Misguided usability notions.
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tuppp Jan 27, 2015 3:32 PM EDT |
There certainly are some GUI elements that benefit from "consistency," but there are far more parts of GUIs that should be inconsistent. Mac and Gnome supporters tend to push consistency in every GUI area, without really considering the consequences. I think that consistency in GUIs was stressed (but not originated) by one of the self-proclaimed Mac GUI gurus, and it was mindlessly parroted by a majority Mac fanboys and, consequently, caught-on with the Gnome GUI nazis. In the case of icons, consistency is definitely undesired for usability, contrary to what the article suggests. When all of the icons look the same, one has to take extra time and give more attention to making sure that the correct icon is being clicked. Naturally, there will also be errors clicking on the wrong icon. Of course, when the icons are dramatically different, less attention has to be given to the clicking the desired icon and clicking errors diminish. A lot of folks equate aesthetics and an easily comprehended interface with superior usability. The thought is that if a GUI is pretty and if any idiot can understand it, then the interface is ideal. Unfortunately, most with such notions fail to consider how error-prone and attention-draining such pretty interfaces can be, and, often, no thought is given to how cumbersome a newbie GUI can be to a power user, who might be much better off using a speedy tiling GUI. By the way, I'm not a fan of Windows, but it is difficult to determine how well a set of icons will work, until one uses them on a daily basis. Extensive field testing is important to assess usability with icons, GUI's, toasters, cars, etc. |
| the_doctor Jan 27, 2015 4:43 PM EDT |
Um... You can change icon themes in Windows, too. Just saying. |
| tuppp Jan 27, 2015 4:58 PM EDT |
the_doctor wrote:Um... You can change icon themes in Windows, too. That goes without saying. Nevertheless, the usability points above apply to all icon sets and to other GUI elements. |
| rnturn Jan 27, 2015 5:56 PM EDT |
Why change the icons? It's bad enough when a vendor decides to move functions around on the menus (or changing the menu system altogether -- I'm talkin' to /you/, Microsoft and your ribbon) so that an application or operating system upgrade turns an experienced user into an unproductive user. Changing the icons has the same effect. So what's the point of changing them? |
| seatex Jan 27, 2015 6:17 PM EDT |
I could care less about the icons, really. The bigger offense is, as rnturn mentioned, changing menus for the worse. And the ribbon menus ARE the worst. |
| the_doctor Jan 27, 2015 6:28 PM EDT |
@ seatex: Agreed! Quoting:The icon theme of an operating system has more importance than people might imagine. No, it doesn't. The majority of Windows users stick with the default set and never change them. |
| CFWhitman Jan 28, 2015 11:52 AM EDT |
I think this depends on your definition of consistency. To me, consistency in an icon theme is mostly of aesthetic value rather than practical value. As far as I'm concerned, the Windows 10 icons seem pretty consistent, though they still manage to be kind of ugly. I would want icons to be distinctive but not so jarringly different as to be distracting or to clash with each other. |
| tuppp Jan 28, 2015 3:39 PM EDT |
CFWhitman wrote:To me, consistency in an icon theme is mostly of aesthetic value rather than practical value. As far as I'm concerned, the Windows 10 icons seem pretty consistent, though they still manage to be kind of ugly. I would want icons to be distinctive but not so jarringly different as to be distracting or to clash with each other. The more "aesthetically" consistent the set of icons, the harder it is to differentiate between them. The icons that are "jarringly different" are the ones that are the easiest to use (best usability). Of course, "ugly" is in the eye of the beholder. To me, superior ease of use is more beautiful than what someone else thinks is aesthetically pretty. |
| CFWhitman Jan 28, 2015 5:45 PM EDT |
tuppp wrote:The more "aesthetically" consistent the set of icons, the harder it is to differentiate between them. The icons that are "jarringly different" are the ones that are the easiest to use (best usability). I think you're assuming that you know what I'm talking about when I say consistent. The main point of my post was that consistent doesn't necessarily mean what you are thinking of. That is, "consistent" doesn't necessarily mean "very similar." It can also mean sensible. For example, it is inconsistent and generally unfriendly toward usability to have some 16 pixel icons and some 128 pixel icons in the same context. It is also inconsistent for some icons to be labeled and others not to be labeled, and at the very least this does not enhance usability. On the other hand, icons themselves can be of entirely different color or shape and still be consistent. My other point was that it is possible for icons to be similar enough to be consistent, but still distinctive enough to never cause a mix-up, and this can be a plus for aesthetics. That is, for example, if some of your icons are 3D and some are 2D they can make the system look somewhat haphazard while providing no real gain for usability. |
| tuppp Jan 29, 2015 4:33 AM EDT |
CFWhitman wrote:I think you're assuming that you know what I'm talking about when I say consistent. The main point of my post was that consistent doesn't necessarily mean what you are thinking of. That is, "consistent" doesn't necessarily mean "very similar." It can also mean sensible. For example, it is inconsistent and generally unfriendly toward usability to have some 16 pixel icons and some 128 pixel icons in the same context. It is also inconsistent for some icons to be labeled and others not to be labeled, and at the very least this does not enhance usability. On the other hand, icons themselves can be of entirely different color or shape and still be consistent. I am fairly sure that I fully comprehend your concept, however, I am not sure if you understand my point. I think when you say "sensible" you actually mean "tasteful," and taste has nothing to do with usability. Icons of different sizes are often better for usability, provided that the click target isn't excessively huge or tiny. The difference in size makes it easier to instantly discern which icon is which. So, from a usability standpoint, differing icon size is more sensible. To further illustrate this point, one could take the importance of icon size to an improbable extreme, in which such size differences are critical to preventing a catastrophic clicking error. Let's say that we have a hypothetical GUI for a nuclear power plant. Clicking on one icon turns off the nuclear reactor, while clicking another icon dumps the reactor coolant. If you click the icon to dump the reactor coolant before you turn off the reactor, you will have a catastrophic meltdown of the nuclear reactor. In that instance, would it be best to design the two icons so that they are "tastefully/sensibly consistent?" Of course not. To prevent any possibility of clicking error, you would want them to be as different as possible, including their size. In fact, you would probably want to make the coolant dumping icon a very small target relative to the size of the icon that turns off the reactor. Although the above example is extreme and improbable, it illustrates how size differences in icons can reduce clicking errors, and, thus, improve usability. In regards to icon text, labeling all icons can help in the comprehension aspect of usability, but having some icons labeled and some not labeled could help in the "differentiation" aspect of usability. CFWhitman wrote:My other point was that it is possible for icons to be similar enough to be consistent, but still distinctive enough to never cause a mix-up, and this can be a plus for aesthetics. That is, for example, if some of your icons are 3D and some are 2D they can make the system look somewhat haphazard while providing no real gain for usability. Again, the more different one can make the icons, the easier it is to differentiate between them. So, making some icons 2D and others 3D could improve usability, regardless of how "haphazard" or unaesthetic they may appear to certain individuals. |
| CFWhitman Jan 29, 2015 10:02 AM EDT |
tuppp wrote:I think when you say "sensible" you actually mean "tasteful," and taste has nothing to do with usability. You can think that if you want to; you will be absolutely one hundred percent wrong, but I can't stop you. Your illustration actually illustrates my point, and contradicts yours. I specifically said, "in the same context." Icons being a different size should serve some purpose beyond simply distinguishing between two programs or objects that are on equal terms. If you arbitrarily make icons different sizes, you detract from usability. In your illustration you made icons of different sizes to a purpose, not arbitrarily. Quoting:Again, the more different one can make the icons, the easier it is to differentiate between them. So, making some icons 2D and others 3D could improve usability, regardless of how "haphazard" or unaesthetic they may appear to certain individuals. There is a certain balance to this. There is a certain point at which icons are clearly distinguishable from one another, and continuing to create further differences becomes pointless and serves no purpose beyond making the system look less finished. Worse yet, as in the case of significantly different sized icons, the differences you create can imply a difference that doesn't exist. In that way icons that are arbitrarily different could even end up being distracting or confusing, which would actually hurt usability. Another example that works: You could give all your native applications 3D icons and all your Wine applications 2D icons (or vice versa). Then the difference would serve a purpose. If you are expecting the user to already know everything about the system and you just want to make it easier for them not to "click on the wrong thing," then certainly, you could go wild with making things as different as possible (although making it hard to click on things that should be easy to click on would still be a problem). If, however, you want to convey as much information to the user as possible, then arbitrary differences detract from the interface. |
| tuppp Jan 29, 2015 3:59 PM EDT |
CFWhitman wrote:Your illustration actually illustrates my point, and contradicts yours. I specifically said, "in the same context." Icons being a different size should serve some purpose beyond simply distinguishing between two programs or objects that are on equal terms. If you arbitrarily make icons different sizes, you detract from usability. In your illustration you made icons of different sizes to a purpose, not arbitrarily.Nope. Arbitrarily varying the size of icons definitely improves their usability from differentiation standpoint. The comment that I added about one particular icon being smaller was specifically related to ADDITIONALLY reducing a GUI target size to ADDITIONALLY avoiding accidentally hitting a super critical target. If you take the same two icons and make each represent a different degree of the same process (same "context"), then arbitrarily differing their size will certainly improve their usability and avoid a critical clicking error. For instance, let's say that our two icons engage different rates of coolant draining in the nuclear reactor. They have the same context, but clicking the inappropriate rate could be catastrophic, depending on what previous actions you have taken. If one icon is arbitrarily larger than the other, it will, of course, be easier to distinguish which is which, both for the new user and especially for the experienced user who has become conditioned to the size difference. So, catastrophic clicking errors can be averted by arbitrarily differing the size of icons in the same context. Again, pushing the differing sizes of icons to extremes introduces other usability issues -- some undesired and some desired. CFWhitman wrote:There is a certain balance to this. There is a certain point at which icons are clearly distinguishable from one another, and continuing to create further differences becomes pointless and serves no purpose beyond making the system look less finished.Such a "finished" look involves "taste," and such subjective aesthetic notions have little to no direct bearing on the efficient functioning of an interface. Again, I understand exactly what you are trying to say, and it is coincidentally the same point that a lot of folks argue when they miraculously become design/usability experts overnight, after purchasing an Apple product or becoming aware of the Gnome Human Interface Guidelines. No. Making icons as different as possible (without introducing other conflicting usability issues) improves usability from a differentiation standpoint. CFWhitman wrote:Worse yet, as in the case of significantly different sized icons, the differences you create can imply a difference that doesn't exist. In that way icons that are arbitrarily different could even end up being distracting or confusing, which would actually hurt usability.Well, if you make difference in an interface item that implies a false meaning, then you are introducing another usability issue, which is a qualifier to my point that have stated -- icons can be made arbitrarily to improve differentiation usability, as long as other conflicting usability issues are avoided. CFWhitman wrote:Another example that works: You could give all your native applications 3D icons and all your Wine applications 2D icons (or vice versa). Then the difference would serve a purpose.That is a good example of using consistency to convey the meaning of a "grouping." However, conveying such meanings wouldn't really reduce clicking errors, unless, perhaps, there was an icon of a Wine version of a program along with the icon of a native version of the same program. And, of course, such consistency could introduce clicking errors among icons within the same "consistent" group. CFWhitman wrote:If you are expecting the user to already know everything about the system and you just want to make it easier for them not to "click on the wrong thing," then certainly, you could go wild with making things as different as possible (although making it hard to click on things that should be easy to click on would still be a problem)No. Making icons as different as possible works with newbies, too, as it speeds their conditioning as to which icon is which. CFWhitman wrote:If, however, you want to convey as much information to the user as possible, then arbitrary differences detract from the interface.Well, if you take away important meaning when making icons different, you are introducing other usability issues, which is generally something to be avoided. |
| CFWhitman Jan 29, 2015 5:54 PM EDT |
In your new illustration you say that clicking on the inappropriate rate could be catastrophic. That means that the difference in size between the icons is not really arbitrary and the context is not really the same. The difference in size has additional meaning. However, we are not talking about a custom interface for a nuclear power plant where everything has additional meaning. We are talking about a general purpose interface for a computer that people load their own software on. There is no way of determining ahead of time whether a user will find a remote desktop icon or a word processor icon to be more important, and arbitrary size differences between these two icons will not make the interface easier to understand. You seem to be of the opinion that avoiding clicking errors at all costs is the end all and be all of icons. That may even be almost true in a nuclear power plant. It's not true on the desktop. Icons serve other purposes. They convey meaning. Much of the point of a GUI interface is to convey meaning through pictures so that a user needs less instruction. If you imply meaning that doesn't exist, then you don't make an interface more usable, but just the opposite. Icons being the same size implies that they are a set of things of the same importance. If you make them arbitrarily of different sizes, then people wonder what the difference is and can easily assume a meaning that does not exist. Clicking errors are not the chief obstacle to usability. I rarely make clicking errors with icons using a mouse, and when I do, as with most clicking errors, it's generally because they are too small and/or close together, not because I mistook one for the other. It is important to make icons distinguishable from each other. Icon sets like the ones that are all round don't make a lot of sense from a usability standpoint, especially for inexperienced users. That does not mean that consistency is an enemy rather than a friend. In it's true meaning, consistency ensures that things make sense, work as expected, and users are not needlessly confused by the interface. It does not mean that all icons look alike. As to aesthetics, they may not improve usability directly. However, users tend to react badly to very poor aesthetics. It won't matter how usable an interface is if nobody wants to use it. There are a lot of icon themes that are, let's say, 'aesthetically consistent' which still have enough differentiation to prevent practically any mix-up of icons due to them looking too much alike. Your general premise may be more true for novice users who are learning to do things by rote through instruction.* Then even arbitrary visual differences could help them remember what to do. Such differences are an enemy, though, of one of the great virtues of a general purpose GUI interface, discoverability. People understand an interface more quickly if things make sense and differences exist for a reason. * Edit: I just wanted to make one thing more clear. This statement may seem at odds with the one I made above about 'expecting users to already know everything about the system.' In actuality, however, I'm talking about the same group of people. Those who are instructed in everything about the system rather than having to figure it out for themselves. |
| JaseP Jan 29, 2015 8:15 PM EDT |
I think CFWhitman has a lot of good points to make... When I look at different user interfaces, what I see with ones which have gotten a lot of criticism, lately, is that the UI developers have seemingly not have had any training in useability design (yes, it's a real discipline). When designing UIs, developers need to keep in mind learnability, memorability, perception and efficiency. Aesthetics and perception go hand-in-hand. Icons need to have a relationship with what tasks they implement. Different tasks are going to have different emphases,... In a nuclear power plant, you are not going to be concerned with learnability, because (you hope) your users are highly trained. The emphasis should therefore be on memorability and efficiency. The opposite is true of a simple, social or multimedia app. But in every system, aesthetic consistency is going to increase user confidence in the system, not detract from it. There's a difference between aesthetic inconsistency and increased perception. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!