On 4 May 2004, at 11:39, Sven Neumann wrote:
> Nathan Carl Summers <rock@xxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > (For those unfamiliar with the independent-labeling guideline, the
> > HIG suggests that the entire meaning of a control be contained in
> > the label, because those with screen-readers cannot tell that (in
> > this case) the "Scale X:" and "Y:" labels are arrainged analogously,
> > and that both refer to the scaling parameters.)
>
> IMHO repeating the "Scale" on the second line adds visual noise and
Why?
> makes it harder to understand that the two entries belong together and
There are other methods of grouping controls, which are already being
used, such as putting them together, aligning them the same way, et
cetera.
> give access to two dimensions of the same control. Please don't let us
> change this. A whole lot of thought went into this, it's used
> consistently and there's no compelling reason to change it.
By abbreviating 'Scale Y:' to 'Y:', you are forcing the user to make
an extra mental transaction, namely to first read the 'Scale X:'
label, which only is partially related to what the 'Scale Y:' control
does.
I don't think that does any harm (as you mentioned, it reinforces the
idea that there's a group of controls, namely 'Scale X' and 'Scale
Y', that are related), but I wanted to point out that it is not as
'victimless' as you assume.
So in the end you will have to make a choice between the extra mental
transaction that visual noise may produce, versus the extra mental
transaction that the abbreviation causes.
Scale X: [ 0.00 ]
Y: [ 0.00 ]
vs.
Scale X: [ 0.00 ]
Scaly Y: [ 0.00 ]
vs.
+--Scale------+
| X: [ 0.00 ] |
| Y: [ 0.00 ] |
+-------------+
Each solution has its costs.
--
branko collin
collin@xxxxxxxxx
