I researched a lot on this and seem to be getting conflicting answers on SO and all of the web. I understand that with Section 508 that compliance DOES NOT equal accessibility.
Biggest thing is that the UI/UX designer is being told that keyboard shortcuts for the dropdown menu NEEDS to have keyboard shortcuts to be 508 compliant. I see Windows Forms applications having this, but for web development I do not think that is mandatory to be "compliant"
My other question that was answered is here: MVC 4 site 508 compliant
I partially agree with thinice, but agree with the first two sentences of the comment left.
The sentences I am referring to are:
They should be -reachable- by keyboard for 508. I'm maintaining emphasis on the difference between a shortcut and being reachable
Crixus said:
Biggest thing is that the UI/UX designer is being told that keyboard shortcuts for the dropdown menu NEEDS to have keyboard shortcuts to be 508 compliant.
You need to clarify this. Do you mean a simple <select> or a drop down for a navigation menu? As Thinice stated in comments, Section 508 just says needs to be reachable. The question becomes:
how are you adding shortcut keys to your application? Are you adding them via the accesskeys attribute or how Gmail/Yahoo Mail adds shortcut keys?
I thought I did an answer about AccessKeys, but cannot find it. Essentially accesskeys sounds like a great thing, but if you look at the keys you are allowed to use that do not interfere with either browser or Assistive Technology keys, you are quite limited. Gez Lemon did an overview of AccessKeys, and their issues. If you want to do the Yahoo!Mail approach, you have to do a bit more work. Todd Kloots made a presentation about ARIA, which may be helpful. Which leads me into the second part. If you are using JavaScript heavily on a site to do stuff, people use both 1194.21 (software application/OS) and 1194.22 (web) standards to evaluate a site. If the site uses JS to make a navmenu (YUI menu example), the drop down behavior needs to be reachable by keyboard. I would say this falls under:
§ 1194.21 Software applications and operating systems.
(a) When software is designed to run on a system that has a keyboard, product functions shall be executable from a keyboard where the function itself or the result of performing a function can be discerned textually.
AND
(c) A well-defined on-screen indication of the current focus shall be provided that moves among interactive interface elements as the input focus changes. The focus shall be programmatically exposed so that assistive technology can track focus and focus changes.
I say both standards are used because (a) says you have to be able to get into the navigation area via the keyboard. (c) comes into play because some menus you can tab to all of the parent items, but you cannot get into the drop down part without a mouse. I have seen menus that you can tab to the sub-menu items, but the menu does not pop open. So if you just use the keyboard (mobility imparments), versus using JAWS, you will have no idea where you are.
I see Windows Forms applications having this, but for web development I do not think that is mandatory to be "compliant"
I would say actual applications, like Word, Outlook, etc., supply shortcuts to frequently used commands. If you are doing this for a web application, I would think about how many you do. This is not a mandatory piece to be compliant. If you are making like a navigation bar, I would recommend using ARIA roles, specifically role="navigation", on the parent element as a best practise.
The problem with some standards (as well as many laws) are that they're open to interpretation...
The only mention I can find in the 508 standards that mentions keyboard use is this (verbatim):
Subpart B -- Technical Standards
§ 1194.21 Software applications and operating systems.
(a) When software is designed to run on a system that has a keyboard, product functions shall be executable from a keyboard where
the function itself or the result of performing a function can be
discerned textually.
My spin on this is:
A keyboard shortcut for navigation options may be impractical given the amount of operations/features a given section may contain. It is important that they're reachable -somehow- via keyboard.
From a UX standpoint, key features should have shortcuts "just because" it's good UX practice. But to shortcut everything goes from one ditch into the other.
508 != accessibility, but if you work for a gov/edu, chances are it's in your PD to be compliant.
Another end of the spectrum is the WCAG which is pretty much coupled with 508 compliance, and in my book better defined: Keyboard stuff is under 'operable' in WCAG.
In a nutshell:
It's good practice for UX to have custom keyboard shortcuts for important features. But has no bearing on 508 compliance by itself. (With exception that functionality should be reachable by keyboard -somehow-).
There are levels of 508 compliance, if you're talking about a government project. Some departments assign 508 scores to their developers, and it factors into your score for future contracts. 508 Compliance only requires that everything is reachable by keyboard, which is usually true, in a way. Screen readers will read everything that's not hidden, and tab keys will take people through links. But if you want a good score, you must address the intent and not only the letter of the law.
Edit: Screen readers will read some hidden elements. One method is to absolutely position an item above the screen with a negative top position. Another is to use the clip property.
http://adaptivethemes.com/using-css-clip-as-an-accessible-method-of-hiding-content/
But if you're using display:none, heights of zero, and javascript toggles, many screen readers will not speak these items.
In the case of a drop-down, you are actively hiding elements from screen readers etc, so you do have to fix it, because most readers won't hear things with display:none.
You will not find definitive documentation on keyboard navigation. The reason no one will specify exactly what to do, is that there are so many potential conflicts - with the browser, the OS, etc. There are also no standards, although Aria is making progress:
http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-practices/#keyboard
I would not put accessKeys on a menu, if that's what you meant.
Instead see: http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-practices/#aria_ex_widget
I would save actual accessKeys for major things like 'Search' and 'Home'. Adding a learning curve to your site wouldn't help the cause, if you had an accessKey for everything. If you put for example, "About Us" accessKey=A, and you had 20 accessKeys assigned to letters, it would be bad.
I've been doing 508 sites for a long time, and personally, I just don't use drop-downs. It's far simpler to add subpage menus. And I personally hate clicking on dropdowns. Dropdowns require a precision in clicking that just irritates me, and doesn't help with accessibility, because remember accessibility also includes people who don't click very well. Plus, dropdowns are limited in the number of levels you can have, not technically but from a UX view.
What I use:
Tab indexes.
Carefully placed menus so that a user won't get a huge list of links before hearing the basic idea of the site or page.
On some projects, tree menus with matching arrow-key page navigation, sequentially.
Accesskeys H for home and S for search, if needed.
The problem especially is in sorting information. Think how quickly you scan a long list of links, and then imagine sitting there and waiting for it to be read to you. Perhaps, organize your content into digestible pieces & let the search box do the scanning. Depends on the content.
Luck. :)
Related
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 12 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm writing an internal-tools webapp; one of the central pages in this tool has a whole bunch of related commands the user can execute by clicking one of a number of buttons on the page, like this:
toolbar http://img709.imageshack.us/img709/1928/commands.png
Ideally, all of the buttons would fit on one line. Ordinarily I'd do this by changing each widget from a button with a (sometimes long) text label to a simple, compact icon - e.g.
button labelled "Save" http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/773/saver.png
could be replaced by a familiar disk icon:
Unfortunately, I don't think I can do this for every button on this particular page. Some of the command buttons just don't have good visual analogs - "VDS List". Or, if I needed to add another button in the future for some other kind of list, I'd need two icons that both communicate "list-ness" and which list. So, I'm still considering this option, but I don't love it.
So it's come time for me to add yet another button to this section (don't you love internal tools?). There's not enough room on that single line to fit the new button. Aside from the icon solution I already mentioned, what would be a good* way to simplify/declutter/reduce or otherwise improve this UI?
*As per Jakob Nielsen's article, I'd like to think that a dropdown menu is not the solution.
Edit: I'm not looking for input about the icon idea. I'm looking for other solutions. Sorry my example disk icon was a small one; it was just an example. I'm showing a bigger one now to hopefully be more clear.
I would add a More Link Like Google does.
See the Top Bar of Google with WeB Images Map More >>
To this more >> drop down you can add logic to add button less frequently used by user or something like that.
If you read Jef (and Aza) Raskin, you'll probably realize that icons are also not a good solution – both were pretty vocal in their dislike for them (with very few notable exceptions). For a start they're even harder to hit than tiny buttons, then their symbols can be confusing, culture-dependent and misleading. We're already good at reading text, parsing and interpreting icons is often slower.
In any case, that button bar looks like it accommodates pretty much anyone and their dog who might be using that product. You might have had some specific scenarios in mind when creating it that should be easy to do and are important. Most likely not all buttons are needed at once for such a task to complete.
Another thing is that maybe not all buttons are even useful at any single state of the application. Can you maybe branch into different sets of buttons, depending on the state. That's only possible however, if each state has clearly defined what actions can be taken. If all buttons are equally pressable regardless of state this won't do anything.
Grouping commands according to related functionality might also be an option. This doesn't have to be done with menu-like idioms, you can also put them into containers with different background color or even color the buttons themselves (just keep in mind color blindness, though). Depending on how related those individual functions are this can be a good way of speeding up interaction. It might requier some training for users to know what the colors refer to but for an in-house tool that's only used by people you know (instead of by arbitrary random ones [which is a problem Microsoft faces quite prominently]) this should pose not much of a problem.
What if you use icons and text?
For the commonly understood commands - use just an icon (like the save)
For the uncommon commands use an Icon + the text.
If you put a border around the button as a whole it should tie the icons / text together nicely and show it's still a button. You could also do some hover effects.
Since you can't do a dropdown menu (or similar techniques like clicking a button to generate a secondary menu). The best I can think of is what Prescott did or showing an area of buttons that are grouped in such a way to make it easy for the user to know which section their button should be in.
I would start by changing some of the longer labels. At a minimum, "Application Loading" could be abbreviated "App Loading." What's another (shorter) way to say "Quick File Transfer"?
You could also group the buttons into tabs (i.e. make it a ribbon). That might work particularly well if different classes of users tend to use different, non-overlapping sets of buttons.
Numerous options:
Group and labeling. Any time you have more than eight commands, you should divide the menu items into semantic groups of about four to help the user scan for the command they want. Labeling the groups also helps the scan and can make the menu more compact. For example, Instead of VDS Ping and VDS List, Have a group labeled “VDS” with “Ping” and “List” menu items. You’ve one less word to fit in (two if you put the label above it’s associated menu items when using a horizontal orientation).
Pulldown menus. Nielsen is correct about avoiding the use of a dropdown menu for making commands. However, he’s clearly in favor of pulldown menus which look and behave like a menubar in a thick client app (Nielsen calls them “command” and “navigation” menus). I think you’ll find that there are several Javascript pulldown menus out there now, unlike back in 2000 when Nielsen wrote his post. You can fit 100s of commands in a menubar.
Sidebar menu. Arraying the menu items vertically and you should be able to fit 20 or more commands and you won’t have to shorten any command names to something user might not understand. If that’s not enough, consider a “menu bank” than combines the benefits of sidebar menu with the capacity of a pulldown menu.
Ribbon. If your commands fit into discrete tasks, where the user tends to stick to one task for a while, you can arrange the buttons on a tab control, with one sheet per task.
Command Overloading. Represent your data objects as selectable entities in your window and change your commands into more general operations, like Drill-down, Create, Copy, Move, Delete, and Link, that can be applied to various different classes of objects, thereby reducing your total number of commands. The user can select one or more data objects then select the desired command to act on them.
Work Area Attributes. Some of your commands may not be commands by settings or attributes. Remove them from the menu and represent them as data objects in the work area of the page (or another page, if they are rarely used) using controls like radio buttons, dropdown lists, and check boxes. This has the added benefit clearly showing the user the current setting as well as providing a means to change it.
Variants. For an internal app, you probably have formal roles and responsibilities that vary by work position. Include the user’s position in your model, and dynamically hide commands (and other controls and pages) that aren't relevant to that position.
What about a combobox and a Confirm button?
Or a simple dropdown menu?
Add a "Tools" or "Actions" menu bar, and stick rightmost 4 commands (or more) into the menu.
Would it be possible to implement a "most used" or "preferred" set of buttons (preferably for the user, but globally if necessary) and button to take you to the rest of the items if you need one of those?
You could group them (like the two 'vds' buttons) behind a single button that, when clicked pops a context menu with the individual icons.
It truly seems like what you're developing is a administration console which happens to present its UI through a web page, rather than something which I'd quantify as a web app. As such, especially given your statement that this is an internal use application, Jakob Nielson's advice regarding <select> tags being poor design need not apply.
For this particular set of assumptions, I think the better option is to imitate a system menu setup using one of the many CSS-based menuing designs possible.
Icons are terrible from a user experience stand point. A picture of a Floppy Disk doesn't un-equivocally mean SAVE. It means something to do with a Floppy Disk. A Floppy really, its 2010, SAVE on a web app means save to the server, how does a Floppy Disk even compute?
Here is an application that has had the same extremely usable interface for 10 years! And hardly any images for buttons, and it is one of the most productive applications in its category.
You know what ICONS stand for I ncomprehesible C ryptic O bfucsated N onsense S ymbol!
Also how do you internationalize an icon?
I was browsing the Worst UI You’ve Ever Used question, when I realized that many of them involved the options dialog of some application. This is obviously an area where a developer could get "lost" easily, since there are often a large number of options available which can be hard to organize. (Especially to the stereotypical programmer)
So since I'm getting ready to design an options dialog for my own application, I was wondering: what makes a good options dialog?
Tabs? A hierarchical treeview like Visual Studio that sort of acts like tabs? (I'm currently leaning toward this)
What do you think?
Options windows tend to be crowded, cluttered, and confusing, making it hard for the user to find the option she or he wants. They are often thrown together at the last minute of design without a whole lot of thought or coordination with the rest of the design. That’s what makes them a common target of ridicule. Here’s how to avoid that fate.
Restrict the number of options. The fewer the options, the fewer things to obscure what the user really wants.
Limit options to those that accommodate known individual differences in your users. For example, if your users come from different legacy systems, you may have an option to emulate the keyboard shortcuts of each system.
Even then, consider that forcing a small number users to make a small change in habit may be worth the usability savings in confusion associated with adding another option. Remember that having a single standard UI for all users helps users support each other.
Unless your app has a “playful” side (like Facebook), avoid options for trivial aesthetic preferences. Focus on options that improve the task performance for select users (e.g., options that support accessibility).
Don’t use an option to force the user to make design decision you yourself should make. For example, don’t have options for choosing control locations or color coding color-by-color. Your users are not UI designers and in nearly all cases, you can come up with a better design compromise than your average user.
Don’t use options to set attributes of the data (e.g., the margins of a specific document). Options are attributes of the application and should apply by default to whatever data is shown.
Organize options by function as your users see it. Consider using a card-sort method to categorize your options. Do not hide less commonly used options on an “advanced” tab or dialog. You may have statistics on the use of each option but your users won’t. They’ve no way of knowing if the option they seek is “advanced” or not, forcing them to search the Advanced junk-drawer tab in addition to other tabs.
Move functionality off of the Options window, and make it proximal to the place where the user decides to set an option. Rather than having an option to set a default, use the same interface for overriding the defaults. You can have a “Make This Printer the Default” button in the Print dialog. Include a “Keep View” menu item in the View menu that preserves across sessions the sort order, filtering, and column selections the user set for the window. Alternatively, consider automatically preserving the view –even window sizes and positions -across sessions, and providing a Default View menu item to revert it.
If you have a very large number of options, consider having a dedicated pulldown menu for them on the menu bar, with each menu item opening a different dialog box for each major category of options. Multi-tiered tabs or trees in dialog boxes are nature’s way of saying your Options window is too complex.
A dedicated Options/Preferences pulldown menu is also a good place to put three or four adapting/variable menu items that anticipate the options a user would like to set in a given context. For example, when an email arrives, a menu item can appear that sets the alerting parameters for new email (e.g., sound given, notification shown). When the user changes the default printer to something else, a menu item can appear to make that the new printer the default printer.
Use web-style graphic design, small illustrations, and visual hierarchy to make options easier to find and understand on a given panel. Use font size, color, and/or weight to make commonly used options salient, while still organizing all options by function. Something like:
(source: zuschlogin.com)
Encourage easy exploration and experimentation of options:
The checkboxes and other controls for options in the Options windows should apply instantly on selection so user can immediately see the impact of each option as it is selected. There should be no OK and no Cancel buttons, but only a Close button (there may also be a Reset or Undo button). It’s frustrating to open the typical Options dialog, select an option and hit OK, only to find one has set the wrong option and has to start over. Also, if the user selects multiple options, hits OK (or Apply), and ends up with a totally wacked-out UI, the user won’t necessarily know which option needs to be undone; the user may not even remember all options selected.
Include “What is this?” Help for each option so users can find out more about what an option does and when it should be used.
Consider making the Option window modeless, so the user can pan around the primary window to better see what an option does.
Be sure all option names and their synonyms are in your Help documentation, and be sure the Help documentation shows the user exactly where to find the option. Often users may not know if an option exists, or if it’s an “option” or other kind of command.
Make the most common options easy to find, and the advanced options "optional" to even look at... Hiding the options 99% of your users won't care about is very effective.
The main issue is not overwhelming the audience. Options dialogs tend to be crazy, just because people put every option available in there.
Having a good, clean logical grouping of options, with common options easy, and "advanced" sections making the obscure options less noticable is usually more important than a specific layout.
I think this really depends on how many options you will have, what their logical groupings can be, and where they can come from (the application, external plugins, etc.) The tree-style dialog used by Visual Studio is a good choice because of the large number of options and the many plugins/packages which provide options that are manipulated in this dialog.
The common patterns that I've seen are:
The Visual Studio type dialog (tree view).
The Word/Office options dialog (particularly in Office 2007/2010).
A standard tabbed dialog (only a good options with a small number (less than 4) of tabs).
A single dialog with options grouped using group boxes (standard .NET style or Office style). This is only viable with a small number of options.
Not having an options dialog is best.
If you do however have a lot of options, making it searchable is really helpful.
Often times convention is one of the most important design consideration for user interface. Usually the advice goes to do it like Microsoft does.
This is for three reasons:
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
If your users expect to click on a floppy disk icon to save, don't change the icon (even though some of them may have never seen an actual floppy disk).
Users don't want to re-learn the interface (and hot keys, etc.) with each different application they use.
At the same time Emmerson said "*A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.*" So when does maintaining a consistent user interface cross the line from a good idea to stagnated innovation?
Microsoft shook up the good old WIMP GUI with the introduction of the tool bar, and then again with the Ribbon control (which is the natural evolution of the tool bar, like it or not.) Now we are seeing ribbons everywhere.
So my question is, what are some user interface paradigms that are accepted and consistent across multiple applications, but have stayed past their prime and are starting to reek? Are there some important changes that would benefit from a grass roots push by developers to innovate and improve the user interface experience for our users?
One thought that came to mind for me is the modal pop-up dialog. You know the ones that say: "Are you sure you want to . . .. - [Yes] [No] [Cancel] [Maybe]" and its evil twin "Successfully completed what you wanted to do! [OK]." We are seeing a movement away from these with the "info panel" in browsers. I think they need to be adopted in windows application development as well.
If possible please list a solution for each stale UI item.
And please don't list clippy. We all know he was a bad idea.
NOTE: This is specifically Windows client user interface paradigms, but I am certainly open to drawing inspiration from the web, the Mac, etc.
You mentioned popup modal dialogs , and I'd argue that non-modal ones are just as bad. Any dialog box remove focus from the program, they could end up behind the program and make it hard to find it, they might not even appear on the same virtual screen.
I'd like to see an end to all dialog boxes. If you need to stop someone from using the UI because of some non-normal circumstance, then remove the relevant parts of the UI from the window, and replace it with what the dialog would contain. Bring back the UI once the problem has been handled.
Clicking things on touch interfaces
It's incredibly difficult to click on things on a touch interface, because you don't know when you have pressed the screen hard enough. And if you add an animation to the button you are clicking, you most likely wont see it, because your finger is in the way. Adding other reactions, like vibrating the phone or painting waves on the screen might work, but there is usually a delay which is too large, much larger than the tactile sense of a button being pressed. So until they invent a screen with buttons that can be pressed, all touch devices should move towards dragging user interfaces (DUIs) instead.
Counter intuitively it is easier to press an object on the screen, drag it, and then release it than it is to just press and release it. It's probably because you can see the object moving when you start dragging, and you can adjust the pressure while dragging it. Dragging also has a lot more options, because you now have a direction, not just a point that you clicked. You can do different things if the user drags the object in different directions. Speed might also be used, as well as the point where the user releases the object. The release point is the real strength of DUIs, because it is very easy to release something, even with pixel precession.
Some designs have started to use DUIs, like (here we go) the iPhone, palm pre and android phones. But only part of their design is DUI, the rest is clicking. One area they all have in common is the keyboard. Instead of clicking on a key the user presses any key, then drags their finger towards the key they really wanted to click. Unlocking these phones also uses dragging.
Other easily implemented DUI features would be things like mouse gestures, where dragging in different directions, or drawing different shapes does different things. There are also alternate keyboards being researched which puts a bigger emphasis on dragging. All buttons can be changed into switches, so have to drag them down a bit to click them. With a well designed graphics, this should be intuitive to the user as well.
The Apple Human Interface Guidelines are a good read on this topic. They discuss this from a very broad point of view and the guidelines apply to any platform, not only Mac.
The file system. I want to save a file.. >OOOPs I need to think of a file name first. Well.... how about ... blah.doc.
6 months later...
Where the %#*(%& * did I save that %()#*()*ing file?
The solution is build a versioning system into the application, or better, the OS. Make files findable by their content, with a search engine, instead of forcing the user to come up with a memorable name, when all they want is for their file to not get lost.
Eliminate the save step. Type something in to the application, and it's just there, and there's no risk of losing it by some misstep, like forgetting to save. If you want an older version, you can just pick a date and see what the document looked like back then.
To build on the search engine idea: It's a pain having to navigate some arbitrary tree structure to find your stuff. Searching is much easier. However, you might still want to have something like a "folder" to group multiple files together. Well, you can build a richer metadata system, and have a "category" or "project" field, and setup the search engine to show items by project, or by category. Or group by those, or whatever new UI discovery we make next.
This question is a bit too open-ended, IMHO.
However, my main approach when designing anything is:
Fits in to wherever it is. If it's a windows app, I copy MS as much as a possible
It's simple.
It provides options
Buttons have a nice description of what the result of clicking will be, as opposed to 'yes or 'no'
Harder to answer the rest of your post without spending hours typing out an arguably useless (and repeated) set of guidelines.
In my mind, the one thing that really stands out is that USERS need more and easier control over the application's user interface appearance and organization.
So many interfaces can not be modified by the user so that the most used/favorite functions can be grouped together. This ability would make your favorite software even easier for you to get things done.
Error messages need a "Just do it!" button.
Seriously, I really don't care about your stupid error message, just DO WHAT I TOLD YOU TO DO!!!
I think the entire Document model of the web needs to change. It's not a user interface, but it leads to many, many bad user interfaces.
The document model was a good idea to connect a bunch of documents, but now the web is also a collection of applications. Today, I think the Page/document model corrupts our thinking. We end up lumping things together that aren't related, modularizing our code wrong, and in the end confusing users with our monolithic control board type websites.
Find dialogs that sit over the widget in which you are doing the search are terrible. Loads of apps do that. The find bar in Firefox works much better.
Many applications have multiple panes within the UI - eg in Outlook there's the preview pane and the inbox pane (amongst others). In these applications typically cursor key presses apply to the currently focussed pane. But there's very poor hinting to show the user which pane has focus and there are seldom keyboard shortcuts to move the focus between panes.
The focussed pane should be highlighted somehow.
Something like alt+cursor keys should move the focus around.
Ctrl-Tab and Ctrl-Shift-Tab cycle left and right through tabs instead of MRU behavior, even though in most cases the same behavior is duplicated with Ctrl-PageUp and Ctrl-PageDown.
There are a lot but here's an idea for a couple of them:
Remove some clicks like in "add another" or "search item" and the like.
This is well done with interfaces like ajax which have autocompletes ( and auto search ) but is slowly being adopted for platform UI's ( and in some cases they were originated in platform UI's. )
This is how StackOverflow does it for some scenarios.
But of course, we all know that already don't we? No need for "Seach tag" or "Add another tag" buttons, they just happen
Dialogs as you described.
Guys at Humanized proposed Transparent messages which actually are used in their product Enso and some other places.
Mac uses them for notifications ( like in Growl ) use them very well, or Ubuntu new notification system.
alt text http://blogs.sun.com/plamere/resource/NowPlayingGrowl.png
Firefox replaces the traditional "Search" dialog box with a search bar at the bottom.
Although not everyone likes the placement for next/previous as in this screenshot
And even SO ( again ) :) replace the notification with the yellow bar.
Finally:
File managers
I really like ( sometimes ) the simplicity of regular file managers, but some times I would like to work faster/better with them.
If you compare IE 4 with IE 8 you can tell the advance ( even better compare IE 4 with Google Chrome )
But if you compare Windows 95 Explorer with Win XP they are almost the same!! ( Win Vista/7 is a step forward )
But I wonder: Why haven't file managers improved as much as webbrowsers?
That's one reason I like stuff like QuickSilver but it is just a step. Much work is needed to create something like a "Perfect program launcher" or (FileManager/DesktopSearcher etc as you wish )
QuickSilver featuring "move to" action
I'm in the process of designing and testing various ideas for an application whose main functionality will be to notify users of occurring events and offer them with a choice of actions for each.
The standard choice would be to create a queue of events showing a popup in the taskbar with the events and actions, but I want this tool to be the less intrusive and disrupting as possible.
What I'm after is a good book or papers on studies of how to maximize user productivity in these intrinsically disruptive scenarios (in other words, how to achieve the perfect degree of annoying-ness, not too much, not too little).
The user is supposedly interested in these events, they subscribe to them and can choose the actions to perform on each.
I prefer books and papers, but the usual StackOverflow wisdom is appreciated as well.
I'm after things like:
Don't use popups, use instead X
Show popups at most 3 seconds
Show them in the left corner
Use color X because it improves readability and disrupts less
That is, cognitive aspects of GUI design that would help users in such a scenario.
For notification, I prefer small notification windows in the bottom right corner. If they have a minimum UI allowing me to take some quick action, it would be ideal.
As model: incoming mail notification from Outlook, Skype notifications for incomming calls, etc.
I have read and recommend:
About Face 3
The Design of Everyday Things
I don't know of any formal articles but the Ubuntu UI design team have considered this issue and you may find something of value in their notification design guidelines or in this discussion by Mark Shuttleworth.
Sorry, no book recommendation here, just one piece of advise: Ultimately, you should let your users decide.
In my experience, what one user considers to be a useful feature is seen as completely broken by the second, while the third doesn't care at all.
Offer them 3-5 options how they will be alerted (including the option to turn alerts off ;-). Of course you should optimise these options as much as possible, hopefully some other answers here can help you with that.
A collection of possibilities:
Change a static tray icon. Useful if the user doesn't have to answer each message immediately, and relatively unobtrusive. Should be an overlay on the original image, making sure that the user recognizes which application it's from, and should be different enough that the user immediately understands that it's not the original icon (for example, a red / yellow exclamation mark on a blue / green background).
Change the tray icon to a dynamic variant. This will be more obtrusive, grabbing the user attention periodically, but is useful when the message is urgent. Could for example be a revolving version of a circular logo, or a pulsating square logo. Depending on the urgency, the animation could repeat endlessly (highly distracting) or once in a while. Use with care :)
Pop-over box in a corner of the screen. This should give some context info, the primary object of which is to enable the user to decide whether or not it's worth checking out immediately. Could afford clicking by using a "More" link or big "+" sign.
Focus the application window immediately. Enormously intrusive, and should not even be used in case of nuclear meltdowns (what if the user already knows the meltdown is occurring, and is looking elsewhere for a solution?). Just don't.
I think an answer depends highly on the specifics of the UI you are working within. However, for general guides
The GNOME desktop environment's human interface guidelines (HIG) is a useful resource if your environment is GNOME, and perhaps informative if it's not. There is a section on using the "desktop notification area": http://library.gnome.org/devel/hig-book/stable/desktop-notification-area.html.en. This covers not overloading the area, etc. (perhaps analogous to the win32 tray).
Apple have their own HIG document. Part of this describes using the Dock for conveying status information: http://developer.apple.com/documentation/userexperience/Conceptual/AppleHIGuidelines/XHIGMOSXEnvironment/XHIGMOSXEnvironment.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40002721-TPXREF139
Apple also have a separate HIG document for the iPhone. there are several notification techniques described within, e.g. "alerts" http://developer.apple.com/iphone/library/documentation/UserExperience/Conceptual/MobileHIG/ModalViews/ModalViews.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40006556-CH11-SW1 which are specifically described as to be used for critical information (due to their disruptiveness).
Several apple iphone apps adjust their icon to convey some status info: e.g. mail, SMS, phone all indicate the number of outstanding mails, SMS messages, or missed calls/voicemails as part of their launch icon. I can't, however, find any reference to that in a cursory scan of the apple iphone HIG.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 11 years ago.
What techniques do you know\use to create user-friendly GUI ?
I can name following techniques that I find especially useful:
Non-blocking notifications (floating dialogs like in Firefox3 or Vista's pop-up messages in tray area)
Absence of "Save" button
MS OneNote as an example.
IM clients can save conversation history automatically
Integrated search
Search not only through help files but rather make UI elements searchable.
Vista made a good step toward such GUI.
Scout addin Microsoft Office was a really great idea.
Context oriented UI (Ribbon bar in MS Office 2007)
Do you implement something like listed techniques in your software?
Edit:
As Ryan P mentioned, one of the best way to create usable app is to put yourself in user's place. I totally agree with it, but what I want to see in this topic is specific techniques (like those I mentioned above) rather than general recommendations.
If you do give the user a question, don't make it a yes/no question. Take the time to make a new form and put the verbs as choices like in mac.
For example:
Would you like to save?
Yes No
Should Be:
Would you like to save?
Save Don't Save
There is a more detailed explanation here.
Check out the great book Don't make me think by Steve Krug.
It's web focused but many of the conepts can apply to anything from blenders to car dashboards.
Topics covered:
User patterns
Designing for scanning
Wise use of copy
Navigation design
Home page layout
Usability testing
He also has a blog called Advanced Common Sense
And some random UI related links:
- User Interface Design for Programmers by Joel Spolsky
- 10 Usability Nightmares You Should Be Aware Of
First Principles: Wilfred James Hansen
Know the User
Minimize Memorization
Optimize Operations
Engineer for Errors
Subsequent Expansions: Dr. Theo Mandel
Place Users in Control
Use Modes Judiciously (modeless)
Allow Users to use either the Keyboard or Mouse (flexible)
Allow Users to Change Focus (interruptible)
Display Descriptive Messages and Text (helpful)
Provide Immediate and Reversible Actions, and Feedback (forgiving)
Provide meaningful Paths and Exits (navigable)
Accommodate Users with Different Skill Levels (accessible)
Make the User Interface Transparent (facilitative)
Allow Users to Customize the Interface (preferences)
Allow Users to Directly Manipulate Interface Objects (interactive)
Reduce Users' Memory Load
Relieve Short-term Memory (remember)
Rely on Recognition, not Recall (recognition)
Provide Visual Cues (inform)
Provide Defaults, Undo, and Redo (forgiving)
Provide Interface Shortcuts (frequency)
Promote an Object-action Syntax (intuitive)
Use Real-world Metaphors (transfer)
User Progressive Disclosure (context)
Promote Visual Clarity (organize)
Make the Interface Consistent
Sustain the Context of Users’ Tasks (continuity)
Maintain Consistency within and across Products (experience)
Keep Interaction Results the Same (expectations)
Provide Aesthetic Appeal and Integrity (attitude)
Encourage Exploration (predictable)
To add to your list, aku, I would put explorability as one of my highest priorities. Basically, I want the user to feel safe trying out the features. They should never back away from using something for fear that their action might be irreversible. Most commonly, this is implemented using undo/redo commands, but other options are no doubt available e.g. automatic backups.
Also, for applications that are more process-oriented (rather than data-entry applications), I would consider implementing an interface that guide the user a bit more. Microsoft's Inductive User Interface guidelines can help here, although you need to be very careful not to overdo it, as you can easily slow the user down too much.
Finally, as with anything that includes text, make the user interface as scannable as possible. For example, if you have headings under which commands/options appear, consider putting the action word at the start, rather than a question word. The point that Maudite makes is a good example of scannability too, as the "Don't Save" button text doesn't rely on the context of the preceding paragraph.
A useful technique which I never see anyone use is to add a tooltip for a disabled UI control explaining why the control is disabled. So if there's a listbox which is disabled and it's not clear why it is disabled, I want to hover over it and it tells me why it's disabled. I want to see something like "It's disabled because two textboxes on the screen were left blank or because I didn't enter enough characters in some field or because I didn't make a certain action.".
I get into sooooo many such situations and it's frustrating. Sometimes I end up posting in the software's forum asking why a control is greyed out when a tooltip could have helped me in a second! Most of these software have help files which are useless in these kinds of scenarios.
Try to pretend you know nothing about your software and try using it. However this is not practical because you already have a certain mind set towards the app. So watch fellow developers or friends use the app and look out for the pain points and ask for feedback.
One of the classic books to help you think about design is "The Design of Everyday Things" by Donald Norman. He gives great real-world examples. For example, if you design a door well, you should never have to add labels that say "push" and "pull." If you want them to pull, put a handle; if you want them to push, put a flat plate. There's no way to do it wrong, and they don't even have to think about it.
This is a good goal: make things obvious. So obvious that it never occurs to the user to do the wrong thing. If there are four knobs on a stove, each one next to an eye, it's obvious that each knob controls the eye it's next to. If the knobs are in a straight line, all on the left side, you have to label them and the user has to stop and think. Bad design. Don't make them think.
Another principle: if the user does make a mistake, it should be very easy to undo. Google's image software, Picasa, is a good example. You can crop, recolor, and touch up your photos all you like, and if you ever change your mind - even a month later - you can undo your changes. Even if you explicitly save your changes, Picasa makes a backup. This frees up the user to play and explore, because you're not going to hurt anything.
I've found UI Patterns to be a useful reference for this sort of thing. It's arranged much like the classic GoF Design Patterns book, with each pattern description containing:
The problem the pattern solves
An example of the pattern in action
Sample use cases for the pattern
The solution to implement the pattern
Rationale for the solution
If you implement a search, make it a live search like what Locate32 and Google Suggest does now. I am so used to not pressing "Enter" at the search box now.
Well, one thing that may be obvious: don't change (even slightly) the position, color, font size, etc. of buttons, menus, links, etc. between screens if they do the same type of action.
Really good feedback is extremely important. Even simple things like making it obvious what can and cannot be clicked can be overlooked or too subtle. Feedback when something might happen in the background is great. In gmail, it's great that there's a status ribbon appearing at the top that let's you know if something is sending or loading, but it's even better that it lets you know that something has sent successfully or is still loading.
The "yellow fade" technique is something else made popular amongst the RoR crowd that accomplishes something similar. You never want the user to ask the question, "What just happened?" or "What will happen when I do this?".
Another trick that has become more popular lately that I've been using a lot is editing in place. Instead of having a view of some data with a separate "edit" screen (or skipping the view and only having an edit screen), it can often be more user friendly to have a nicely laid out view of some data and just click to edit parts of it. This technique is really only appropriate when reading the data happens more often than editing, and is not appropriate for serious data-entry.
If you are doing enterprise software, a lot of users will have small monitors at low resolution. Or if they are old they will have it at a low res so they can see giant buttons ( I have seen an 800x600 on a 24"ish monitor). I have an old 15" monitor at a low resolution (800 x 600) so i can see what the program will look likes in less than idle conditions every now and then. I know that enterprise users pretty much have to accept what they are given but if you design a winform that doesn't fit into an 800x600 screen, it's not helping anyone.
Try to think about your user's end goals first before deciding what individual tasks they would carry out when using your software. The book About Face has excellent discussions on this sort of thing and though quite long is very interesting and insightful. It's interesting to note how many of their suggestions about improving software design seem to used in google docs...
One other thing, keep your user interface as simple and clean as possible.
Here is a great DotNetRocks podcast episode where Mark Miller talks about how to create Good UI; Even though the show title is .NET rocks, this episode talks about a general rule of thumbs on how to create a UI to increase program user's productivity.
Here is an episode exerpt
Good user interface design can be done by sticking to some good rules and avoiding common mistakes. You don't need to be a latte-sippin tattoo-wearin macbook-carrying designer to create user interfaces that work.
I like to follow these 3 guidelines:
Standard - follow known standards/patterns, reuse ideas from all products you respect
Simple - keep your solutions simple and easy to change (if needed)
Elegant - use less to accomplish more
The best technique I found is to put your self in the users shoes. What would you like to see from the GUI and put that in front. This also gives you the ability to prioritize as those things should be done first then work from there.
To do this I try to find "layers of usefulness" and add / subtract from the layers until it seems clean. Basically to find the layers I make a list of all the functions the GUI needs to have, all the functions it should have, and all the functions it would be neat to have. Then I group those so that every thing has logical ordering and the groupings become the "layers". From the layers I then add the most important functionality (or what would be used for Day to Day operation) and that becomes the most prominent part, and I work things into the feature around those items.
One of the toughest things is navigation as you have so much to give the use how do you make it helpful and this is where the layers really help. It makes it easy to see how to layout menus, how other pieces interact, what pieces can be hidden, etc.
I have found the easiest way to do this is to start by see what and how your users function on a day to day basis this which will make it easier to get in their shoes (even better is to do their job for a few days). Then make some demonstrations and put them in front of users even if they are Paper Prototypes (there is a book on this process called Paper Prototyping by Carolyn Snyder). Then begin building it and put it in front of users as it is built often.
I will also recommended the book Designing Interfaces by Jenifer Tidwell published by O'Reilly
The items in the list you presented are really situation dependent - they will vary from application to application. Some applications will need a save button, some won't. Some conditions will warrant a modal dialog box, some won't.
My top rule for designing a usable interface: Follow existing UI conventions. Nothing confuses a user more than a UI that doesn't work like anything they've ever used. Lotus Notes has one of the worst user interfaces ever created, and it is almost entirely because they went against common UI conventions with just about everything that they did.
If you're questioning how you should design a certain piece of your UI, think of a few standard/well-known applications that provide similar functionality and see how they do it.
If your UI involves data entry or manipulation (typical of business apps) then I recommend affording your users the ability to act on sets of data items as much as possible. Also try to design in such a way that experienced users can interact with the UI in a very random, as opposed to sequential way (accelerator keys, hyperlinks, etc).
Sung Meister mentioned Mark Miller. You can find some of his blog posts regarding great UI on the Developer express blog. Here's a screencast of his Science of great UI presentation: part1 and part2. (both require Veoh player).
You can also find him on dnrTV: Science of great user experience: part1 and part2.
Here's a google techtalks about user experience by Jen Fitzpatrick.
Cheers
When using a dropdown, the default dropdown height is usually too low (default is 8 items for winforms, for example).
Increasing it will either save the user a click if the number of items is low or make it easier to search the dropdown if there are a lot of items.
In fact, I see little point in not using all the available space !
This is so obvious to me now, but for example, it seems even VisualStudio designers haven't figured it out (btw, if you manually increase Intellisense's height, it will stay this way, but that's offtopic:))
I'll give one of my personal favorites: avoid dialog boxes at all costs. A truly good U I should almost never need to pop up a dialog box. Add them to your program only as a truly last resort.
For more, you might want to check out easily digestible ui tips for developers.
The Coding Horror Blog regularly gives great ideas. Just some examples:
Exploratory and incremental learning
Self-documenting user interface
Incremental search of features/Smart keyboard access
Task-oriented design (ribbon instead of menus and toolbars)
Providing undo instead of constant confirmation
Another aspect: use scalable icons to solve the problem of multiple user screen resolutions without maintaining different resolution bitmaps.