Related
At this point, everyone knows that there's a limit to the number of ShellIconOverlayIdentifiers (from MSDN):
The number of different icon overlay handlers that the system can support is limited by the amount of space available for icon overlays in the system image list. There are currently fifteen slots allotted for icon overlays, some of which are reserved by the system. For this reason, icon overlay handlers should be implemented only if there are no satisfactory alternatives
I can understand the 15 overlay limt in Windows 95. But in an environment where there's Gigs of RAM, numerous Cores, and GPUs, is there some technical reason for such a low number in a modern operating system?
And why isn't this value configurable?
Before giving the 'performance' answer, consider:
Windows allows for configuration such that you can kill performance... why pick on this issue specifically?
Unless someone here happens to work on the Windows Shell team, I doubt that you're going to get an answer that really addresses the technical limitations and how they affect the design choice. But I'll try...
My guess is that there isn't any technical limitation, or at least there isn't one now. The real reason is presumably that no one has ever taken the time to sit down and update the code, the design, and the spec to lift this limitation. Features aren't implemented by default, and just because the computing environment has changed in the last few years doesn't mean that someone sat down and rewrote Windows to take full advantage of all those changes.
You should also consider that is more than likely a conscious design choice, rather than an imposed limitation. Raymond Chen (who actually does work on the shell team) published a blog entry responding to the uproar about Windows 7 removing the "sharing hand" overlay. He makes a compelling argument that the icon overlay is really not a desirable way of showing information (above and beyond the fact that the system is limited to 15) [emphasis added]:
Generally speaking, overlays are not a
good way of presenting information
because there can be only one overlay
per icon, and there is a limit of 15
overlays per ImageList. If there are
two or more overlays which apply to an
item, then one will win and the others
will lose, at which point the value of
the overlay as a way of determining
what properties apply to an item
diminishes since the only way to be
sure that a property is missing is
when you see no overlay at all. (If
you see some other overlay, you can't
tell whether it's because your
property is missing or because that
other overlay is showing instead of
yours.)
It seems reasonable to me that the extra clutter added to the shell is simply not worth it in the majority of real-world cases. The Windows Shell team obviously reached the same conclusion and cut the "sharing hand" overlay. Raymond's direct explanation:
Given the changes in how people use
computers, sharing information is
becoming more and more of the default
state. When you set up a HomeGroup,
pretty much everything is going to be
shared. To remove the visual clutter,
the information was moved to the
Details pane.
And, I know you specifically asked not to mention performance, but Windows really does try to keep you from shooting yourself in the foot. Users demand responsiveness in the shell, and overlay icons can interfere with this. As further evidence that they are not the priority, another blog post by the same Raymond Chen chastises:
Another example of applications having
a selfish view of performance came
from a company developing an icon
overlay handler. The shell treats
overlay computation as a low-priority
item, since it is more important to
get icons on the screen so the user
can start doing whatever it is they
wanted to be doing. The decorations
can come later. This company wanted to
know if there was a way they could
improve their performance and get
their overlay onto the screen even
before the icon shows up,
demonstrating a phenomenally selfish
interpretation of "performance".
Excellent response on the practical issues by Cody. As to why 15 and not some other number, the limit is baked into the ImageList control itself.
This is all very well and good, as explained by Cody Gray, but frankly it is pretty unimaginative, and as reported behind the scenes, sounding a bit frustrated.
In 2015 and with Windows 10, surely there can and needs to be a better ability, as I noted about thirty overlays present and had to prioritize ones I wanted most to see, which is not what you want most people to worry about at all. Also I see aggressive vendors like Box over-competing to try to prioritize themselves, and that will never go any place good.
Here's a possibility: What if multiply overlaid icons had a generic overlay indicator; a small rectangle matrix of multiple colors like the Google Chrome Apps button? Singly overlaid would just show the overlay out of a long list.
Then when the mouse pointer meets the icon, a small flyout window collects all the icon variations to view (at small icon size or a little larger). Each overlaid icon in turn announces by tooltip what it is, when you mouse over.
Now you can have all the icon overlays you need, for state in various clouds, for repository indications as for Tortoise tools, and so forth.
I quote an extract of the definitive answer here from Why is there a limit of 15 shell icon overlays? Raymond Chen 2019 post
The value 15 came from the corresponding limit for image lists. The
ImageList_SetOverlayImage function supports up to 15 image list
overlays per image list. (Hey, it used to be worse. The limit used to
be only 3!)
Okay, but why only 15? Why not more?
The overlay image is one of the pieces of information used when
drawing an image from an image list. The options are encoded in the
fStyle parameter, and when the bits were divided up for various
purposes, four bits were available to be used to specify the overlay
image. (You get 15 overlay images instead of 16 because you lose one
of the values in order to specify “no overlay.”)
Okay, but the values in the fStyle parameter use only the bottom 16
bits. What about the upper 16 bits? There’s plenty of room there.
The 16-bit limit was carried over from the 16-bit version of the
common controls (which still needed to be supported in Windows 95). Of
course, nowadays, nobody cares about the 16-bit version of the common
controls, so why not start using the upper bits?
There’s an unsatisfying explanation: The code internally that manages
the fStyle still uses a WORD in some places, so all the code that
manages the fStyle would have to be revised. This occurs in multiple
modules across Windows, so a synchronized change would have to be made
across multiple components. This is a breaking change at the binary
level because the interfaces are no longer compatible. Breaking
changes are procedurally difficult to coordinate: The affected code
may not be visible to the shell team because they are sitting in a
far-away leaf branch that has not yet RI’d to the trunk. It might be
that expanding fStyle from a WORD to a DWORD has far-reaching
consequences for some component.
Like I said, this is unsatisfying. Basically it boils down to “It
would be a lot of work and we are lazy.”
What operating system and UI toolkit is this? It's not some fake Hollywood user interface. It's from Bloomberg.
Don't listen to John. The Bloomberg terminal is the unquestionable standard for trading desks and the UI works. From wikipedia
The Graphical User Interface (GUI) code is also proprietary, though some of it is based on GTK+
The Bloomber GUI carries a vast amount of information in a very compact format:-
Fixed cell monspaced characters are used so that data falls naturally into rows and columns, experienced users can locate the figure they are looking for instantly.
Fonts are used to indicate (I think!) age and importance
Colours generally indicate the direction of the change (blue = increase) (red = decrease)
Traders stare at these screens obsessively, either waiting for some trigger price or trading volume on an individual stock, or, trying to divine an overall trading pattern in a market segement which they can take advantage of.
Most of these conventions stem from when a Bloomberg terminal was just a "dumb" teletype with colours. But they work, they are fast and efficient and traders have years of familiarity with the conventions.
This is similar to the user interface used by travel agents to book flights. Its essentially the same interface that was used in dumb terminals from the 80s.
There is a "modern" GUI interface available but experienced agents just hate it and continue
what is effectively an emulation of a dumb terminal.
I'm making a timeline with relatively small bars representing events over time. Right now they are roughly 8px by 200px (the length is variable, but all are 8px high).
Is there a standard reference for what size is standard or minimum for what types of interaction? For example I just want a mouse-over on these bars to highlight them and provide a tooltip, where I imagine if I expected a user to click on these bars, a bit bigger might be more realistic.
Anyone have any insights on this?
It'd probably be pretty hard to find guidelines specific to what you want to do.
There are several things you could do. Wikipedia has a nice article on usability
My main advice would be to think about what your users need, and what they are capable of using/learning. What you could do is make a few different versions where you change a parameter (such as the height of the bars) and get different people to test each one.
Personally, I would be happy to use bars that were 8px high. I would not be so happy to do this if I was using a touch screen.
You should think though, is it really necessary to fit that much information on one screen? How many bars do you think would be appropriate on average to be able to fit in the vertical space of the screen? Perhaps you could have two modes - large and small, where large fits 30 rows, and small can fit many more.
But it's not really something you should be too concerned about at this stage. Just make sure that it is easy to change it later on, and you won't have to worry about it now. User testing should sort out the problems - as long as you listen to there needs (or watch them, see the mistakes they make, and try to fix the most common ones).
One thing to remember, is the "rule of 7", which basically means people are more comfortable looking at less information, as too much information can overload the brain (but it really depends on the target audience, for instance, an historian may rather see as many concurrent events at once).
Say for instance I'm going to do some seat of my pants coding adding a feature to an enterprise app. What are some good examples/tenants/cardinal rules a person can follow for making a fairly complex setup/config screen not look like feet.
What I'm looking for is along the lines of "Don't put one thing in a group box". But I'd also like some help with symmetry if anyone knows what layouts are most likely to achieve a relative amount of good looks that would be helpful.
Here's a cardinal rule you asked for: line up the controls vertically /horizontally and equally space the various related elements. And use correct spelling on your labels!
We've all come across screens where there are misaligned controls (even a couple pixels is noticeable) or misspelling on labels. When this happens to me I can't help but subconsciously look for other mistakes, plus it decreases my confidence in the application I'm using!
This is actually a huge topic. I frequently go to the Microsoft UX Guide for reminders on how to do this.
Some basics:
Make your app read like a book: left
to right, top to bottom
Use goal-oriented language instead of
technology oriented language
Not a cardinal rule but a great resource:
Apple UI Guidelines (good info for any OS)
EDIT: Re: achieving symmetry - things don't have to be perfectly symmetrical, but you want a feel of balance. Take a step back and get a sense of whether the page or form feels like it's leaning/falling to the left or right.
E.g., with stackoverflow, the main content is to the left, but it's nicely balanced by the extra stuff on the right.
I find that paper is my friend. I like to write out a list of objectives the form has to accomplish, and then sketch the form by hand, labeling the parts. Drawing it out lets me get away from making sure it looks perfect and that everything is aligned just right, and lets me focus on making sure that all the components I need are placed, hopefully somewhere logically. It also forces me to lay out the UI twice, so by the time I open my UI designer, I've already designed the form once and you hopefully know what I am doing
Some basic rules for you.
Try to make effective use of whitespace. Don't cram everything together in an effort to get as much stuff on screen as possible. This will make grouped controls more clear and text more legible.
Basic typography. Limit your use of fonts to 1 or 2. Don't use bold too much or it loses its emphasis.
The same goes for colours. Don't use too many, the fewer the better most of the time.
Don't just use icons to save space. Tiny icons with no explanation are useless.
Copy. Not wholesale of course, but if you are not well-versed in UI design yourself, it makes sense to take elements of interfaces you know work and apply them in your own designs.
Be clear about the purpose of the interface. How does it fit within the broader application for example? And what are the specific objectives you are trying to satisfy with it?
Get people to test it for you, early and often. I don't know what setup you are working with, or what kind of organisation you are in, but getting some kind of human feedback on your work will always be helpful, even if you lack the time and expertise to conduct proper usability evaluations.
Since you use the term, "seat of your pants," I'm assuming that you don't want to spend too much time on the UI. If you are willing to devote some time to the UI, you may want to look into custom control or UI development that will suit your situation. Like Firefox's Options UI or the .NET project properties in Visual Studio 2008.
If you are looking for something using standard controls, it is probably best to separate out different sections of related items into tabs or some other type of stacking control (i.e. Ribbon control). A good example of the tabbed version would be the Notepad++ Preferences UI. Many other programs use a similar scheme.
The best way to get a UI that makes sense is to follow Joel's advice:
Eat your own dog food.
Do it a few times to your own UI, and you'll notice some things you didnt think of intially.
I've found that a really good test is getting someone non-technical to use your GUI. Watching someone use it for 5-10mins normally gives me a very good idea about what is/isn't easier to understand.
This series by Joel Spolsky is a pretty good read and Jakob Nielsen's stuff Usability and Web Design is pretty useful.
Specific rules I try and use are:
Put items in logical groups
Line everything up
Use sensible images/icons
Spend 5-10 mins thinking through why things are the way there are
Only use words that make sense to the user not to you!
Start from the setup/config UI of an existing application that you feel is both simple and usable.
Most tenants/cardinal rules apply to UI in general and fill hundreds and hundreds of pages in UI design and HCI books, so you probably want to just work your way by example for now, while trying to capitalize on existing user experience (habits), i.e. obeying the rule of "least surprise": e.g. if your application is a Windows application, use the Installation Wizard pattern, if it's an ncurses app for a particular flavor of *nix follow the style of that particular OS's actual installation UI, etc.
You might be interested in the book "Don't Make Me Think," (author's web site) or "About Face 3.0". Both come highly recommended for reading about how to design interfaces.
Speed and learnability do not directly fight each other, but it seems easy enough to design such a GUI that lacks either (or both) of them. GUI designers seem to prefer 'easy to learn' most of the time even when 'fast to apply' would be wiser.
There's only few UI concepts or programs that are weighted towards maximizing the peak efficiency of whatever you are doing with the program. Most of them haven't gotten common.
Normal people prefer gedit instead of vim. For normal people there are already good-enough GUIs because there was tons of research on them two decades ago.
I'd like to get some advices on doing UIs that do the tradeoffs from 'easy to learn' rather than from 'fast to apply'.
We have a product in our lineup that has won numerous awards based largely on its ability to provide more power with an easier interface than any of our competitors. I designed the interface a few years after holding a position in one of Bell Labs' human interface research groups so I had a pretty clear idea of what constituted "success" when I approached it. I have four pieces of design advice for creating easy but powerful interfaces.
First, select a metaphor that makes sense in their environment and do your best to stick to it. This doesn't have to be a physical metaphor although that can help if working with people who are not tech savvy. This was popular in the early days of Windows but its value remains. We used a "folder and page" metaphor that permitted us to organize a wide range of tasks while not crimping power users' style.
Second, offer a consistent layout relationship between data display and tasks. In our interface, each "page" displays a set of action buttons in the exact same position and, wherever possible, uses the same actual buttons. Thus, once one page is learned, the user has a head start on learning the rest. One of these buttons, always placed in a distinctive position, is a "Help" button...which brings me to point #3. The more general rule is: find ways of leveraging learning in one area to assist in learning others.
Third, offer context-sensitive help and make sure that it addresses the user's primary question (which is usually "what do I do now"?) How often have you seen technical help that simply shows you the Inheritance tree, constructor syntax and an alphabetical list of methods? That isn't help, it is abuse. We focused all of our help on walking people through sample tasks. In particularly tough areas, we also offered multimedia tutorials.
Fourth, offer users the ability to customize the interface. Our users often had no use for specific "pages" (analysis types) in their work. Thus, we made it very simple to turn them off so that the user would see an interface that was no more complicated than it had to be. Our app was usually installed by a power user and then used by multiple staff members so this was more of a win for us because we could usually count on the power user to understand what to shut off. However, I think it is good advice in general.
Good luck!
Autocad has a console mode. As you do things using the mouse and toolbars, the text-equivalent of those commands is written to the console. You can type commands directly in there. This provides a great way to learn the power-user names for commands (they are very short, like unix commands) which aids greatly the process of moving from beginner to productive power-user. Generally speaking, one primary focus has to be in minimising movement between the mouse and keyboard, so put lots of functionality into the mouse, or into the keyboard, because when you have to move your hands like that, there is a real delay in trying to find the right place to put them.
Beyond avoiding an angry fruit salad, just try to make it as intuitive as possible. Typically, programs with a very frustrating UI share one common problem, the developers didn't define a clear scope of what the program would actually do prior to marrying a UI design.
Its not so much a question of 'easy' , some people jump right into the UI and begin writing stuff to back the interface, rather than writing the core of a planned program and then planning an interface to use it.
This goes for web apps, desktop apps .. or even command line programs. A good design means writing the user interface after (and only after) you are sure that 'scope creep' is no longer a possibility.
Sure, you need some interface to test your program, but be prepared to trash it and do something better prior to releasing the program. Otherwise, there's a good chance that the UI is only going to make sense to you.
Rant (or, Stuff I think you should keep in mind):
Speed and learnability do directly fight each other. A menu item tells you what it does so that you don't have to remember. But it's much slower than a keyboard shortcut that you have to memorize to benefit from. The general technique for resolving this conflict seems to be allowing more than one way of doing things. While one way of doing something usually cannot be both fast and easy to learn, you can often provide two ways to accomplish the same task: one that's fast, and one that's obvious.
There are different kinds of people. The learning gap is a result of interest, motivation, intellectual capacity, etc. There is a class of person that will never bother to even learn which menu provides the action they want, and they'll scrub the menubar every time. There is also a (minority) class of person that thinks vim (or emacs) is the best thing since sliced bread. Most people probably fall somewhere in between these extremes.
My answer to the actual question:
I think you are asking how to strive for a fast UI. Your question wasn't particularly clear (to me).
First of all, be consistent. This helps both speed and learnability. Self consistency is the most important, but consistency with your environment may also be important.
For real speed, require as little attention and motion as possible. Keyboard shortcuts are fast because experienced users know where they are (they don't have to look), and their hands are already on the keyboard. Especially avoid forcing the user to change their position in front of the computer (e.g., moving one hand between the mouse and keyboard).
The keyboard is almost always faster than the mouse.
Customization (especially the ability to write custom scripts) will let power users make the interface work the way that is fastest for their specific habits.
Make it possible to get by without the most powerful features. All you need to know in order to survive in vim is "i, ESC, :wq, :q!". With that, you can use vi about the same way a lot of people use notepad. but once you start learning "h,j,k,l,w,b,e,d,c" (and so on) you get much more efficient. So there is a steep learning curve, but you can get by until you surmount it.
Keep in mind that if you focus on interface efficiency, you will probably limit your user base. Vim is popular among programmers, but lots of programmers use other tools, and it's virtually unknown among non-programmers. Most people want easy, not fast. Some want a balance. A very few just want fast.
I would like to point you towards Kathy Sierra's old blog for thoughts on 'easy to learn' and 'fast to apply' — I don't necessarily agree there needs to be a tradeoff between the two.
Three posts to get you started:
How much control should users have? This post ponders on whether 'fast to apply' is the ideal we should strive for.
The hi-res user experience talks about what you say about "normal people" vs. others. It's not so much that there are different kinds of people, but there are different levels of learning/expertise/involvement. Some are satisfied with less, some need more. How you get from less to more is arguably pretty much the same for everyone.
Finally, Featuritis vs. the Happy User Peak talks about the scope creep pointed out by #tinkertim.
Have you seen Gimp shortcuts?
Use nice visual controls and show keyboard shortcuts for them while hovering control - that will help to learn fast mode. If your software copy some behavior of other programs - copy shortcuts mapping from them (such as Copy/Paste/New Tab/Close Window/etc), but allow to dynamically re-map them as shown in Gimp. For reaped operations you could implement Action recoder. But it depends on type the software.
The main thing to be careful of is putting UI elements where they are most commonly located for other applications in that environment. For example, if you're going to make use of a menu system, people are accustomed to it being along top of the window by default for a desktop application. If you're in a web browser a menu system on a webpage seems out of place because it's not a consistent feature. If you're going to have an options/preferences configuration window, people are used to finding it under the Tools menu option, occasionally under the Edit menu. The main thing with keeping a UI "easy to learn" is that your UI elements shouldn't break the mold too much of how they're used in other applications.
If you haven't had the opportunity to see Mark Miller's presentation on The Science of Great User Experience, I'd recommend you watch the DNR TV episodes Part 1 and Part 2.
While I've been writing my own UI I've understood couple of things myself.
I imitated vim, but at the same time realized why it's so fast to use for text editing. It is because it acknowledges a thing: People prefer doing one thing at a time (inserting text, navigating around, selecting text), but they may switch the task often.
This means that you can pack different activities into different modes if you keep the mode switching schemes simple. It gives space for more commands. The user also gets better chances at learning the full interface because they are sensibly grouped already.
Vim is practically stuffed full of commands, every letter in the keyboard does something in vim, depending on the mode. Still I can remember most of them. And it's all because of modes.
I know bunch of projects that sneer at mode-dependent behavior. Main argument is the uncertainty of which mode you are in. In vim I'm never uncertain about the mode where I am in. Therefore I say the interface design is a failure if a trained user fails to recognize in which mode the interface is operating at the moment.