Bureaucrats, emailconfirmed
1,221
edits
IFD:Course Interaction Design (view source)
Revision as of 09:15, 18 November 2010
, 18 November 2010→Standards and Consistency
| Line 330: | Line 330: | ||
===Standards and Consistency=== | ===Standards and Consistency=== | ||
[[File:DialogBox-standards_openSource.png|thumb|200px|Some Standards you can see here:A Bar on top you can drag the window with; A cross in the corner that closes the window; Buttons with descriptive Text triggering functions - and the whole dialog is a standard in itself because it always appears when one closes an application without prior saving]] | |||
In contrast to metaphors, Standards have been learned at some point. You learned that you can move a window dragging it on its title-bar, that clicking on a button triggers an action an that you find "save" and "open" in the file menu. | In contrast to metaphors, Standards have been learned at some point. You learned that you can move a window dragging it on its title-bar, that clicking on a button triggers an action an that you find "save" and "open" in the file menu. | ||
Like metaphors standards ease learning because you can build on something the user already knows - as it is a standard you can assume that applications the user used before taught him how to interact. | Like metaphors standards ease learning because you can build on something the user already knows - as it is a standard you can assume that applications the user used before taught him how to interact. | ||
| Line 339: | Line 340: | ||
* A right-click triggers a context menu | * A right-click triggers a context menu | ||
* Files are organized in Folders, though "boxes" or any other thing that contains something is equally fine. | * Files are organized in Folders, though "boxes" or any other thing that contains something is equally fine. | ||
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. | ||
| Line 346: | Line 347: | ||
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. There is simply no point in doing so. If it is done the user will be confused and frustrated and errors are very much likely. | ||
Often designers break standards thinking they have a better solution. Sometimes there are reasons to come up with non-standard methods but it is rarely the case. You should only break standards and do things in way that is not known to the users in case... | Often designers break standards thinking they have a better solution. Sometimes there are reasons to come up with non-standard methods but it is rarely the case. You should only break standards and do things in way that is not known to the users in case... | ||