Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 10:09:33 -0500 From: Greg Barniskis <nalists@scls.lib.wi.us> To: Tuomo Latto <djv@mbnet.fi> Cc: freebsd-www@freebsd.org Subject: Re: new FreeBSD-webpage Message-ID: <43468FAD.5070008@scls.lib.wi.us> In-Reply-To: <43466C60.3090103@mbnet.fi> References: <b41c75520510060225h2eeecdd8w@mail.gmail.com> <di2s9q$4ss$1@sea.gmane.org> <43455D3E.5040007@mbnet.fi> <20051006204336.GA36557@neptune.atopia.net> <43459BEB.2090503@scls.lib.wi.us> <20051006221820.GB38659@neptune.atopia.net> <4345AFAD.9090004@scls.lib.wi.us> <43466C60.3090103@mbnet.fi>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[redirected to -www from -stable as requested and appropriate, though note I'm not on -www and not really interested in discussing this to death... thanks again, Contributors, keep going and the flames should wither and die sooner or later.] Tuomo Latto wrote: > Greg Barniskis wrote: >>well, usability is not an entirely objective measure, but there are >>objective aspects to it. Like, not having to scroll to find crucial >>navigation links and the Search box, or to see what the latest > > > You forget the number 1 rule: > Thou shalt not add to the number of clicks required. In my book that would be a good guideline but not a rule, and it wouldn't be number 1. This is something to be evaluated in context of the volume and complexity of an actual data set (the content). ($deep <> $bad) && ($BSD >= $complex) && ($linkcount > $many) > Scrolling is always preferable to clicking since it requires less > effort and has a better response time. Personal preference. I despise scrolling due to mouse wheel ergonomics and the much mileage already on my wrist tendons, but have no trouble clicking things right under my nose. More empirically, studies suggest key links not being visible without scrolling leads to measurable reduction of comprehension/use. It seems to me a lot of bellyaching is not about whether the new layout is appropriate, but "boo hoo, you moved my cheese". Analyzed logically, it was clear that some of the cheese was not optimally placed (some folks seem to be measuring "optimal" based on knowing where it was before, but that's not the way to measure it). Cheese was moved. You'll probably live, if not get over it. >> Like, reducing 20-30 headings in big "stacks" >>to clearly bounded clusters of "7 +/- 2", fostering rapid >>understanding. I think usability is measurably up. > > Reducing headings in clearly defined sections to less clearly > defined links improves usability? Wasn't commenting on the quality of actual labels in use. Reducing a large number of visually "like" objects into smaller distinct clusters helps enormously with speed and accuracy of comprehension. If it takes all your fingers to count members of a set, breaking up the set should always be considered. Everybody, sing! "One of these things is not like the others, some of these things are kind of the same...". > I see now that the powers that be have already decided that this > is the way of the future (good grief). I see it in the comments > to peoples' reactions and in the way the whole thing was planned > in relative secrecy and then just dropped on the rest of us. > I suppose I should at least try to minimize the damage on my behalf. Humbug. I'm not on -www but the activity on this was apparently no secret. There is no cabal of sinister masterminds. Or... is there? [muhahahaha!] All such tripe >> /dev/null. =) -- Greg Barniskis, Computer Systems Integrator South Central Library System (SCLS) Library Interchange Network (LINK) <gregb at scls.lib.wi.us>, (608) 266-6348
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?43468FAD.5070008>