Weird UI Implementation



  • @Cap'n Steve said:

    @asuffield said:

    Your test has been constructed to measure only those users whose behaviour supports your claim and to fail to measure any users whose behaviour does not support your claim.



    Ok, then also set up a "normal" website and see which gets the most complaints.

    I don't think you're going to get it. 



  • @VGR said:

    @asuffield said:
    @VGR said:

    a cardinal rule of UI: objects should act the way users expect them to act.

    The problem with this rule is that it's trumped by Sturgeon's law. Your users are pretty much all idiots, so any UI that acts they way they expect will be a stupid UI. Idiots beget idiots.

    The only way out of this trap is to build a UI that doesn't behave how your users expect and then force them to learn how to use it. 

    I'm not sure how Sturgeon's Law is relevant, but most people do know what checkboxes are and how they behave. And there's even a non-computer metaphor: checkboxes have existed on paper forms for quite a long time. As far as I know, there are no paper forms on which placing a check in one box causes the checks in the other boxes to be erased.

    Radio buttons may not give much of a visual cue to their behavior, but their text usually makes it rather obvious, especially if they're formatted like multiple-choice questions, with a single leading heading that's phrased as an unfinished sentence. Multiple choice questions on paper have been around about as long as checkboxes have. I'd like to think everyone who finished fifth grade can recognize them.

    So, as far as I'm concerned, it is possible (and not at all difficult) to have checkboxes and radio buttons that act as users expect them to act. 100% usability isn't the goal; something like 99.99% usability is.

     

    This is a fucking stupid argument.  I've taken tests on paper where I filled in circles completely.  These circles look a lot like radio buttons.  Last time I checked, filling in a second circle didn't "unfill" the first circle, and it has nothing to do with the shape of the thing I'm filling in.

     

    And just for fun, you should take to the street with a picture of checkboxes and a picture of radio buttons and ask people what the difference in their behavior is. 



  • @asuffield said:

    I don't think you're going to get it.

    At this rate, nobody is going to get what you're getting at.



  • @magetoo said:

    @asuffield said:
    I don't think you're going to get it.

    At this rate, nobody is going to get what you're getting at.

    I asked him what he was getting at. You see how that went.

    Obviously it is top secret.



  • The problem with flame wars is that either side can only win when the other side admits defeat. Which they obviously will never do.

    But okay, since it's so much fun, let's go on...

    @asuffield said:

    @VGR said:

    but most people do know what checkboxes are and how they behave.

     

    Cite your source.

    Like he said, it's common sense. Cite your source that they don't.

    How did they acquire it? The normal way humans acquire knowledge about anything: First they start with random actions. If they notice that a series of similar actions results in similar reactions, they form a pattern. That pattern in this case is: "If I click on a square-thingy, I can turn it on, if I click again, I can turn it off. The click won't affect anything else."

    Not all people way already see that pattern, but if your GUI follow conventions, they have at least a chance to see it eventually. If you break them, they will forever be lost until the Mighty Admin comes, ridicules them and gracefully explains to them how the GUI works.

     

    As for sources, heck even my own mother knows how to operate a check box. And she is the sort of person that stay up late to press the "record" button on the VCR because she is to scared to learn how to program it. You simply need to know a certain set of conventions to be able to work on a computer. And you need to know a few more to be able to surf the web. And how many people surf the web today again?



  • @PSWorx said:

    The problem with flame wars is that either side can only win when the other side admits defeat. Which they obviously will never do.

    But okay, since it's so much fun, let's go on...

    @asuffield said:

    @VGR said:

    but most people do know what checkboxes are and how they behave.

     

    Cite your source.

    Like he said, it's common sense. Cite your source that they don't.

    How did they acquire it? The normal way humans acquire knowledge about anything: First they start with random actions. If they notice that a series of similar actions results in similar reactions, they form a pattern. That pattern in this case is: "If I click on a square-thingy, I can turn it on, if I click again, I can turn it off. The click won't affect anything else."

    Not all people way already see that pattern, but if your GUI follow conventions, they have at least a chance to see it eventually. If you break them, they will forever be lost until the Mighty Admin comes, ridicules them and gracefully explains to them how the GUI works.

     

    As for sources, heck even my own mother knows how to operate a check box. And she is the sort of person that stay up late to press the "record" button on the VCR because she is to scared to learn how to program it. You simply need to know a certain set of conventions to be able to work on a computer. And you need to know a few more to be able to surf the web. And how many people surf the web today again?

    Or you could start citing some of the common sources...

    http://sigchi.org/chi96/proceedings/desbrief/Sullivan/kds_txt.htm

    http://homepage.mac.com/simx/technonova/C2116391994/E20051210212921/index.html

    Etc...

    I am not sure you will find a whole lot of credible sources telling people they should all avoid following conventions, and make the user figure it out...

    Although there is this one application I know of that would fit this mindset perfectly: http://forums.thedailywtf.com/forums/thread/141396.aspx



  • @tray said:

    Reminds me my boss at first workplace.
    I was developing a big-enough application for some kind of small ECG. My boss thought that it was a good idea, if we started an action when the user pressed the mouse button, not waiting until release. The users would be 50 to 80 years old cardiologists, and they surely would feel that our software was running faster.
    Also, my boss always used to doulbe click to open links in his browser.

    TRWTF is that if they click the way I've seen a former boss click and type, the software would be running faster. 😛

    click

    deep thought

    release



  • @KattMan said:

    The company hired me back 6 months later with the condition that they fired him.  They did, I went back and fixed a ton of stuff as a "highly paid consultant"

    What wonderful, amazing universe do you live in?



  • @VGR said:

    @dhromed said:

    But then again, a checkbox, unlike a radio, can be turned off

    That's why it's called a "one of many" control: Because you always have one choice selected.

    If you really want to turn them all "off," add a radio button that says "None of the above" or something similar. But trying to make radio buttons behave in a new and "innovative" way is breaking a cardinal rule of UI: objects should act the way users expect them to act.

    Back to the original WTF: forcing checkboxes to act like radio buttons is such idiocy that it earned an explicit entry in the Interface Hall of Shame.

    Sorry to break it to you, but I am old enough to remember radios that had rows of buttons. And, as expected, if you pressed one all the others popped out. BUT, even though it did not make sense on most radios, you could force more than one button in at the same time, or even push a button in far enough for all others to pop out, but not far enough for it to stick, effectively unselecting all.

     Where's that functionality, then? Eh? Eh?
     



  • @phelyan said:

    @VGR said:
    @dhromed said:

    But then again, a checkbox, unlike a radio, can be turned off

    That's why it's called a "one of many" control: Because you always have one choice selected.

    If you really want to turn them all "off," add a radio button that says "None of the above" or something similar. But trying to make radio buttons behave in a new and "innovative" way is breaking a cardinal rule of UI: objects should act the way users expect them to act.

    Back to the original WTF: forcing checkboxes to act like radio buttons is such idiocy that it earned an explicit entry in the Interface Hall of Shame.

    Sorry to break it to you, but I am old enough to remember radios that had rows of buttons. And, as expected, if you pressed one all the others popped out. BUT, even though it did not make sense on most radios, you could force more than one button in at the same time, or even push a button in far enough for all others to pop out, but not far enough for it to stick, effectively unselecting all.

     Where's that functionality, then? Eh? Eh?
     

     In hell where it belongs?



  • @PSWorx said:

    @asuffield said:

    @VGR said:

    but most people do know what checkboxes are and how they behave.

     

    Cite your source.

    Like he said, it's common sense. Cite your source that they don't.

    Pretty sure I did: I spend a large amount of time working with actual users in the real world and I would estimate that around 30%-40% of them (back-of-envelope tally) simply do not know that squares are multiple-choice while circles are alternate-choice, that blue underlining is a link to left-click on once while red underlining is a spelling mistake to right-click on (unless you're using a different theme in which case they're reversed, and purple underlining could be either) and black text under a picture is an icon to double-left-click on except when it isn't, that squares with a thicker line at the top are maximise buttons, that downwards-pointing guillemots are tabs that will expand if you click on them....

    Hell, why does anybody know this crap?

     

    How did they acquire it? The normal way humans acquire knowledge about anything: First they start with random actions. If they notice that a series of similar actions results in similar reactions, they form a pattern. That pattern in this case is: "If I click on a square-thingy, I can turn it on, if I click again, I can turn it off. The click won't affect anything else."

    That's how engineers and some animals operate. It is not how normal users operate. Normal users follow the normal human behaviour of being an unexpected-input-avoidance machine; they accept only negative reinforcement and will actively seek to not learn new things if they do not have to. When confronted with unexpected behaviour, their natural reaction will be to make it stop and then avoid doing that thing again; this is why they never read error messages. This behaviour is common to most of the primates.

    As for sources, heck even my own mother knows how to operate a check box.

    "Not everybody knows X" "You're wrong, I know a person who knows X"

    You fail at logic. 



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    I am not sure you will find a whole lot of credible sources telling people they should all avoid following conventions, and make the user figure it out...

    macosx. Go away. 



  • @asuffield said:

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    I am not sure you will find a whole lot of credible sources telling people they should all avoid following conventions, and make the user figure it out...

    macosx. Go away. 

    Um. Was that supposed to double as a well reasoned argument?



  • @asuffield said:

    Pretty sure I did: I spend a large amount of time working with actual users in the real world and I would estimate that around 30%-40% of them (back-of-envelope tally) simply do not know that squares are multiple-choice while circles are alternate-choice, that blue underlining is a link to left-click on once while red underlining is a spelling mistake to right-click on (unless you're using a different theme in which case they're reversed, and purple underlining could be either) and black text under a picture is an icon to double-left-click on except when it isn't, that squares with a thicker line at the top are maximise buttons, that downwards-pointing guillemots are tabs that will expand if you click on them....



    An expert on statistics like yourself should know that [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence]anecdotal evidence[/url] isn't useful.

    Like I said, breaking conventions is ok as long as you have a good reason.  Do you think blue and underlined is the wrong way to differentiate links for some reason?



  • @Cap'n Steve said:

    @asuffield said:

    Pretty sure I did: I spend a large amount of time working with actual users in the real world and I would estimate that around 30%-40% of them (back-of-envelope tally) simply do not know that squares are multiple-choice while circles are alternate-choice, that blue underlining is a link to left-click on once while red underlining is a spelling mistake to right-click on (unless you're using a different theme in which case they're reversed, and purple underlining could be either) and black text under a picture is an icon to double-left-click on except when it isn't, that squares with a thicker line at the top are maximise buttons, that downwards-pointing guillemots are tabs that will expand if you click on them....



    An expert on statistics like yourself should know that [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence]anecdotal evidence[/url] isn't useful.

    Like I said, breaking conventions is ok as long as you have a good reason.  Do you think blue and underlined is the wrong way to differentiate links for some reason?

    Go away shill! You work for Microsoft! GAH!



  • @Cap'n Steve said:

    @asuffield said:

    Pretty sure I did: I spend a large amount of time working with actual users in the real world and I would estimate that around 30%-40% of them (back-of-envelope tally) simply do not know that squares are multiple-choice while circles are alternate-choice, that blue underlining is a link to left-click on once while red underlining is a spelling mistake to right-click on (unless you're using a different theme in which case they're reversed, and purple underlining could be either) and black text under a picture is an icon to double-left-click on except when it isn't, that squares with a thicker line at the top are maximise buttons, that downwards-pointing guillemots are tabs that will expand if you click on them....



    An expert on statistics like yourself should know that [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence]anecdotal evidence[/url] isn't useful.

    Informal observations are far less than a proper study, but they are far from useless. They are sufficient to disprove universally qualified claims, for example.



    Like I said, breaking conventions is ok as long as you have a good reason. Do you think blue and underlined is the wrong way to differentiate links for some reason?

    I believe that I stated my point quite clearly.



  • @phelyan said:

    Sorry to break it to you, but I am old enough to remember radios that had rows of buttons. And, as expected, if you pressed one all the others popped out. BUT, even though it did not make sense on most radios, you could force more than one button in at the same time, or even push a button in far enough for all others to pop out, but not far enough for it to stick, effectively unselecting all.
    I always wondered where the name "Radio button" came from, and never made this connection (BTW, my 5.1 computer speakers have buttons like this for selecting input, so they haven't quite gone away yet).



  • My father used to have a very old radio set from the '70-ies. It had big buttons to select LW/MW/FW bands for the tuner. If you pressed down one of them, the previously selected button would mechanically elevate. They truly behaved like radio buttons.



  • I think most mechanical tape players had those too, when the radios were standing on grandma's shelf for quite a while already . There they were for the Stop, Play, Fast Forward and Rewind buttons.

    Then again, "Tape button" sounds lame. 



  • @PSWorx said:

    I think most mechanical tape players had those too, when the radios were standing on grandma's shelf for quite a while already . There they were for the Stop, Play, Fast Forward and Rewind buttons.

    Then again, "Tape button" sounds lame. 


    Not quite the same, since the buttons on radio were specifically for choosing between a number of similar options, and there were no combinations of multiple buttons that made sense [whereas, on a tape player, play-record is mandatory, and play-ff (cue) and play-rewind (review) are allowed].



  • @tster said:

    @VGR said:

    I'm not sure how Sturgeon's Law is relevant, but most people do know what checkboxes are and how they behave. And there's even a non-computer metaphor: checkboxes have existed on paper forms for quite a long time. As far as I know, there are no paper forms on which placing a check in one box causes the checks in the other boxes to be erased.

    Radio buttons may not give much of a visual cue to their behavior, but their text usually makes it rather obvious, especially if they're formatted like multiple-choice questions, with a single leading heading that's phrased as an unfinished sentence. Multiple choice questions on paper have been around about as long as checkboxes have. I'd like to think everyone who finished fifth grade can recognize them.

    So, as far as I'm concerned, it is possible (and not at all difficult) to have checkboxes and radio buttons that act as users expect them to act. 100% usability isn't the goal; something like 99.99% usability is.

     

    This is a fucking stupid argument.  I've taken tests on paper where I filled in circles completely.  These circles look a lot like radio buttons.  Last time I checked, filling in a second circle didn't "unfill" the first circle, and it has nothing to do with the shape of the thing I'm filling in.

    And yet, the makers of the test seemed confident that you would know that filling in more than one circle would not constitute a valid answer.



  • @VGR said:

    @tster said:

    I've taken tests on paper where I filled in circles completely.  These circles look a lot like radio buttons.  Last time I checked, filling in a second circle didn't "unfill" the first circle, and it has nothing to do with the shape of the thing I'm filling in.

    And yet, the makers of the test seemed confident that you would know that filling in more than one circle would not constitute a valid answer.

    You must have different makers to the ones around here. Every time I've seen one of those tests, there have been LARGE, BOLD instructions at the top not to fill in more than one mark for each question. They would not do this if people did not frequently get it wrong.



  • So you're arguing that it's pointless to maintain consistency in UI component behavior because (1) a majority of users are too retarded to get it, and (2) the silly UI "rules" are so arbitrary that it's too retarded to even bother.  Yet these same idiots you speak of know that the turn signal is that stick thing on the right of the steering column.



  • @wgh said:

    So you're arguing that it's pointless to maintain consistency in UI component behavior because (1) a majority of users are too retarded to get it, and (2) the silly UI "rules" are so arbitrary that it's too retarded to even bother.  Yet these same idiots you speak of know that the turn signal is that stick thing on the right of the steering column.

    You mean the left?



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @wgh said:

    So you're arguing that it's pointless to maintain consistency in UI component behavior because (1) a majority of users are too retarded to get it, and (2) the silly UI "rules" are so arbitrary that it's too retarded to even bother.  Yet these same idiots you speak of know that the turn signal is that stick thing on the right of the steering column.

    You mean the left?

    American idiots. 🙂



  • @wgh said:

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:
    @wgh said:

    So you're arguing that it's pointless to maintain consistency in UI component behavior because (1) a majority of users are too retarded to get it, and (2) the silly UI "rules" are so arbitrary that it's too retarded to even bother.  Yet these same idiots you speak of know that the turn signal is that stick thing on the right of the steering column.

    You mean the left?

    American idiots. 🙂

    People exist outside of the US? Why didnt I get that memo?

     



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @wgh said:
    @MasterPlanSoftware said:
    @wgh said:

    So you're arguing that it's pointless to maintain consistency in UI component behavior because (1) a majority of users are too retarded to get it, and (2) the silly UI "rules" are so arbitrary that it's too retarded to even bother.  Yet these same idiots you speak of know that the turn signal is that stick thing on the right of the steering column.

    You mean the left?

    American idiots. 🙂

    People exist outside of the US? Why didnt I get that memo?

    You didn't get that?  It was attached to the one that told you to put coversheets on your TPS reports.

     



  • @wgh said:

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:
    @wgh said:
    @MasterPlanSoftware said:
    @wgh said:

    So you're arguing that it's pointless to maintain consistency in UI component behavior because (1) a majority of users are too retarded to get it, and (2) the silly UI "rules" are so arbitrary that it's too retarded to even bother.  Yet these same idiots you speak of know that the turn signal is that stick thing on the right of the steering column.

    You mean the left?

    American idiots. 🙂

    People exist outside of the US? Why didnt I get that memo?

    You didn't get that?  It was attached to the one that told you to put coversheets on your TPS reports.

    You know... that would explain a lot.



  • @chikinpotpi said:

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    Can someone plz send me the codez for tri state radio button?

    Kind sir,

    plz send me teh codes as well

    Regards

    Please stop teh madness! 



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @wgh said:
    @MasterPlanSoftware said:
    @wgh said:
    @MasterPlanSoftware said:
    @wgh said:

    So you're arguing that it's pointless to maintain consistency in UI component behavior because (1) a majority of users are too retarded to get it, and (2) the silly UI "rules" are so arbitrary that it's too retarded to even bother.  Yet these same idiots you speak of know that the turn signal is that stick thing on the right of the steering column.

    You mean the left?

    American idiots. 🙂

    People exist outside of the US? Why didnt I get that memo?

    You didn't get that?  It was attached to the one that told you to put coversheets on your TPS reports.

    You know... that would explain a lot.

    The, uh, US - Americans need to learn that other countries love peace and memos are recycling wastes and the education system needs to have more improvement. Go US - America!



  • @dlikhten said:

    The, uh, US - Americans need to learn that other countries love peace and memos are recycling wastes and the education system needs to have more improvement. Go US - America!

    Thanks, I think we all just got a little dumber from reading that.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @wgh said:
    @MasterPlanSoftware said:
    @wgh said:
    @MasterPlanSoftware said:
    @wgh said:

    So you're arguing that it's pointless to maintain consistency in UI component behavior because (1) a majority of users are too retarded to get it, and (2) the silly UI "rules" are so arbitrary that it's too retarded to even bother.  Yet these same idiots you speak of know that the turn signal is that stick thing on the right of the steering column.

    You mean the left?

    American idiots. 🙂

    People exist outside of the US? Why didnt I get that memo?

    You didn't get that?  It was attached to the one that told you to put coversheets on your TPS reports.

    You know... that would explain a lot.

    I'll just go ahead make sure you get another copy of that memo.  Mmkay?

     



  • @wgh said:

    Yet these same idiots you speak of know that the turn signal is that stick thing on the right of the steering column.

    In order to test this theory I spent a few minutes observing cars at a busy junction. So far there is no evidence that any of them are capable of locating and operating their turning signals. 



  • @asuffield said:

    @wgh said:

    Yet these same idiots you speak of know that the turn signal is that stick thing on the right of the steering column.

    In order to test this theory I spent a few minutes observing cars at a busy junction. So far there is no evidence that any of them are capable of locating and operating their turning signals. 

    I have to agree with that.



  • @asuffield said:

    @wgh said:

    Yet these same idiots you speak of know that the turn signal is that stick thing on the right of the steering column.

    In order to test this theory I spent a few minutes observing cars at a busy junction. So far there is no evidence that any of them are capable of locating and operating their turning signals. 

    Any chance they've figured out the right-most pedal is for accelerating?  Or that the floor-mounted stick to the right is for switching gears?  Or that the horn is on the wheel?  Hell, why does anybody know that crap?  🙂

    <FONT size=1>Disclaimer. The above paragraph applies to drivers of automobiles with the controls on the left-hand side of the vehicle.</FONT>



  • @wgh said:

    Any chance they've figured out the right-most pedal is for accelerating?  Or that the floor-mounted stick to the right is for switching gears?  Or that the horn is on the wheel?  Hell, why does anybody know that crap?  🙂

    <font size="1">Disclaimer. The above paragraph applies to drivers of automobiles with the controls on the left-hand side of the vehicle.</font>

    In the UK, I think the pedals are still left-clutch, middle-brake, right-accelerator. Right-hand-drive cars aren't simply left-hand-drive ones mirrored.



  • @m0ffx said:

    @wgh said:

    Any chance they've figured out the right-most pedal is for accelerating?  Or that the floor-mounted stick to the right is for switching gears?  Or that the horn is on the wheel?  Hell, why does anybody know that crap?  🙂

    <FONT size=1>Disclaimer. The above paragraph applies to drivers of automobiles with the controls on the left-hand side of the vehicle.</FONT>

    In the UK, I think the pedals are still left-clutch, middle-brake, right-accelerator. Right-hand-drive cars aren't simply left-hand-drive ones mirrored.

    <FONT size=1>Disclaimer. The above paragraph applies to drivers of automobiles with the controls on the left-hand side of the vehicle.  It may or may not apply to drivers of other countries whose drivers seats are located on the right-side of the vehicle.  Such vehicles, while situating the driver's location on the right side, are not actually true "mirror-images" of the vehicles referenced in the above statement, so in fact some of the statements may actually apply to both vehicles.  In such cases, however, the reader should consider that these and any other applicable statements a sole consequence of coincidence.  Weight loss not typical.  Your mileage may vary.</FONT>



  •  

    Sure, ignore these studies if you wish, but it's your own usability you're harming, driving users away from your site to sites that they can operate without studying. As you said people shy away from having to learn things, by maintaining standards you help users navigate and operate your site without having to learn anything new. Confronted with something they don't understand (A checkbox list they can't tick multiple of) they will run away.



  • @ror said:

    http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20040927.html

     

    Sure, ignore these studies if you wish, but it's your own usability you're harming, driving users away from your site to sites that they can operate without studying. As you said people shy away from having to learn things, by maintaining standards you help users navigate and operate your site without having to learn anything new. Confronted with something they don't understand (A checkbox list they can't tick multiple of) they will run away.

    Actually, most people probably won't even notice it.  They will check the correct answer and move on.   If they change their mind they will check the new answer and notice that the old answer magically became unchecked.  They will then think that the person making the site was really clever for thinking about that and think highly of the sight.  It is extremely unlikely that the average user will then sit there and wonder about how that site broke convention by making their radio buttons look like check boxes.  If you think that this behavior is actually going to drive away a significant number of visitors to your web site, then you are suffering from one of the two conditions:  1.  You are a paranoid moron who thinks that your site has to be WC3 compliant and you have to follow all the industry best practices to succeed.  (hint.  It is unlikely that any that thinks this way has ever created some new innovation, or , for that matter, even had a creative thought.   or 2.  You site's content is so worthless that no one really needs to go there.   Considering that you seem to be a smart guy I am leaning toward 2.

    And just for the record:

    Some tests where you fill in circles actual do require that you fill in more than 1 circle to have the correct answer.

    Sometimes the shifting lever is mounted on the steering column and not on the floorboard.
     

    PS.   I'd be careful going around posting links to some self-important standards pusher who post something that they think on their site and call it "<insert person's name here>'s law".


  • @ror said:

    http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20040927.html

     

    Sure, ignore these studies if you wish

    Those are opinion pieces, not studies.



  • @tster said:

    1.  You are a paranoid moron who thinks that your site has to be WC3 compliant and you have to follow all the industry best practices to succeed. 

    People who think W3C compliance is unimportant are the reason IE dominates. You may not care, but my observations suggest you are outnumbered by developers who do care.

    Giving the finger to W3C compliance and sticking with IE may make you successful, but W3C compliance makes you more successful. And it's, well, an ethical thing to do. And it earns the respect of many geeks who often are the people who make technical decisions for companies large and small. To put it more bluntly: I am more likely to recommend purchasing from a business whose site is W3C compliant than purchasing from a business whose site is not compliant.



  • @asuffield said:

    Pretty sure I did: I spend a large amount of time working with actual users in the real world and I would estimate that around 30%-40% of them (back-of-envelope tally) simply do not know that squares are multiple-choice while circles are alternate-choice,....

    I disagree with your statistics. But lets say I agree with them. I'd rather use a method that 60%-70% of the will know, then a new method that 0% of the people will know. Radio Buttons and Checkboxes have been around for a LONG time. While they may not be perfect, don't change them unless you find something that is incredibly superior.

     @asuffield said:


    I believe that I stated my point quite clearly.

     No you haven't. I don't have a clue what your point is. About the only thing I can see is that some people don't understand what a checkbox is, or a blue underline. I'll agree with you on that, but that is no reason to come up with your own way of doing things.

    As far as the whole blue underline goes, it is more the cursor changing to a hand that should imply a clickable item, not a blue underline. Already click links are no longer blue underlines, not to mention the fact it is easy for the programmer and the user to change how a link looks. But a hand should always mean this item is selectable, click on it.

     The cool think with staying with convention... YOU don't necessarily have to explain it to them. If you follow the UI that pretty much everyone else uses, any decent beginners tutorial on how to use computers will teach them how to use your UI.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.