Easily digestible UI tips for developers [closed] - user-interface

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 10 years ago.
What are some key UI design tips that every developer should know?
While there are a number of UI resources for developers (for example, Joel Spolsky's User Interface Design for Programmers), I'm interested in more of a bullet list that can be communicated in 1 to 2 pages.
I'm interested in more tactical, day-to-day UI tips, as opposed to overarching UI design goals that would be covered in a UI design meeting (presumably attended by at least one person with a good UI sense). A collection of these tips might cover about 80% of the cases that an everyday programmer would come across.

use a standard menubar (amateur GUI designers seem to like to chart their own course here for some reason). Make sure the first items are File, Edit and View, and the last one is Help
don't worry about color themes or skins; stick to a standard look that is consistent with your platform
use the default system font
use menu accelerators that are consistent with your platform
stick to the tried and true layout with a menubar on top, a status bar on the bottom, and if required, a navigation pane on the left
never do a system-wide grab
If you have a choice, make all windows resizable.
use groups of radiobuttons for "choose exactly one". Always make sure one of them is selected by default. If you want the user to be able to not choose any, add another radiobutton for "no choice"
use groups of checkbuttons for "choose zero or more"
constrain input if necessary (ie: simply ignore non-digits in a numeric input field) rather than waiting for a user to enter data, submit, then throw up a dialog saying "hey, letters aren't allowed!". If they aren't allowed, don't accept them in the first place.
be liberal in what you accept as input. For goodness sake, don't throw a fit for a SSN field if they leave out the hyphens, or put then in when you don't want them. The computer is smart, let it figure out that xxxxxxxxx and xxx xx xxxx and xxx-xx-xxxx are all valid social security numbers.
always allow spaces in long fields such as serial numbers and whatnot. Data quality goes way up if a user is allowed to group numbers in sets of three or four. If your data model can't handle the spaces you can remove them before saving the data.
Avoid pop-up dialogs like the plague. Never display one unless you absolutely must. If you decide you must, stop and rethink your design before continuing. There are times when they are necessary, but those times are considerably less frequent than you might imagine.
pay attention to keyboard traversal. Most toolkits make an attempt to get it right, but always double-check. A use should be able to use the tab key to traverse the widgets in a logical manner.
All of these rules can, of course, be broken. But only break it if you are breaking it for a justifiable reason.
Remember, the software is there to aid the user, it should be doing what they want, rather than making them do what it wants.

When you are about to perform an action that will change or delete information, don't ask 'are you sure' - users will learn to click the button as part of the action. Try to allow for an 'Undo' in the system design.

Make the default choice the one most users would be happy with.

Always give your user a "way out" from wherever they are that does not require the use of the back button.
The best example:
If an error occurs, give them a link back to where they were (or at least to where they can start over).

Use tool tips as much as possible. It is amazing how these little guys can add a large amount of help to the end user and they are unobtrusive to the application itself.

When designing a UI make it as simple as possible, but no simpler.

ask the user, don't just make things up
simplify - remove a step, eliminate clicks, etc.
get familiar with the principles of usability

I think that this link would be a good starting point, from Microsoft's "Windows Vista User Experience Guidelines:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa511328.aspx
And this might be very close to the two page bullet point list you are looking for: "Top Violations":
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa511331.aspx
Very down to earth tips like: "Set a minimum window size if there is a size below which the content is no longer usable."

Correct tab-stops are a must.

Do not increase "discoverability" at the cost of basic clarity and usability.

Find the thing the user will do the most often, and then make that the easiest thing to do.
For example: I have a long running personal gripe with microwave design.
Many require you to set a clock you never use for anything prior to using the microwave, and it forgets everytime it loses power AND requires 10 key-presses on those hard-to-use button pads to do so.
A simple usability test would realize the most common cook time used on microwaves is the standard 'minute' and multiples thereof. An Ideal microwave should thus be able to cook an product for 1 minute on high power in 3 or less actions.
For times outside a minute, but within 5 minutes of the golden "1" minute, there should be slightly more steps, but not significantly so, and only significant numbers of actions required for cook times > 5 minutes. ( which are rather rare )
2 examples of great microwave design
1. 4 parts. Door, temperature dial, time dial, time-lighting sequence
Temperature dial is analogue and persists from previous setting, with a varying sliding range.
Time dial is digital, but simulated analogue, turning dial clockwise increases clock time( shown by a lighting sequence under the dial). Turning dial counter clockwise decreases clock time. Cooking decreases clock time.
Door being closed and time being on clock starts cooking. Door opening pauses cooking.
standard operation: open door, load, turn time dial, close door ( or optionally, close door first, and cooking starts as soon as >1s is on clock )
2. 6 Parts, Door, Dial, Power Button, Start Button, Clear Button, Digital Time Display
Start button with no time chosen starts cooking for 1 minute on high power.
Start button while cooking adds 1 minute to time.
Time dial persists between sessions. Turning dial causes the time stored on the dials position being copied to the digital timer.
Pressing "power" prior to starting cooking will
in the event the dial has not been turned, copy the current time stored on the dails position to the digital timer.
in the event the dial has been turned, decrements the choice of power level by 1, or if on lowest power level, return to highest.
Pressing power while cooking decrements the power level on the fly.
standard operation:
1 minute high = press start.
1 minute medium high = press start, press power.
2 minutes high = press start twice.
<anytime> on high = turn dial until happy, press start.
<anytime> on <anypower> turn dial until happy, press power until happy, press start.
<previously chosen time> on high = press power, press start
<previously chosen time + 1 minute> on high = press power, press start twice.
As you can see here, adding a small amount of extra buttons, can add a great degree of expressive and functional design.
Any design with a numeric keypad for time specification, tends to fail my criteria for good design.
Its noted that these designs may, for some people have a higher learning curve, but once learned, muscle memory makes it instinctive. As opposed to more ( obvious? ) but overly complicated designs which even a learned user will repeatedly have to spend tedious amounts of time performing tedious arbitrary operations, simply to attain common goals.

Do some hallway usability testing (in the same way you would do code reviews).
Even a really quick "Hey! try this" usability test (if you can call it that) with the guy next to you will make a big difference. The main thing is to have somebody other than yourself try the bit of UI you've just built.
It's amazing how many times other people get stuck using your new UI, and it only takes a couple of minutes (usually) to find the biggest problems.

If you do use a popup from an editor, make sure to return your insertion point or state to whatever it was before the popup. Too many programs just leave you "hanging" and having to find your way back.

Instead of the arbitrary "OK" and "Cancel" buttons, which, given context, can be ambiguous, and users blindly click one, the buttons should contain a brief description of what they do.
[Ok, Please Cancel my subscription ], [ Please do not cancel my subscription ]
is far better than
Cancel my subscription?
[ OK ] [ Cancel ]
( these sort of failures often surface on the dailywtf )

Minimize number of clicks
Uniform look(text size, buttons.. and other controls )
Minimize free edits... (ex: in an address entry... provide states in a dropdown...etc etc)
In a drop down for country list... list the residing country first...(how many of you frustrated with USA being listed at the bottom and you have to scroll down?)
General drop downs can be ordered as the users choice
No Spelling msitake ;) at all
Pay attention to labeling text: for email address (have the caption as email... believe me... i have seen it as e_mail address:)
Currency symbol for amounts. uniform digit display in amount.. ex:
$12.15 ==> $12.15
$10.9 ==> $10.90
9.Progress/Status bar
Buddy label to indicate the error field before the user clicks OK/Save button(ex: for an email address if there is no "#" there is no need to wait until user clicks OK then tell them invalid email Address)
Avoid repeated inputs... (ex: remember me option in login screen)
global application option to let the user continue from where left off in the previous instance)
when showing data on a grid... excel style filter options
default values for inputs.
Folks...feel free to flush down any of the point above with the valid reasons!!!

Grandmaw Testing.
This is my term for the conceptual question, "Can your grandma, who's never used a computer beyond email and checking www.cutecats.com, use it?(Assuming that she has the real-world knowledge to use that particular app)".
Everything common should be obvious; nothing should be black box magic with side effects. Uncommon things should be accessible in a common format that the user has used before.
Clear labeling, clear route to a help file, clear actions with clear effects.
If Grandma can't use your Paint program, you need to really think about your UI.

My basic rule of UI design is to have each "page" do one task and one task only. It keeps pages simple, which keeps design clean and makes the application more understandable.
This type of design is called Inductive User Interface. Here is a document that Microsoft put out in 2001 on the topic. The text may be a little dated, but the principles are generally pretty good. The only caveat is that there is a balance to be found in designing like this. If you oversimplify too much users will have to navigate all over the place to accomplish simple tasks, and the gains in understandability will be lost to underproductivity.

Some simple tips for daily user interface web design and application design:
Use simple static sketches to begin preliminary web app development plans.
-Dont allow users too many choices. instead, use cater design to send users down a path they'll benefit from.
-Define key user groups and the journeys they made
-Practice iterative design as a part of UI to ensure ROI

I like to follow these guidlines:
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

Related

Tuftian design for usernames display

I'm working on a website with a major social networking component.
I want the short username display (1 icon (maybe 2) + a styled username) to indicate:
presence (active, idle, away, offline) - font weight
avatar (autogen or uploaded) - 16x16px prefixed icon
explicit relationship to current user (followee, follower, mutual friend, FOAF, none) - hue?
implicit relationship to current user (scalar based on level of interaction) - saturation?
predicted match (multiscalar based on AI) - replaces avatar icon?
More info and details will be in a tooltip. This core part will be displayed all over the place (think e.g. the styling of usernames in StackOverflow comments, not in post signatures), and therefore needs to be compact and elegant. It doesn't need to show these data perfectly - that's what the tooltip is for - but it should give at least a subtle indication.
"Explicit relationship" means Facebook/Twitter-type "friending". This is more a permissions thing than a real "relationship" one per se.
One security feature it gives is to help prevent someone from trying to fool you with a username that looks similar to one of your friends' - you'll notice that they are implicitly colored as unrelated to you. Explicit status also affects what actions are available in the tooltip (e.g. you can't friend a friend, or poke a non-friend).
"Implicit relationship" means e.g. the difference between the 2 people you talk to all the time, the 10 you have regular contact with, the 50 you listed as your "friend" but never talk to, and the 50 you don't (yet) list as your "friend" but have talked to.
"Predicted liking" is the output of a very complex backend AI, à la OKCupid's "match score"; its purpose is to gently nudge you towards talking to people you'll probably like more. In the zero-knowledge-about-you case, it reduces to a Slashdot-style "objective" karma rating. I may also want to display some semi-categorical hints, like whether the AI thinks you'll find this person 'funny' vs 'interesting'.
How can I indicate indicate the things above in a maximally graceful way?
It might not be a good idea to show so many things at once in the small amount of space you will probably allocate to the display of the username. I think, at best you can show 3-4 things at once without confusing the user. More than that, and the user will be confused as to what is what. The task of remembering will defeat all usability aspects.
Another way to show all the stuff would be using a popup-like thing, but even that is not a good idea for the amount of information that you want to show :( I think you will probably be better off if you can simplify the problem so that you end up with fewer variables.

Why shouldn't I ask my users to enter times using military format

I have a form that asks users to enter a start and end time for an event. For many years, we have allowed them to enter the times by selecting the hour (1-12), minute (1-60), and AM/PM from three drop down boxes. This has worked fine without complaints from customers. However, today I was hit with a request to change the input to one text box for the user to enter time in military time (aka 0000 - 2359). In my gut I believe this is a bad idea but am having trouble coming up with any hard facts.
What are the best reasons I can give that this would be a bad idea?
If there is a better solution for entering time, what would it be?
Also, FYI the users filling out the form run the gamut from very little skill with computers to advanced users. They are in no way military related.
Update: All my users are local and no other forms (web or print) use military time as the standard.
Three dropdowns are a nightmare usability-wise. You can cut these down to two by eliminating AM/PM and moving to 24-hour format, but still: a dropdown with 60 items is overkill.
I'd much prefer to enter time "manually", provided that these input boxes will be intelligent enough (say, they should be able to convert 18 to 1800, 0 to 0000, allow : as a separator, etc.). Plus do not allow users to enter incorrect data in the first place.
To answer your question: I see no reason to disallow your users to do what they want. After all, they are users.
Well, from a user interface standpoint, this could be a mistake simply according to some of Jakob Nielsen's user interface heuristics:
"Match between system and real world." If your users are not used to entering dates in military time, asking them to do so for your app can be distracting at best, and frustrating at worst.
"Error prevention" You are not eliminating error-prone conditions, but possibly introducing them.
There is also the question of why this change is being made. Are customers complaining? Is data coming in incorrectly? As mentioned by others, are your users used to military time? Any interface change should happen for a reason, IMO, because you're going to change the user experience and there will be ramifications for that; it's just a matter of how large those ramifications will be. My assumption is that data entry errors are supposedly going to be avoided -- but are they? Asking a user to enter a time as "XX:XX" and parsing out the semicolon (or, as Aaron Digulla stated, ANY non-number characters) and then converting it as needed seems less likely to result in errors than asking a user to enter a time in a format they are not used to using daily.
My concern would be that a user wants to enter 3:30 PM, and, while not paying much attention, simply enters 330. This is now 3:30 AM, and the user will never know the difference, because the app takes the information and happily assumes that this is what is meant. However, allowing the user to enter the time in "XX:XX" format and having an "AM/PM" selection makes much more sense.
As far as hard facts, well, I don't have them either. But if your boss/client won't be swayed by Nielsen's heuristics, I'm not sure what can change their mind.
Oh my.
My advice is to quit and find a different project.
We did a scheduling app for a "military customer" - and even they could not agree on what constituted "military time". Half of them wanted something called "Zulu Time" - the other half wanted "GMT plus offset" - then some wanted local time in 24h format. Contrary to what our contract specified, a Colonel insisted we use "Zulu" - we made the change for political reasons (in violation of our contract) - and then HE missed showing up for a scheduled event, because he thought it was in local time. Then contract management came down on us like a ton of bricks.
(never mind that the published schedule also used an obsolete "offset" that was a cold-war holdover meant to "fool the Russians").
In that this is just me sharing a war-story. . .
The real answer is to Elicit Requirements from your customer. Get those requirements SPECIFICALLY written into your contract. Make sure that the stakeholder who is actually writing your check, agrees. Develop to that specification exactly. When someone complains tell them to pay for a contract mod. You'll probably be changing this back and forth among many different settings for the next 10 years. You'll have steady work, and you'll understand why military contracts frequently go way over budget and are never on schedule.
"They are in no way military related."
That's a good enough reason for me. It's an uncommon format that, while not exactly "user-hostile," is nonetheless not the way most of us are used to seeing dates, and requiring your users to do the conversion in their head will lead to arithmetic errors eventually.
That said, drop-down boxes aren't great either. Best to go with 2 input boxes and an AM/PM dropdown, in my opinion.
It may not be a bad idea. Imagine the case where users must enter that bit of information lots of times, for example because they are in call support. Or they may find the dropdown boxes not usable enough, even after having tried them. They may prefer that other format.
It is usually a good idea to talk to the stakeholder and ask him: "Why do you want it this way?" you can then contrast their ideas with yours, but if yours are only that you have the "gut" feeling that this is not right, guess who will win the argument. The gut feeling is not a valid business argument - especially when the business is not yours.
So in short, do what your customer wants - just make sure that they understand their options well, and point out to them any inconvenience that they may have foreseen - once you find one, that is.
Honnestly, I think using AM/PM format is a bad practice, but that may be because I'm used to the 24 hours scale.
One reason against is that if all your users are used to the 12H scale, then most of them might still enter 1:00 instead of 13:00 for 1:00. Since the PM is not here, it will result in mistakes.
However, one good reason to do the switch is simply because it's the international standard.
Depending of what you want to put the emphasis (speed or functionality) you can use a time picker that would rely on regional setting to diplay the time in the user format or use a clock-like control. If speed is important, you might prefer a simple mask-textbox.
Hmmm, describing the 24 hour clock as "military time" and then noting that the users are not military makes me a more than a little twitchy.
It will depend on your users but I think that it is more than reasonable to expect people in contemporary society to understand the 24 hour time format and to be able to enter times using that format (given that I would - possibly naively - expect that format to be in use for bus, train, plane and other timemtables almost universally for the simple reason that its unambiguous). Perhaps this is not true worldwide - but it is certainly true across Europe.
That said, changes need to be made for a reason - "if it ain't broke..." is a very sound maxim for a working site and whilst I wouldn't ever willingly use am/pm for time entry I don't have a problem with use of dropdowns for time entry - especially as one can type "into" them. In this case I think that going from drop downs to text boxes is most likely an opportunity to introduce errors (although again it rather depends on the users).
I can see why you think this is a bad idea, silly users input wrong format etc.
However have you considered a jQuery Masked input box?
In my own frames, I accept times and dates in a wide variety of formats. When the field loses focus, I'll try to parse the input and format it into the "correct" or "official" format. This gives the user a nice way to enter the data and a visual cue when something is wrong.
For example, in a date field, I'll accept "1" as "01.12.2009" (current month+year). In a time box, I'll accept "1030", "10 30", "10.30" (i.e. I just filter out anything which isn't a number). "010409 1125" becomes 1. April 2009, 11:25am.
Few outside the united states knows the words "military time". They also prefer 24-hour format.
If you want globalization, you can do one of the two:
use accepted and de-facto standards, such as ISO8601 date format, 24h time and speak English
dive into the nightmare of the vast regional-based localization complexity (some unfortunate programmers have to do it anyway. Then they support AM/PM, unicode and never-showing-yellow-color for certain cultures)
I cannot believe how much consideration this idea has gotten.
Forcing your user to do things your way, because it's "more efficient" is a terrible idea.
Your forms should be both streamlined (power users can enter data quickly from the keypad) and comprehendible (first time users can navigate successfully). The conversion to 24 hour time will throw people immediately. I lived in Quebec for almost six years and still had troubles switching back and forth from 24hour time. DON'T DO THIS.
Just in addition to all the rest of comments you should thing about one more thing.
Programmers and designers usually think the client pays us just for creating what he tells us to... That's only half true. They pay us, even if they don't realize it, for telling them what they need, what's best for them.
Of course, the final decision is always theirs, as the pay, but if you feel it is wrong and you think you know the business model better than them, then do not blindly accept whatever they told you to do.
You might want to consider using the jQuery timepicker (or Telerik DateTimePicker in Time-only mode for WinForms) and also build in support, on the backend, for multiple formats in the event that javascript is disabled.
date/time input through select boxes is a horrible UI design.
but, if some of your users come from the few countries that stick to AM/PM for time format, then forcing the "military" format on them without assistance from the program is also bad.
use something like the jQuery masked input plugin.
if i was doing this, i would use a masked text input and a "PM" checkbox: if the value is more than 1259, the checkbox is disabled. otherwise, it's clear by default.
Why not use a TimePicker control of some sort?
You shouldn't force non-military users to user a strange to them time format.
In any case, assuming that all input is by logged-in users, you can provide multiple mechanisms (and certainly multiple ways if displaying time) and make the choice a user preference. But I'd strongly recommend that whatever you do, for any given user times should be entered and displayed in a consistent manner.

UI hints that prevent user errors [closed]

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
What UI/GUI guidelines should be followed that subtly (or not so subtly) direct users so they don't shoot themselves in the foot.
For instance, you might want to give power users the ability to "clean" a database of infrequently used records, but you don't want a new user to try out that option if they've just spent hours entering new records - they may lose them all because they're 'infrequently used'. Please don't address this specific issue - it's just here to clarify the question.
While one could code a bunch of business logic in place to prevent some issues, you can't account for everything a user might do.
What are some common techniques, tips, and tricks that prevent improper usage?
ie, How should I design the interface to alert users that a function or action is to be taken with care
What should I design in that limits risk and exposure if a poor action is taken?
-Adam
Everything can be undone. Don't erase - deactivate. Back up before every destructive operation, and give the user a way to restore.
That's the path. It's hard to follow it all the way, but it's what you're aiming for.
Make it possible to undo dangerous actions.
If it's a reasonably big application or system, require separate admin access for dangerous operations as well.
Don't Make Me Think
And you can, in fact you HAVE to account for everything they might do. Because you (as the designer) as the one who gives them the ability to do all those things.
Before putting ANY item on a gui as yourself "Can this be misused?" and if it can, you might want to go with a lower level of customizability.
Example hierarchy
Button - Can be clicked.
T/F Radio Button (mandatory) - Only two options.
Combo Box - Many options, possibly "no option". more confusing.
Text field - Myriad of wildly inconsistent options. More confusing for user, more dangerous for coder.
Basically, if the user doesn't need extra options, then don't give them extra options. You'll only confuse them.
This is an old article, but it's still a great one:
Microsoft Inductive User Interface Guidelines
Never rely on anything that says "Are you sure?" The user is ALWAYS sure and that's if they even bothered to read it before dismissing.
Partition your users and have fine-grained permissions.
Define some power-user permissions that enable the "more dangerous" operations.
Power user permission is not given out lightly -- only to actual power users -- and revoked readily.
I'm of the school of thought that, in case of inclarities or ambiguousity, the user is rarely wrong, and the UI is always to blame. So, when you say "punch the user in the face", tagged with "pebkac", I'm thinking that you would do good with a slap in the face.
Unfortunately, I'm unable to give any good UX-advice, since I'm a mere programmer, and therefore more or less by definition disqualify as a good UI-designer. I'd like just to point out the possibility, that you actually could be the one who needs to get a clue, and try to be more humble towards the users.
Edit for Adam:
The little I know about UX is how little I know about it. It's an entire career path. I know for a fact that there's very little anyone can learn by asking a single make-me-good-at-this question at Stack Overflow. It's like me asking "help me write better code", with the body text formulated as a story of how my colleagues ridicule me of my code.
We, programmers, are engineers. We like order and reason and logical decisions. But the average user is not a programmer, not an engineer and, in many cases, not interested in computers themselves the very least bit.
I'm glad that people are giving you nuggets of good advice, and I'm glad that you, contrary to my first impression (I'm sorry about that), are eager to take those bits and understand the needs of the user.
But the point remains: You need to buy books (Don't Make Me Think is a great place to start, as already recommended). You need to watch how people use your software. You need to observe where they stumble, and jig things around until your UIs seem natural.
I'm sorry I still can't give you an answer. Because I don't have it. And even if I would have it, I would probably have to charge you 50EUR an hour, for years into the future.
Make the results of the user's action visible and offer a way to undo those changes.
When the changes are visible, then the user gets feedback of whether the results were what he intended to do, and if they are not, then the possibility to undo will let the user to try again to reach his goal. If possible, make the results of the action visible before the user invokes the action (for example, when dragging some element, show what would happen if the user would release the mouse button, for example visualize addition of the element where it will be moved to and visualize the removal of the element from where it was moved from).
There are a couple of types of undo. The most simple is a single-step undo (as in Notepad), but it is often not enough. Better is a multi-step undo (as in Word), which covers most of the cases, but does not allow undoing a specific action without undoing all the actions that have been done after it. That can be solved by object-specific undo, for example in a form with many fields (or cells in a grid like in Excel), right-clicking the field would show a list of previous values in that field. For deleted data you could have a store of deleted data, from where the user can restore things after deleting them (for example if the user deletes a slide in Powerpoint). And finally you could have a full version history of every change, for example as Local History works in IntelliJ IDEA - make a history entry every time the file is saved (and save everything automatically after a couple seconds of inactivity).
Confirmation dialogs don't help. The user might read it the first time, but soon after that clicking "OK" in the dialog becomes an automated process, and the user will press Enter before the dialog even shows up. Then the confirmation dialog has become just a source of unnecessary mechanical work. The user is always sure about doing some action, even when he is wrong - otherwise he would not have done that action.
Well there are a few different ways that I can/do go about these types of things.
User documentation - first and foremost give them some documentation to work with, and make the systems easy for them to use. Just general usability and descriptive names/actions for everything.
Provide confirmation screens with warnings. Full disclosure of what the action is going to do, with the warnings inside of a yellow box. It draws attention to it and helps prevent the need for the other items.
Have a roll-back plan. For large risky operations you can either simply set "deleted" flags, or offload the data to a temporary "recycle bin" of sorts should they accidentally remove/modify data that was unintended.
Require multiple approvals, for data purge operations especially go to a two-tiered approach, requiring approval from separate users.
These are just a few of the ideas that I have.
Two things immediately come to mind.
The first is the notion of progressive disclosure, i.e., only show users what they need in order to accomplish the task at hand. How many UIs have we seen that have hundreds of controls on a single dialog? Divide the controls into their respective tasks and only allow the user to do a single task at a time. An Advanced button on a dialog is one way to implement this, and this concept has the added benefit of separating the power users from the run-of-the-mill users. Run-of-the-mill users are less likely to attempt a task that is likely to be beyond their skill level.
The second is to leverage the wizard concept for complicated tasks. I know wizards have fallen out of style, but if a task is truly complicated, users usually appreciate having their hands held the first few times. A good example of this is the WinZip wizard interface. If you've never zipped a file before, this wizard uses a logical progression to walk you through the process. And then, once you've grown comfortable with it, you can switch to the classic interface to zip files more quickly.
Of course to do all of this requires a committment not only by the developers, but by management. And that, sadly, is where many of these usability battles are lost.

What are some good examples showing that "I am not the user"?

I'm a software developer who has a background in usability engineering. When I studied usability engineering in grad school, one of the professors had a mantra: "You are not the user". The idea was that we need to base UI design on actual user research rather than our own ideas as to how the UI should work.
Since then I've seen some good examples that seem to prove that I'm not the user.
User trying to use an e-mail template authoring tool, and gets stuck trying to enter the pipe (|) character. Problem turns out to be that the pipe on the keyboard has a space in the middle.
In a web app, user doesn't see content below the fold. Not unusual. We tell her to scroll down. She has no idea what we're talking about and is not familiar with the scroll thumb.
I'm listening in on a tech support call. Rep tells the user to close the browser. In the background I hear the Windows shutdown jingle.
What are some other good examples of this?
EDIT: To clarify, I'm looking for examples where developers make assumptions that turn out to be horribly false about what users will know, understand, etc.
I think one of the biggest examples is that expert users tend to play with an application.
They say, "Okay, I have this tool, what can I do with it?"
Your average user sees the ecosystem of an operating system, filesystem, or application as a big scary place where they are likely to get lost and never return.
For them, everything they want to do on a computer is task-based.
"How do I burn a DVD?"
"How do I upload a photo from my camera to this website."
"How do I send my mom a song?"
They want a starting point, a reproducible work flow, and they want to do that every time they have to perform the task. They don't care about streamlining the process or finding the best way to do it, they just want one reproducible way to do it.
In building web applications, I long since learned to make the start page of my application something separate from the menus with task-based links to the main things the application did in a really big font. For the average user, this increased usability hugely.
So remember this: users don't want to "use your application", they want to get something specific done.
In my mind, the most visible example of "developers are not the user" is the common Confirmation Dialog.
In most any document based application, from the most complex (MS Word, Excel, Visual Studio) through the simplest (Notepad, Crimson Editor, UltraEdit), when you close the appliction with unsaved changes you get a dialog like this:
The text in the Untitled file has changed.
Do you want to save the changes?
[Yes] [No] [Cancel]
Assumption: Users will read the dialog
Reality: With an average reading speed of 2 words per second, this would take 9 seconds. Many users won't read the dialog at all.
Observation: Many developers read much much faster than typical users
Assumption: The available options are all equally likely.
Reality: Most (>99%) of the time users will want their changes saved.
Assumption: Users will consider the consequences before clicking a choice
Reality: The true impact of the choice will occur to users a split second after pressing the button.
Assumption: Users will care about the message being displayed.
Reality: Users are focussed on the next task they need to complete, not on the "care and feeding" of their computer.
Assumption: Users will understand that the dialog contains critical information they need to know.
Reality: Users see the dialog as a speedbump in their way and just want to get rid of it in the fastest way possible.
I definitely agree with the bolded comments in Daniel's response--most real users frequently have a goal they want to get to, and just want to reach that goal as easily and quickly as possible. Speaking from experience, this goes not only for computer novices or non-techie people but also for fairly tech-savvy users who just might not be well-versed in your particular domain or technology stack.
Too frequently I've seen customers faced with a rich set of technologies, tools, utilities, APIs, etc. but no obvious way to accomplish their high-level tasks. Sometimes this could be addressed simply with better documentation (think comprehensive walk-throughs), sometimes with some high-level wizards built on top of command-line scripts/tools, and sometimes only with a fundamental re-prioritization of the software project.
With that said... to throw another concrete example on the pile, there's the Windows start menu (excerpt from an article on The Old New Thing blog):
Back in the early days, the taskbar
didn't have a Start button.
...
But one thing kept getting kicked up
by usability tests: People booted up
the computer and just sat there,
unsure what to do next.
That's when we decided to label the
System button "Start".
It says, "You dummy. Click here." And
it sent our usability numbers through
the roof, because all of a sudden,
people knew what to click when they
wanted to do something.
As mentioned by others here, we techie folks are used to playing around with an environment, clicking on everything that can be clicked on, poking around in all available menus, etc. Family members of mine who are afraid of their computers, however, are even more afraid that they'll click on something that will "erase" their data, so they'd prefer to be given clear directions on where to click.
Many years ago, in a CMS, I stupidly assumed that no one would ever try to create a directory with a leading space in the name .... someone did, and made many other parts of the system very very sad.
On another note, trying to explain to my mother to click the Start button to turn the computer off is just a world of pain.
How about the apocryphal tech support call about the user with the broken "cup holder" (CD/ROM)?
Actually, one that bit me was cut/paste -- I always trim my text inputs now since some of my users cut/paste text from emails, etc. and end up selecting extra whitespace. My tests never considered that people would "type" in extra characters.
Today's GUIs do a pretty good job of hiding the underlying OS. But the idosyncracies still show through.
Why won't the Mac let me create a folder called "Photos: Christmas 08"?
Why do I have to "eject" a mounted disk image?
Can't I convert a JPEG to TIFF just by changing the file extension?
(The last one actually happened to me some years ago. It took forever to figure out why the TIFF wasn't loading correctly! It was at that moment that I understood why Apple used to use embedded file types (as metadata) and to this day I do not understand why they foolishly went back to file extensions. Oh, right; it's because Unix is a superior OS.)
I've seen this plenty of times, it seems to be something that always comes up. I seem to be the kind of person who can pick up on these kind of assumptions (in some circumstances), but I've been blown away by what the user was doing other many times.
As I said, it's something I'm quite familiar with. Some of the software I've worked on is used by the general public (as opposed to specially trained people) so we had to be ready for this kind of thing. Yet I've seen it not be taken into account.
A good example is a web form that needs to be completed. We need this form completed, it's important to the process. The user is no good to us if they don't complete the form, but the more information we get out of them the better. Obviously these are two conflicting demands. If just present the user a screen of 150 fields (random large number) they'll run away scared.
These forms had been revised many times in order to improve things, but users weren't asked what they wanted. Decisions were made based on the assumptions or feelings of various people, but how close those feelings were to actual customers wasn't taken into account.
I'm also going to mention the corollary to Bevan's "The users will read the dialog" assumption. Operating off the "the users don't read anything" assumption makes much more sense. Yet people who argue that the user's don't read anything will often suggest putting bits of long dry explanatory text to help users who are confused by some random poor design decision (like using checkboxes for something that should be radio buttons because you can only select one).
Working any kind of tech support can be very informative on how users do (or do not) think.
pretty much anything at the O/S level in Linux is a good example, from the choice of names ("grep" obviously means "search" to the user!) to the choice of syntax ("rm *" is good for you!)
[i'm not hatin' on linux, it's just chock full of unix-legacy un-usability examples]
How about the desktop and wallpaper metaphors? It's getting better, but 5-10 years ago was the bane of a lot of remote tech support calls.
There's also the backslash vs. slash issue, the myriad names for the various keyboard symbols, and the antiquated print screen button.
Modern operating systems are great because they all support multiple user profiles, so everyone that uses my application on the same workstation can have their own settings and user data. Only, a good portion of the support requests I get are asking how to have multiple data files under the same user account.
Back in my college days, I used to train people on how to use a computer and the internet. I'd go to their house, setup their internet service show them email and everything. Well there was this old couple (late 60's). I spent about three hours showing them how to use their computer, made sure they could connect to the internet and everything. I leave feeling very happy.
That weekend I get a frantic call, about them not being able to check their email. Now I'm in the middle of enjoying my weekend but decide to help them out, and walk through all the things, 30 minutes latter, I ask them if they have two phone lines..."of course we only have one" Needless to say they forgot that they need to connect to the internet first (Yes this was back in the day of modems).
I supposed I should have setup shortcuts like DUN - > Check Email Step 1, Eduora - Check Email Step 2....
What users don't know, they will make up. They often work with an incorrect theory of how an application works.
Especially for data entry, users tend to type much faster than developers which can cause a problem if the program is slow to react.
Story: Once upon a time, before the personal computer, there was timesharing. A timesharing company's customer rep told me that once when he was giving a "how to" class to two or three nice older women, he told them how to stop a program that was running (in case it was started in error or taking to long.) He had one of the students type ^K, and the timesharing terminal responded "Killed!". The lady nearly had a heart attack.
One problem that we have at our company is employees who don't trust the computer. If you computerize a function that they do on paper, they will continue to do it on paper, while entering the results in the computer.

Best GUI control(s) to describe a time range

I need to let end users specify a time range, to be stored and used internally as a starting date/time and ending date/time. The range could be minutes or it could be days.
Has anyone discovered an interactive control that can handle this elegantly?
Most GUI toolkits have a calendar control, so I could specify "start" with a calendar for the day and a text field for the time...and the same for "end".
I could also replace the "end" controls with a single text field or slider that simply describes how many seconds/minutes/hours after start "end" is.
What I don't like about these ideas is how much clicking, typing, and more clicking is required to describe such a simple concept. Also I have to slap the user's hand if a time is typed in that isn't recognizable as a time.
Is there a cleaner implementation that I'm overlooking?
I tend to look at common design patterns for inspiration when I'm pondering problems such as this.
The Yahoo Pattern Library offers some potential solutions.
The UI Patterns site also give some suggestions, and is worth a browse.
For good measure, here's another solution at the Welie pattern library.
Another source of inspiration might be other sites and applications. For example, think of all the use-cases where recording short and long time time durations is required. As an example, company TimeSheet recording, company car mileage log software, task recording software, stopwatch applications, calendaring apps, etc. Then see how they've handled the GUI controls for capturing time ranges.
I haven't personally found a favourite solution for picking date and time. But, I think I'd want something like this.
User clicks to show calendar popup
Popup shows 2 side-by-side calendars (start date/time and end date/time)
Calendar 1 shows todays date, and the other also shows todays date.
Calendar controls allow usual navigation and selection of day month year.
Below each calendar is a hh:mm box, which defaults to the current time.
User can edit value in this time box using up/down arrows or by typing.
Alternatively, show an analogue clock below each calendar. It takes 2 mouse clicks to set time( click 1 for hour and click 2 for minutes).
Hope this helps
I am a fan of an old control I saw used WAY back in the 90's with Inventor (and later Open Inventor) on SGI machines (and then on PCs, etc): an infinite dial.
Some screenshots, a little on the small side, are here. Course, its been done on a variety of platforms since, including similar things on the iphone.
I think a date/time picker would work well with two dials, each representing an order of date/time magnitude. In ASCII art, with each dial between [square brackets] it might look like:
[20 Oct | 21 OCT | 22 Oct ] [11:15 .. 11:30 .. 11:45..]
or with 3:
[20 Oct | 21 OCT | 22 Oct ] [11 .. 12 .. 1pm] [12:31 .. 12:32 .. 12:33]
There are a number of variations you could try (vertical/horizontal, date/time, date/hour/minute, etc).
Dials, though somewhat rarely used, are a natural device for humans to interact with, and their infinite rotation option (unlike a slide which must always stop) suits dates/times well.
FWIW
User interface design is heavily application dependent. "Best" implies some kind of metric that can measure solutions. In UI design such a metric can be "home many clicks/key-presses does it take to complete the task?" where a smaller number is better. So once you've defined your metric you can start to sort solutions into good, better and best.
You also want to reduce cognitive burden for the user. If the user has to enter the final day on which a product can be exchanged based on a 90-day return policy then asking for start and end date would force them to do date math which is no fun. In this example a start date with a "delta" of x days would place less of a burden on the user.
Depending on you application you could consider and approach like the Google Finance time range selector on their charts: http://finance.google.com/finance?q=.dji
There is no single answer, it depends on the context. For many places good text controls are enough. Of course such things can still help by supporting pasting and some increase/decrease actions. Maybe it can even do some validation for the value.
Then there are places that need something more. Calendar can be really helpful for entering dates and some kind of slider could be used for time. (Lotus Notes calendar has a slider.)
My advise is:
Think what you need. Don't put complicated widgets to a less used dialog.
If you need these nice helpful widgets, check if there are ready made in the library you are using and take some time to see how others have done these.
Always have the text controls with support for pasting.
Check out the VisualHint date control. It can be configured a multitude of ways including a timespan. This would allow you to use one control instance to show the start time and another to set the timespan until the period is complete. The control also supports an extensible base framework so you could possibly combine both start/end or start/span into a single control.
Here are also some solutions: http://quince.infragistics.com/html/PatternView.aspx?name=Date+Time+Range+Input
Unless there is a more advanced time control in your GUI toolkit of choice, two calendar controls representing start and end is the most straightforward. Also, you need to decide how you want to use the information. For example, if you used a start date and an interval to increment that date, changing the start date wouldn't change the meaning of the interval. It really depends on what you're wanting to do.
One way I've seen work very well is using a gantt chart:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gantt_chart
You can create a single line chart and then you can scale it across months, days, hours and minutes depending on how wide or zoomed in you make the control. The problem is I don't know of any control out there right now that does just one line, so you may need to create a custom one. You could possibly look for a gantt chart control and just do one task/item.
Observe what people are doing with your time range control. Then write it so that it's most suited towards doing what the people want to achieve with it. For instance, leave away past dates if inputting future dates only makes sense.
Jonathan Leighton has made a nice date inputter -element in jquery that I've found very nice for inputting dates. This is beneficial in a way that user can both input the date by clicking or type it in directly. The user also directly gets the hint about typing it into the box. If you couple this with some kind of timeline -object, you may actually go far afar. Just avoid making UI elements that are confusing or angering!
This comes in late, and it's not a control per se. I read this idea on a blog I can't find anymore (in fact, I found this post while trying to find it). The idea is to use the metaphor of a wall clock. Here's what I implemented for the fun of it. It's not a functional control. You could use something like this as a starting point for capturing times naturally. Three clicks at most, two most of the time. Only dials come close.
http://www.viridium.ro/clock-sample/
Use a HTML5-aware browser; that is, Chrome.

Resources