better use startermenu or directory hotlist.
Well, I've already installed three or four different distros here (last one was Ubuntu), but for the time being I can't (unfortunately) stop using WinXP. Some really important programs I use daily (there's no good OCR etc.) don't have a Linux version. And I always have problems to make Linux recognize some of my hardware (scanner, printer). Hope I'll be able to use Linux in a productive way (I don't mean other people can't do this right now; this is MY situation).
hm, hm, hm... it does not take more space than three toolbars. (which is absolutely usual number). and to be straightforward, it makes a lot of functions more easily available, than befoire. (maximum of two clicks nad no more sub-menus). I personaly was very nicely surprised. Unfortunately I don't any see disadvantages mentioned by you. (Could you please point to some concrete problem, you encountered? So I'll be able to focus on it? Thank you)
btw: notice, that it mergres advantages of A. toolbars B.menus ( C. tabs)
horizon wrote:hm, hm, hm... it does not take more space than three toolbars. (which is absolutely usual number). and to be straightforward, it makes a lot of functions more easily available, than befoire. (maximum of two clicks nad no more sub-menus). I personaly was very nicely surprised. Unfortunately I don't any see disadvantages mentioned by you. (Could you please point to some concrete problem, you encountered? So I'll be able to focus on it? Thank you)
btw: notice, that it mergres advantages of A. toolbars B.menus ( C. tabs)
When a mouse user selects a button control by identifying it on the screen, moving the mouse pointer to it, and pressing a mouse button, we can say that the user is picking (that is "accurately pointing at") the control.
The probability of any picking outcome (successful or otherwise) can be measured by recording the locations of the clicks a user makes while attempting to pick a control. The spread of locations is the "area of (picking) confusion" and will have a distribution that will look circular or elliptical for most people. A more accurate mouse user will have a net smaller area of confusion, for instance. The shape of the area of confusion can be used to determine if a user is probably left-handed or right-handed and in what direction they moved the mouse pointer to execute the pick. The smaller (on the display) the controls are, the greater the probability that a user will "miss" the intended control and click in an unintended place (such as on another control) on the screen.
For a statistically valid sample population of picking attempts, it is more time-efficient for a mouse user to pick a control displayed in a linear group of similar controls than it is time-efficient to pick a control displayed in a Cartesian group of similar controls. This can be demonstrated by estimating the costs (in additional picks, each pick costing additional time) associated with inaccurate picks a user executes during a period of interaction with the controls.
Assuming a reasonably accurate user:
Linear Tool Bar
When picking a control in the middle of an isolated, densely populated (ie. no spaces) horizontal linear presentation of controls (ie. a toolbar), there are at leastfive picking outcomes:
1. Accurate (Executes the desired control)
2. Miss Above (Repeat the pick)
3. Miss Below (Repeat the pick)
4. Miss Left (Execute left neighbor button, Undo, Repeat the pick)
5. Miss (Execute right neighbor button, Undo, Repeat the pick)
Costs associated with these five picking outcomes are:
1. 0
2. 1 additional pick
3. 1 additional pick
4. 2 or more additional picks
5. 2 or more additional picks
Of course, in a file manager such as TC, the cost of an inaccurate pick might be much higher than an additional 2 picks (possibly even disastrous), depending on what the picked button does.
Cartesian Tool Bar (MS's "Ribbon")
When picking a button in the middle of a densely populated Cartesian presentation of controls (uh, MS's "ribbon"), there are at least nine[/u]picking outcomes:
1. Accurate (Executes the desired control)
2. Miss Above (Execute left neighbor button, Undo, Repeat the pick)
3. Miss Below (Execute left neighbor button, Undo, Repeat the pick)
4. Miss Left (Execute left neighbor button, Undo, Repeat the pick)
5. Miss Right (Execute left neighbor button, Undo, Repeat the pick)
6. Miss Upper Left (Execute left neighbor button, Undo, Repeat the pick)
7. Miss Upper Right (Execute left neighbor button, Undo, Repeat the pick)
8. Miss Lower Left (Execute left neighbor button, Undo, Repeat the pick)
9. Miss Lower Left (Execute left neighbor button, Undo, Repeat the pick)
Costs associated with these nine picking outcomes:
1. 0
2. 2 or greater (additional picks)
3. 2 or greater (additional picks)
4. 2 or greater (additional picks)
5. 2 or greater (additional picks)
6. 2 or greater (additional picks)
7. 2 or greater (additional picks)
8. 2 or greater (additional picks)
9. 2 or greater (additional picks)
Total Picking Costs
Total picking costs for a distribution of controls on a display can help the developer determine the best arrangement of controls.
The total picking cost of any individual pick is the the sum of the probabilities for each individual outcome k multiplied by each outcome's cost:
...where k=1 to the number of controls (and/or gaps) present in the area of confusion.[/face]
The total picking cost of any arbitrary distribution of controls is the sum of the individual control picking costs. In Cartesian control distributions (aka MS ribbon), the individual control picking costs are higher (because there are more adjacent controls than in a linear toolbar), hence the total picking cost for a dense Cartesian distribution is higher than for a linear distribution (aka toolbar).
One must also consider the fact that (at least in Access) the MS "ribbon" morphs depending on what the user is doing. This adds a third degree of freedom (left-right, up-down, mode), adding with some probability a moment of hesitation (before the picking activity and while the user identifies the mode) ...
And yes, this long-winded presentation is a "way" over-simplification. There are many more factors (visual features such icon contrast and control size and distribution density, where in the distribution the control resides... on the edge, for instance, user familiarity with the software, complexity of task, hysterisis/lag in the physical pointer interface, etc, etc) that contribute to picking accuracy.
r
But you get the picture: for nearly everyone, a Cartesian presentation of densely distributed controls will lead to less efficient picking behavior.
To sum it up:
If you are too drunk to click the right buttons, just make buttons bigger, no matter if you like linear button bars or whatever.
I cannot vote for MMB and RMB and at the same time be against enhancements for the button style. TC's buttons are very basic and I severely doubt that the linear concept is the final answer.
)
