Hi, On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Thiago Bellini Ribeiro <hackedbellini@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 10:09 AM Igor Korot <ikorot01@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 8:00 AM, Thiago Bellini Ribeiro >> <hackedbellini@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 1:46 AM Daniel Kasak <d.j.kasak.dk@xxxxxxxxx> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> No no no. Everybody is wrong. What we need is: >> >> >> >> [ Actually, now that I come to think about it, this is not the action >> >> I would like to take at this time. Thankyou all the same] >> >> [ This is precisely the action that I require, and I thank you for the >> >> explicit dialog and verbose text in the buttons; it really makes sure >> >> I know what it about to happen, and possibly makes the rest of the >> >> text of the dialog redundant, but hey, at least there is zero scope >> >> for confusion] >> > >> > >> > The whole point here is to _be redundant_. Why? For some reasons, but a >> > major one is: Users don't read dialogs! >> >> Why people think this? Was there a statistical analysis about it? >> How many people do read them comparing to how many people don't? >> >> Where can I see it? And who did it? > > > There might be some better studies out there, but you can take for example > the 10 usability heuristics from Jakob Nielsen. > > The "Recognition rather than recall" [1] fits perfectly in this. By using a > clear action instead of simple boolean answers, "Yes" and "No", you reduce > the user's memory load. It makes it easier for the user and reduces the risk > of misinterpretation of the question. > > Take for example a dialog: "Are you sure you want to overwrite this file?". > By having a "Yes" and "No" answers, it is not clear without reading the > dialog what they mean. You can change that to "Overwrite it" and "Don't > overwrite" and the buttons themselves have meaning, even if you don't read > the dialog. > > These links [2][3] are another example of that. > > [1] http://www.nngroup.com/articles/recognition-and-recall/ > [2] > http://usabilitypost.com/2008/08/30/usability-tip-use-verbs-as-labels-on-buttons/ > [3] http://arstechnica.com/security/2008/09/study-confirms-users-are-idiots/ I just took a look at those links. Now nowhere in [1] and [2] I found an actual stats of how many people did/did not read the dialog messages prior to clicking the response button. There was absolutely _no statistics_. While [3] does show some stats, it is not actually usable as students are usually eager to finish the task _on time_. They need a good grades and of course they will do anything to get rid of something that stays in the way. Was there a same research does for an actual adults? Not students, but actual people? I would love to see it? Especially the one that done in a company of, say, 1,000+ employees. Thank you. > >> >> >> Thank you. >> >> > >> > By having verbose options instead of boolean answers, it is less likely >> > that >> > the user will choose the first option just because he thinks it is the >> > one >> > he needs. >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> Dan >> >> >> >> On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Paul Davis >> >> <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> wrote: >> >> > On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 8:41 PM, Allin Cottrell <cottrell@xxxxxxx> >> >> > wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> However, in relation to Igor's original point, giving the user >> >> >> options >> >> >> of >> >> >> Yes/No is IMO fine if your dialog asks a short, simple question that >> >> >> requires an answer of Yes or No. As in >> >> >> >> >> >> Overwrite <filename>? Yes/No >> >> >> Send message? Yes/No >> >> >> Really delete X? Yes/No >> >> >> >> >> >> One could rephrase these messages as something other than Yes/No >> >> >> questions >> >> >> but would that actually be clearer? I doubt it. >> >> > >> >> > I think you're wrong. Each one of these can be converted into a >> >> > dialog >> >> > of the following general form: >> >> > >> >> > Need confirmation to carry out potentially significant action >> >> > >> >> > [ Do not take this action ] [ Take this action ] >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > A specific case may help >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Overwriting this file may cause data loss >> >> > >> >> > [ Do not overwrite the file ] [ Overwrite the file ] >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > or >> >> > >> >> > Once your message is sent, you cannot delete it. >> >> > >> >> > [ Do not send this message] [ Send this message] >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Both these examples are clearer, because they explain what is at >> >> > stake. >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> >> > gtk-list mailing list >> >> > gtk-list@xxxxxxxxx >> >> > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-list >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> gtk-list mailing list >> >> gtk-list@xxxxxxxxx >> >> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-list >> > >> > -- >> > Thiago Bellini Ribeiro >> > http://hackedbellini.org >> > >> > “Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance.” - Confucius >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > gtk-list mailing list >> > gtk-list@xxxxxxxxx >> > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-list >> > > > -- > Thiago Bellini Ribeiro > http://hackedbellini.org > > “Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance.” - Confucius _______________________________________________ gtk-list mailing list gtk-list@xxxxxxxxx https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-list
