Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Online book for usability

[Tom Lord]

    > From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden>

    >     >>> Tonight I bumped into an online book that covers usability
    >     >>> with GUI programs.

    >     >>> Though arch isn't a gui program, enough of the concepts still
    >     >>> apply that I'd like to humbly suggest that others may be
    >     >>> interested in it.

    >     David> Interesting reading, thanks.

    > I'm curious what you found interesting about it.

    > To expand on my earlier "-1": I thought that for its target (programs
    > whose market is bigger than a 100% share of Mac users) it was about 3X
    > as long as it needed to be, and that for JB's implied context ("arch
    > isn't gui, but") the self-evaluation that the book is relevant to
    > programs with more than 10^7 paying customers is correct: it's not
    > really very applicable to arch design.

Seeing as how I am behind in so many old things and working so hard on
some new things, I have skipped following the link.  But...

    > Certainly, some of the principles are, but those also tend to be the
    > principles that Tom (primus inter pares) explains regularly, some of
    > them daily.  On the contrary, one of the book's main themes was "ask
    > any five random people, they don't even need to be users yet, and do
    > what makes them happy", which contradicts Tom's regular statement that
    > even if everyone who posts to to arch-users agrees on a UI issue,
    > that's of less importance than the instinct of any _one_ of several
    > experienced developer/users.

"contradicts" or "qualifies"?

Satisfying 5 random users is close enough to exactly what I do as to
make for nevermind.   But what kind of "random" selection of users are
we talking about?   Not very random but not deterministic, either.

For me, it's very simple:

Consider the population of people with whom I can talk about arch as a
peer rather than as a mentor.  Consider the subset of that who is
willing to speak up thoughtfully on UI matters.  Consider the subset
of that who are people I reliably have very pleasent interactions
with, even if we are fighting.  On most minor UI-tweak topics, I
sample their opinions and act on the basis of rough concesnus.  On
major UI topics, I randomly sample many many messages; I give some
weight to the peers; having observed the raw data of subjective
reports, I meditate on what I know about objective possibilities.  I
perform a ritual involving some candles, some water from a spring in
the mountains of Marin, masturbation, exactly 7/8ths of one beer,
tinctures of this and that, some dusty tomes, and a careful
observation of the shape, length, freshness, and stickiness of
snail-trails in the garden my landlord's keep.  Then I forget all
that, make something up, and do that.

Ok, not really.

Here's a really good book which I've recently been re-reading and
meditating upon:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195121236/qid=1087849492/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-4239373-0976969?v=glance&s=books&n=507846


-t