User interaction Design: A second discussion on design metaphor in human-computer interaction

Article Description: then the design metaphor in human-computer interaction is discussed.

In the article "Human-computer Interaction design metaphor-by the Mac file replacement lead out of the topic" sent out after received a variety of feedback, I simply write a continuation of the text, is a concentrated answer it.

User habits

Of all the feedback, "users feel that Windows is doing better, so it should be designed". So let's take a look at why some people think that Windows is more "useful".

Let's take a look at two examples.

The system inside the bank-the one that the clerk used behind the counter-is basically a character interface, with no beautiful icons or windows or even a mouse cursor. is the system working for us? It's not going to work. For example, now that you're saving money for your clients, you probably don't know how to start. But the bank's people are fine because they've been trained because they're used to it, and any change can be a violation of their habits and make them feel bad.

Another example is a usability test I've done. It was for an internationally renowned handset manufacturer to test its unpublished new touch screen phone, one of the test tasks is to ask the user to shrink the picture on the machine. This is a very simple task, is in a look at the application, ask the user to find ways to adjust the picture display size. The testing process has been carefully prepared and conducted in a professional laboratory to ensure that the results are trustworthy and effective. The users who participated in the test were also divided into several groups by their attributes to produce different role models (persona). Among all the users involved, I was most impressed by a man who knew more about computers. His previous test was done very well, but he was unable to finish the task for a long time. He started by trying to find the Zoom button on the interface, but the button didn't exist, so he couldn't finish the task. So what should we do? It's easy to zoom in with two fingers. I also wrote a special article at that time, strongly recommended that you go to see.

What do these two examples illustrate? Simply put, even if a system has a lot of usability problems, if users develop habits, they will not notice them, even if you give him a better choice will be rejected. As Zhao said: Just because people get used to it.

Back to Windows, regardless of its design right or wrong, if the user is accustomed to, you will think that the software should be so designed, and this does not conform to the design is problematic. Plus most of the domestic users (including me) from Windows began to use GUI interface, has long been accustomed to this, natural feel its way more smoothly, more "good".

On metaphor, wimp and direct manipulation

Now let's take a closer look at why metaphors and Wimp are discussed, and talk a little bit about direct manipulation (directly manipulation).

In real life, if we want to move a book on the table from A to B, I'm afraid no one will make a mechanical device, and then press the button to do it, all by hand directly to the past, which is called "direct manipulation."

But it's not going to work on the computer. Xerox invented the GUI when there is no touch screen such a thing, you can not like real life with the hands dragged, so Palo Alto Genius invented a mechanism, through which it replaces our hands to manipulate the screen things, this mechanism is the window, icon, menu and pointing device, English abbreviation is wimp.

This mechanism is promoted by Apple and MS in the world, one for decades, until now technology progress, and began to gradually get rid of agents, with direct manipulation of the alternative. This time without Apple's iphone, none of this will come so soon. Jobs believes that the iphone's touch technology is a revolution in human-computer interaction, and it is absolutely not exaggerated.

So why do we have to conform to realistic metaphors?

No one is born with a computer, so most of the software designers have to make the software as simple and easy as possible, and the best users can get started without any learning.

If "to conform to realistic metaphor" as a yardstick, then software design can have two extremes: first, full compliance, and real life, do not need to learn directly, operating results and operational expectations are consistent; two, completely inconsistent, looks like something from another planet. What kind do you choose?

The answer is obvious, we tend to be the first. In fact, this is a summary of many years of practical experience in the field of usability. In the industry-recognized Nielen 10 usability guidelines, the second is "to bring the system in line with the reality" (match between system and the real world), which is explained in English as follows:

The system should speak the user's language, with words, phrases and concepts familiar to the user, rather than, System-ori ented terms. Follow Real-world Conventions, making information appear in a natural and logical order.

So, "make the system conform to reality" is the guideline that we should follow first.

Fruit powder and Stand

Finally I want to gossip a few words.

Almost every time I criticize MS, someone jumps out and says, "Your words are not believable, because you are a fruit powder."

It's funny, because my blog criticizes Apple more than I criticize MS, and I've written 4 articles (first, second, third and fourth) on the dock design, OS X WiFi Expiration from 10.6.5 update I don't know how many times I used to scold each other on Twitter, I exposé hard to use, just a few days ago I also asked the OS X in the FileVault is not a temp dry ... but, never see someone say "you this MS Powder", It's funny, isn't it?

Actually was said that the fruit powder also does not matter, because I also once was a MS powder-I use the Mac but 7, 8 years, and the use of MS product time is almost 3 times times this. I am still windowmaker powder, BeOS powder ... so, the key is not what I am powder, but what I use what things. If something is more elegant and usable than a Mac, then I'll turn it over. If you say a position, that is my position.