On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 10:09 PM, 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?
I understand the curiosity, but if your goal is to develop
applications, I'm unsure you are asking the right questions.
A.) Microsoft and Apple both have long standing documentation in their
human
interface guidelines to discourage dialog response buttons that
dont have their own context (i.e. "Yes" or "Go ahead"), most UX
experts
seem to agree on this, for close to a decade. I would not take it
on myself
to try to prove them wrong.
In other words, in absence of proof, either you spend enormous time
yourself
doing these studies, or, the practical thing is follow current
recommended
practices.
B.) As Thiago mentioned, this need not be about whether users read all
the text
or not, but "you reduce the user's memory load", this in itself is
a very
good argument, your software is easier to use, the appropriate
response
can be 'gleaned'.
I.e., Even if you assumed everyone read dialog text, it would
_still_
be worth the effort to make your application more user friendly, by
reducing what they have to remember from session to session.
Where can I see it? And who did it?
Some have provided links, but I think the best source of the
documentation
you are asking for will be in the (probably private) bug tracking
repositories
and tech support history and documentation for companies with large
user bases,
who had to learn this from experience (I can only imagine how many disks
have been completely wiped just because your common grandmother
followed her
grandson's advice to just say "yes" to "all that complicated stuff").
That said, there is another interesting point which nobody has brought
up, and that is translatability of your application.
Consider the phrase: "Don't you want to go home ?"
English: No, means "no I dont want to go home"
Korean: No, means "no, I do want to go home"
Especially in the majority of cases, where application developers use
GTK_STOCK_YES, and the translation actually comes from GTK+, there is no
way for translators to read the question, and put an appropriate word
for the response, instead they are stuck with a translated "Yes". Even
if you did not use the stock GTK+ "Yes" and translated your own "Yes"
string,
it will be more work for translators to cross-check the dialog string
and make special exceptions for scattered occurrences of "Yes"
throughout
your application.
A translated "Yes" without context becomes meaningless in many
languages.
Regards,
-Tristan
_______________________________________________
gtk-list mailing list
gtk-list@xxxxxxxxx
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-list
