Bureaucrats, emailconfirmed
1,221
edits
m
→Standards and Consistency
| Line 307: | Line 307: | ||
The last example illustrates as well, that many standards are metaphors we agree on. We could do many things differently but if we would e.g. rename "folders" to "boxes" we would break the standard, and users would need to relearn what "boxes" are. Standards are crucial - if each application would invent their own ways of doing things users need to relearn all the time. There are styleguides for applications made by the people who create the operating system or desktop to help programmers and designers to use the standards the most people agree on. | The last example illustrates as well, that many standards are metaphors we agree on. We could do many things differently but if we would e.g. rename "folders" to "boxes" we would break the standard, and users would need to relearn what "boxes" are. Standards are crucial - if each application would invent their own ways of doing things users need to relearn all the time. There are styleguides for applications made by the people who create the operating system or desktop to help programmers and designers to use the standards the most people agree on. | ||
[[File:Radio_button_WRONG.png|thumb|200px|Radio Buttons are used for selecting when just one of the alternatives can be chosen. What is depicted turns a standard element into something else though it looks the same.]] | |||
What should never be done though is making standard-looking widgets (Elements of the Interface) behave in a non-standard way. E.g if you use something that looks like a menu it should behave like a menu and not else. | What should never be done though is making standard-looking widgets (Elements of the Interface) behave in a non-standard way. E.g if you use something that looks like a menu it should behave like a menu and not else. | ||