I have an application that displays a dialog when the user needs to enter information. The reason for this, is to keep the main form readonly, and only when you need to add/edit data will a dialog appear.
The problem I'm wrestling with is what to display for the label names in the dialog. The application is a WPF desktop app and traditionally desktop apps are very short on label names (usually one or two words). I want to make the dialog user friendly and be more descriptive about the information that is required. Web developers seem to be catching on to this and are much more descriptive with their label names, but most of the forms I've looked at are forms that are only filled in once, whereas I will have data that can be edited.
An example: If I had a label that asked a user if an employee smoked, in most a destop apps the label would normally be something like 'Smokes?' with a checkbox, whereas I want something like 'Does the employee smoke?'. My issue with this is, that the first time you come across this dialog and enter the data, then it seems OK, but what about when you are editing data that is already there. Does this label now make any sense. Past tense and present tense seem to be getting in my way and I was interested in what people think or ways they have approached this. The application I'm writing is a WPF app and I feel that traditional label names are a bit old in the tooth now.
Another example would be entering contact details for a person. Do I just have labels that say Phone, Fax, Email or something more descriptive. i.e. a label that appears before the textboxes stating 'Enter the contact details below' and then the single word labels?
Maybe I'm just being pedantic about all this, but I would like to take a step forward so that my application contains more than single word labels that are sometimes unclear to the user about what is required.
Why not make use of the concise labels and use Tool tips for a longer explanation.
The longer explanation is only required when a user is unfamiliar with the application anyway.
Also, you could re-word a label to make it sound more like a question such as "Is a Smoker?"
Since you are using Stack Overflow, take note of their use of tooltips, I think Jeff Attwood has a blog post or comments in a podcast about the use of tooltips in SO. I can't remember where I heard / read it.
Have you thought about creating a "quickstart" flow or wizard for entering data for the first time? This would give you the opportunity to guide the user through the process, using labels with descriptions, so that they learn to associate the description with the label you've chosen (hopefully something succinct but intuitive). Then when they need to edit data, they have learned the application taxonomy.
If you are running into issues with tenses, steer clear of using verbs or only use the present tense. I would try using nouns - "smoker?" instead of "smokes?"
When you're asking for common data like phone numbers, email addresses, you can probably assume that the user will understand what you mean. Just be clear as to whose contact information you are asking for - using a title for the field set that is explicit is a good idea ("Employee Contact Details"), adding a short description above the field set will help too.
Of course, you should always do some level of usability testing on your application before you launch it to uncover any issues with the interface.
In a project I'm working on, we have a nav menu where items are colored when the relevant section has information beneath it, or faded when there's nothing available to the user. In the case of an admin, these items may have no useful information but may still be clickable (since things like "Add news item" or "Add file" are implemented as sub-menus).
The call from On High has come down to make these admin items stand apart somehow. Since we're already using the faded text for unclickable items, I was wondering if there's an established UI convention for denoting that an item is clickable, yet contains no information.
And yes, I've already asked why we're bothering to show items that aren't available to the user. The short of it: because On High wants to.
Short answer, no I don't think there's a convention for this. Lots of people would say if its not applicable, don't show it. However, there's some debate on this. One of the reasons Microsoft started using The Ribbon in MS Office is because they wanted to get away from dynamic menus where options hid and showed 'intelligently'. Users couldn't figure out the rules for what appered where, and when.
Maybe separate the concerns here: 1) how to indicate the item is clickable, and then 2) how to indicate the item contains no information.
The first one is relatively well established -- blue underlined text. You can also make it look like a button Of course, if you've got a site-specific look for your hyperlinks, use that. Basically don't break the users' expectiations of what things are clickable.
Second, how to show there's nothing there worth clicking on. I think what you want is some visual indication of the priority/utility of these admin links relatively to others. Some options:
Can you move the admin links to the bottom of a list?
Add a number indication how many things are on the other side of the link?
Strikethrough on the text?
Since there are no hard-and-fast conventions on this sort of thing, just remember that anything you do which is consistent will work. Some things will just work better than others.
No matter what you choose, the user will learn after a few tries what the new method of empty indication is.
If it is well thought out and consistent, they will probably get it after a couple of clicks.
Also, remember that too many highlights, colors, fades, and underlines will wash out any amount of effectiveness at visually organizing your menu so it is easy to use. At some point it can actually get harder to use by over-organizing things.
Think about it this way: There are two boxes sitting on a virtual shelf. One is red and the other is blue. The selected box is identified by a differing color than the other box... Now, which is the selected box?
I'm currently working on a program that has many of those "the user SHOULD read it but he'll click OK like a stupid monkey" dialogs... So I was thinking of adding something like a captcha in order to avoid click-without thinking...
My ideas were:
Randomly change buttons
Randomly position buttons somewhere on the form
The user must click on a randomly colored word within the text he should read
add captcha
add captcha that includes the message for the user
Has anybody made any experience with such a situation. What would you suggest to do?
Well, you asked for opinions and here goes mine, but I don't think this is what you would like to hear...
Users like programs that they can depend on. They don't like when things change and they don't like to do extra work.
Randomly change buttons and Randomly position buttons somewhere on the form will only make them either press the wrong button or become annoyed with your application, because as you say, they don't read the text, and if you think about it, neither do we. As an example think of an Ok/Cancel dialog, you allways expect the ok button to be on the left, and most times i press it without reading it. It Will happen exactly the same with your users.
The user must click on a randomly colored word within the text he should read
add captcha
add captcha that includes the message for the user
With these 3 option you will add extra work to your application, your users will curse you for that. Just think of something that you would have to do 10x per day, let's say check in your code to source safe. How would you feel if your boss told you that from now on you will have to fill a captcha for each file you try to check in?
I think it's our jobs to make the lives of the people that use our software easier. If they must read some kind of text and they don't want to, there is absolutely no way you can make them do it.
You can´t make people work right, all you can do is provide them with the best possible tools and hope that they are professional enough to do their jobs.
So basically all i'm saying is, do your best to ease their work. If this is really important than you(or whoever is in charge) should talk to them and EXPLAIN WHY this is important.
You would be surprised on how people commit to things they understand.
I suggest that you don't; and that, unless you know better, you emulate respectable well-known, well-tested UIs like <big online retailer's> or <online banking site>.
Playing games with the user in order to get them to read messages is doomed. Users will focus mental resources on completing your game, rather than understanding the message. Your users may be less likely to actually understand the important part of the message if you have things like moved buttons, relabeling, scavenger hunts, captchas, or delays. They’ll focus on the instructions for the game, not on the real issue. Errors are likely to increase.
Users’ refusal to read message boxes is due to users wanting to get things done quickly rather than take the time to read stuff, and it is also due to message boxes being overused and misused so badly in so many apps. Including silly games in message boxes will just make users resent them all the more, compounding the problem.
Here’s what you can do:
Rule 1. Don’t use messages boxes. They should only appear for exceptional circumstances. An app should not have “many” message boxes. It should not be necessary to read a whole lot of documentation each time the user uses an app. If normal use of your app results in a message box, then your UI is wrong. Find another way.
Instead of verification messages, show clearly in the main window what has happened and provide a clear way to Undo it.
Use auto-correction, pictured/masked fields, and disabling rather than error messages.
Use good defaults and automation to avoid messages. For example, rather than showing an error message saying the user can’t upload because they’re not connected to the server, simply reconnect automatically.
Break commands along options. Rather that a message box to ask if the user wants paste with or without format, provide two different commands in the menu.
Don’t have information messages spontaneously popping up telling the user everything worked fine (e.g., “Preferences Saved!”)
Don’t have pop-ups providing helpful hints or documentation. Provide a tutorial or balloon help if you can’t make your UI self-documenting.
Don’t have nagging “upgrade me” messages.
Consider providing message text in the main window rather than in a separate message box (e.g., “Page may not look or act right because ActiveX is off for security.”). Pop-ups from web surfing have conditioned users to automatically dismiss anything that pops up as irrelevant.
Rule 2. If you have to use a message:
Make the text as brief as possible to get the key information across. More text is not equivalent to more helpful. Use “No match to [filemask] in [path].” Don’t use “Nonfatal Error 307: Search action aborted. [Appname] is unable to complete your string search for the regular expression you provided because the file mask you gave, namely [filemask], does not result in any matching files in the directory that you specified (which was [path]). Please check your filemask or path selection and again re-enter it or them in the Files to Search dialog box. Click the OK button below on this message box to return to the Files to Search dialog box. Click the Cancel Button on the Files to Search dialog when you get there to cancel your search for strings.” If there are some users who will need more explanation than can be achieved in a brief message, provide a Help button or a “How do I…” link in the message box.
Use plain language and no jargon in the message. That includes “innocent” words like “dialog,” “database,” and “toner.” Do not take raw exception text and throw it in a error message. Do not include any error numbers or dumps; log these instead. Purge your app of any debugging message boxes left by developers. Better to simply let the app disappear on a fatal error than to put up a message full of jargon and then the app disappears.
Label the buttons of a message box with what the action does, not “OK.” At the very least, the users have to focus on the activating button to dismiss a message box. If that button is labeled something like “Delete” or “Install,” it should give them pause. You should never have to explain in your message text what each button does. BTW, such labeling is a GUI standard on most platforms.
Redesign your application so that it does not use message boxes.
My suggestion, live with it or redesign your dialogs/interface. Do not add randomness to dialogs or otherwise treat the user like an idiot, even though you may think most are :-).
I just recently read a Joel on Software article, Designing for People Who Have Better Things To Do With Their Lives. It makes the point that most people won't read anything and discusses ways to work around that or at least not make it worse.
You could try with a timer which waits for the "supposed reading time" before enabling the submit button. You can even calculate the supposed reading time from the number of words.
I think that subtle ways to force the user to read your text (like moving around buttons or asking them to read a captcha) can make them feel like stupid monkeys.
You could use a choice question based on what the user should read.
The user of an application wants to
assign a task to a programmer.
The "Edit Task" form is presented to the User.
A popup (actually an absolutely
positioned div) window comes up with
all the programmers to choose from.
The programmer is not there so the
user asks for a "new programmer"
screen. The popup is replaced with a
"New programmer" form.
The user fill the data, and comes to
"Works at" field.
A (2nd or 3d) popup comes to the
stack with all the "Places" to
choose from.
This can go ad infinitum.
How do you design your applications, to avoid the infinite stack of lookup/Entry forms?
Alternatively to creating a (recursive) stack, you could make it a sequential queue of information that still needs to be entered (similar to a wizard). I.e. where you select the programmer, an item would say "(new - will ask for details later)". If it's going to be a wizard, it should have forth-and-back buttons everywhere.
If all the information is required, and none of it is in the system, I don't see how you can avoid having that many dialogs, really.
You can design the UI so it's not to intrusive, of course - try to make the transition between "pick a place" and "new place" as smooth and seamless as possible. In particular, I'd try to avoid it making the first dialog "go away" as such - perhaps just make it extend the existing one, collapsing the existing choices.
It sounds like you've got an appropriately logical division between "who" and "where" though, which I like - I hate entering completely disparate pieces of information on the same form, even if cuts down the total number of forms displayed.
Try not to lose the scope and the target of the screen. For example, in the "Programmer" screen, you need at least to add the basic details of the new programmer item. The user shouldn't add all the details. If the user wants to add more details, he should add it later from the related "Add Programmer" screen.
Check GMail when you create a new filter and you need to add a new label for example.
This is inspired by the question OK-Cancel or Cancel-OK?.
I remember reading somewhere about the concept of switching OK-Cancel/Cancel-OK in certain situations to prevent the user from clicking through information popups or dialog boxes without reading their content. As far as I remember, this also included moving the location of the OK button (horizontally, left to right) to prevent the user from just remembering where to click.
Does this really make sense? Is this a good way to force the user to "think/read first, then click"? Are there any other concepts applicable to this kind of situation?
I am particularly thinking of a safety-related application, where thoughtlessly pressing OK out of habit can result in a potentially dangerous situation whereas Cancel would lead to a safe state.
Please don't do this unless you are really, really, really sure it's absolutely required. This is a case of trying to fix carelessness and stupidity by technological means, and that sort of thing almost never works.
What you could do is use verbs or nouns instead of the typical Windows OK / Cancel button captions. That will give you an instant attention benefit without sacrificing predictability.
NOOOOOOOOOOOO!
In one of our products we have a user option to require Ctrl+Click for safety related commands.
But startling the user with buttons that swap place or move around is bad design in my book.
NO. If you make it harder for the user to click OK by mistake and force them to think, they will still only think harder about how to click OK -- they will not think about the actual thing they're trying to carry out. See usability expert Aza Raskin's article: Never use a warning when you mean Undo. Quote:
What about making the warning
impossible to ignore? If it’s
habituation on the human side that is
causing the problem, why not design
the interface such that we cannot form
a habit. That way we’ll always be
forced to stop and think before
answering the question, so we’ll
always choose the answer we mean.
That’ll solve the problem, right?
This type of thinking is not new: It’s
the
type-the-nth-word-of-this-sentence-to-continue approach. In the game Guild Wars, for
example, deleting a character requires
first clicking a “delete” button and
then typing the name of the character
as confirmation. Unfortunately, it
doesn’t always work. In particular:
It causes us to concentrate on the unhabitual-task at hand and not on
whether we want to be throwing away
our work. Thus, the
impossible-to-ignore warning is little
better than a normal warning: We end
up losing our work either way. This
(losing our work) is the worst
software sin possible.
It is remarkably annoying, and because it always requires our
attention, it necessarily distracts us
from our work (which is the second
worst software sin).
It is always slower and more work-intensive than a standard
warning. Thus, it commits the third
worst sin—requiring more work from us
than is necessary.
[If you want a Microsoftish one, this one by a .NET guy on MSDN says the same thing!]
If you must use a dialog, put descriptive captions on the buttons within the dialog.
For example, instead of OK and Cancel buttons, have them say "Send Invoice" and "Go Back", or whatever is appropriate in the context of your dialog.
That way, the text is right under their cursor and they have a good chance of understanding.
The Apple Human Interface Guideline site is a great reference, and very readable. This page on that site talks about Dialogs.
Here is an example image:
(source: apple.com)
No, it doesn't make sense. You're not going to "make" users read. If the decision is that crucial, then you're better off finding a way to mitigate the danger rather than handing a presumed-careless user a loaded gun.
Making the "safe" button default (triggered by enter/spacebar/etc.) is a good idea regardless, simply because if they surprise the user then a keystroke intended for the expected window won't accidentally trigger the unexpected action. But even in that scenario, you must be aware that by the time the user has realized what they've done, the choice is already gone (along with any explanatory text on the dialog). Again, you're better off finding another way to give them information.
What I've done in some instances was to compare the time of the message box being shown with the time of it being dismissed. If it was less than 'x' amount of seconds, it popped right back up. This forced them, in most cases, to actual read what was on the screen rather than just clicking through it blindly.
Fairly easy to do, as well....
Something like this:
Dim strStart As DateTime = Now
While Now < strStart.AddSeconds(5)
MessageBox.Show("Something just happened", "Pay Attention", MessageBoxButtons.OK)
If Now < strStart.AddSeconds(5) Then strStart = Now Else Exit While
End While
At the end of the day you can't force a user to do something they're unwilling to do... they will always find a way around it
Short cut keys to bypass the requirement to move the mouse to a moving button.
Scrolling down to the bottom of the EULA without reading it to enable to continue.
Starting the software and then going to get their cup of tea while waiting for the nag screen to enable the OK button.
The most reliable way I've seen this done is to give a multiple choice question based on what is written. If they don't get the answer correct, they can't continue... of course after a couple of times, they'll realise that they can just choose each of the answers in turn until the button enables and then click it. Once again meaning they don't read what was written.
You can only go so far before you have to put the responsibility on the user for their actions. Telling the user that their actions are logged will make them more careful - if they're being held accountable, they're more likely to do things right. Especially if there's a carefully crafted message that says something like:
This is being logged and you will be held accountable for any
repercussions of this decision. You have instructed me to delete
the table ALL_CORPORATE_DATA. Doing so will cause the entire company's
database to stop working, thus grinding the whole company to a halt.
You must select the checkbox to state that you accept this responsibility
before you can choose to continue...
And then a checkbox with "Yes, I accept the responsibility for my actions" and two buttons:
"YES, I WANT TO DELETE IT" this button should only be enabled if the checkbox is checked.
"OH CRAP, THAT'S NOT WHAT I MEANT AT ALL" this button can always be enabled.
If they delete the table and the company grids to a halt, they get fired. Then the backup is restored and everyone's happy as Larry [whoever Larry is] again.
Do NOT do it, please. This will have no positive effect: You are trying to AVOID people's clicking OK instead of Cancel, by making them potentially click Cancel instead of OK (okay, they may try again). But! you might as well achieve people's clicking OK when they really want to cancel and that could be a real disaster. It's just no good.
Why not reformulate the UI to make the OK the "safe choice"?
The problem is better solved with a combination of good feedback, communication of a system model and built-in tolerance.
In favor of the confirmation mechanism speaks the simplicity of implementation. From programmer's point of view it's the easiest way of shifting responsibility onto user: "Hey, I've asked you if you really want to shoot yourself into the foot, haven't I? Now there is no one to blame but yourself..."
From user point of view:
There is a productivity penalty of having to confirm operation twice every time even though actual mistakes take up just a fraction of total number of actions, any switching of buttons, breaking the habitual workflow or inserting a pause into confirmation just increases the penalty.
The mechanism doesn't really provide much safety net for frequent users whose reflexes work ahead of the concious mind. Personally I have many times done a complex sequence of actions only to realise a moment later when observing the consequences that my brain somehow took the wrong route!
A better for the user, but more complex (from software development point of view) solution would be:
Where possible communicate in advance what exact affect the action is going to make on the system (for instance Stack Overflow shows message preview above Post Your Answer button).
Give an immediate feedback to confirm once the action took place (SO highlights the freshly submitted answer, gmail displayes a confirmation when a message is sent etc).
Allow to undo or correct possible mistake (i.e. in SO case delete or edit the answer, Windows lets restore a file from recycle bin etc). For certain non-reversible actions it's still possible to give an undo capability but for a limited timeframe only (i.e. letting to cancel or change an online order during the first 10 minutes after its submission, or letting to recall an e-mail during the first 60 seconds after its been "sent", but actually queued in the outbox etc).
Sure, this is much more initial work than inserting a confimation message box, but instead of shifting the responsibility it attempts to solve the problem.
But if the OK/Cancels are not consistent, that might throw off or upset the user.
And don't do like some EULAs where a user is forced to scroll a panel to the bottom before the Agree button becomes clickable. Sometimes you just won't be able to get a user to read everything carefully.
If they really need to read it, maybe a short delay should happen before the buttons appear? This could also potentially be annoying to the user, but if it is a very critical question, it'd be worth it.
Edit: Or require some sort of additional mechanism than just clicking to "accept" the very important decision. A check box, key press, password, etc.
I recommend informing the user that this is a critical operation by using red text and explaining why is this an unsafe operation.
Also, rather than two buttons, have two radio buttons and one "Ok" button, with the "don't continue" radio button selected as default.
This will present the user with an uncommon interface, increasing cognitive load and slowing him down. Which is what you want here.
As always with anything with user interaction, you have a small space between helping the user and being annoying. I don't know you exact requirements but your idea seems OK(pun intended) to me.
It sounds like your user is going through a type of input wizard in the safety app.
Some ideas as alternatives to moving buttons.
Have a final screen to review all input before pressing the final ok.
Have a confirmation box after they hit ok explaining what the result of this action will be.
A disclaimer that require you to agree to it by checking a box before the user could continue.
Don't switch it around - you'll only confuse more than you'll help.
Instead, do like FireFox and not activate the control for 5 sec. - just make sure you include a timer or some sort of indicator that you're giving them a chance to read it over. If they click on it, it cuts off the timer, but requires they click one more time.
Don't know how much better it will be, but it could help.
Just remember, as the man said: You can't fix stupid.
This will give me headache. Especially when I accidentally close the application and forget to save my file :(
I see another good example of forcing user to "read" before click: Firefox always grayed out the button (a.k.a disable) the "OK" button. Therefore the user have to wait around 5 seconds before he can proceed to do anything. I think this is the best effort I have seen in forcing user to read (and think)
Another example I have seen is in "License and Agreements" page of the installer. Some of them required the user to scroll down to the end of the page before he/she can proceed to next step.
Keyboard shortcuts would still behave as before (and you'd be surprised how few people actually use mice (especially in LOB applications).
Vista (and OSX IIRC) have moved towards the idea of using specific verbs for each question (like the "Send"/"Don't send" when an app wants to crash and wants to submit a crashdump to MS)
In my opinion, I like the approach used by Outlook when an app tries to send an email via COM, with a timer before the buttons are allowed to be used (also affects keyboard shortcuts)
If you use Ok and Cancel as your interface you will always be allow the user to just skip your message or screen. If you then rearrange the Ok and Cancel you will just annoy your user.
A solution to this, if your goal is to insure the users understanding, is:
Question the user about the content. If you click Ok you are agreeing to Option 1, or if you click Ok you are agreeing to option 2. If they choose the correct answer, allow the action.
This will annoy the user, so if you can keep track of users, only do it to them once per message.
This is what I responded to Submit/Reset button order question and I think the same principle can be used here. The order does not really matter as far as you make sure the user can distinguish the two buttons. In the past what I have done is used a button for (submit/OK) button and used a link for (reset/cancel) button. The users can instantly tell that these two items are functionally different and hence treat them that way.
I am not really for OK/Cancel. It's overused and requires you to read the babbling in order to say what you are OKing or Canceling. Follow the idea of MacOSX UI: the button contains a simple, easy phrase that is meaningful by itself. Exampleç you change a file extension and a dialog pops up saying:
"Are you sure you want to change the extension from .py to .ps?"
If you perform the change, the document could be opened by a different application.
(Use .ps) (Keep .py)
It is way more communicative than OK/Cancel, and your question becomes almost superfluous, that is, you just need to keep active the rightmost button, which seems to be the standard.
As it concerns the raw question you posed. Never do it. Ever. Not even at gunpoint. Consistency is an important requisite for GUIs. If you are not consistent you will ruin the user experience, and your users will most likely to see this as a bug than a feature (indeed it would be a BUG). Consistency is very important. To break it, you must have very good reason, and there must not be another different, standard way to achieve the same effect.
I wonder if you're thinking about the option that exists in Visual Basic where you can set various prompts and response options; and one option is to allow you to switch Cancel and OK based on which should be the default; so the user could just hit enter and most of the time get the proper action.
If you really want to head in this direction (which I think is a bad idea, and I'm sure you will too after little reflection and reading all the oher posts) it would work even better to include a capcha display for OK.