Re: Re: software-keyholes Digest, Vol 3, Issue 9

Scott Meyers <smeyers-Q9ZaqOuDrMJWk0Htik3J/[email protected]> írta:
> At 06:08 AM 8/12/2003, George Arvell wrote:
> >One of the central arguments in the chapter is about control - who 
gets to 
> >control the web page, the author or the viewer?
> >
> >I think it is a bogus argument.  One, because I don't think it really 
gets 
> >at the heart of the matter and two, because the audience is 
supposed to be 
> >the authors, not the viewers.  If I were an author, and you were 
making an 
> >argument that I should do something because the viewer should 
really have 
> >control, I'd be instantly resistant to your cause.
> 
> That's your right, of course, but if somebody told me I was trying to
> control something I shouldn't control and they presented a reasonable
> argument as to why that is the case, I'd certainly consider the
> argument.  What part of my reasoning that users should control the 
use
> of their screen space do you not find convincing?

One point to add here: *most* of the Web pages out there today are 
_commercial_.  If the developer of a commercial Web page does not 
understand, that he is making the Web page for his customers...  
Furthermore if some folks do listen to Scott´s ideas they will have a 
competitive advantage compared to those guys/shops who did not.  
Which Web page would you rather look at: one where you are in control 
of the layout, or one for which you need to disable page-defined font 
size and the increase local font size to be able to read it - and it is still a 
band in the middle (left side) of your screen.

IMHO a user interface (esp. nowadays with everyone having no time) 
*must* be intuitive and convenient.  Intuitiveness includes that you do 
see all you need to see; no surprises (off-by one) and much more.  
Convenience includes that the user/reader should not do anything 
unecessary.  Anything he does not feel belonging to the "core" issue - 
the original purpose he visited a Web site (or started a program) for.

Some issues can be justified (like paging in case of an original 
newspaper) but some cannot (we have examples that it can be 
solved).  But as annoying as a too huge newspaper on the sardine-can 
class of an overseas flight can be hits you the frustration created by a 
badly designed Web site.  You went there to spend you money and all 
you do is scrolling, or clicking too many links etc.  All my point is: those 
who understand this (they ALWAYS have to look at their product with 
the end-user eyes) will be out of business or struggle.

One more point: while Scott is right about the user being in control 
being a good thing I would add something - since we went a bit into 
philosophy/psychology.  The user (only) needs to _feel_ he is in control.  
What I mean by that is that the author does not need to overcomplicate 
things and create a fully customizable monster.  First the most annoying 
keyholes (and other, keyhole like things) should be removed - and that 
will make the users feel better about the site (less PITA).

So for me it sounds a bit weird that a person working for commercial 
purposes will get offended, because they are told they work for their 
end users.  I believe if these guys will be driven out of business 
because of Scott cannot convince them we have to be grateful.  IMHO it 
is not Scott´s books scope to teach the basics of business to people.

Sorry if I sound harsh I did not mean it - it is a birth defect. :-)

Attila