On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
I've taught Pd quite a bit at this point, and I have watched many people not understand the number boxes as a interactive GUI element. Its based on my experience, that's all. There is no scientific process behind it. It is also based on my experience learning Pd, back in the day. I remember it took me a while before I could get the examples working, and I had been working with Csound, Cmix, MusicKit and others before, so I was quite familiar with the concepts.
Ok. My next question is then: why isn't numberbox taught before any [output~] is introduced, in tutorials and courses that it's intended to go in?
And then, if they shouldn't learn the numberbox at the beginning, then when should they?... the numberbox is pretty much all over the place, and its behaviour (compared to spinboxes and such) is not something that was done randomly... well, understanding the creative process, then maybe it's been done randomly, but it certainly wasn't kept randomly! ergonomically it makes sense: it gives faster control on a number, than a spinbox does. I'd even say it didn't go far enough. There is no sensitivity control for dragging ("scrolling") into numberboxes. The [nbx] (IEMGUI) class has the log-height feature, but of course it only works in log mode. With the sensitivity control, the numberbox would be a clearer winner, but not as much as if it actually had the spinbox's arrow. That's especially feasible in the [nbx] class, which wastes a lot of space that could be recycled as buttons.
Now, about scientific processes... it's not all to have a scientific process or not... you get to different conclusions (scientific processes or not) depending on what you aim for. This is a part that I don't see many people talking about. One's aims determine assumptions about the research, assumptions that might be implicit or else often worded like they are only ones worth using. But usability studies are funded by companies who have a mass diffusion model. Those companies live by selling new licenses of software. Those licenses of software tend to be more sold to beginners than to experimented users, if the userbase is in vast expansion compared to the rate of license renewal. As the usability studies are ordered by the marketing operations, the assumptions will be as beginner-oriented as the marketing department is. This is why user interfaces are geared towards what the first impression will be like, at the expense of the following years of use, with a tendency to ignore the fact that people learn, because that learning only occurs after the license is bought. This is IMHO why usability studies and famous UI guideline books have to be approached with suspicion, regardless of how tight their scientific and statistical standards are.
Free, community-oriented software isn't necessarily different. Rationally, it depends on their score-keeping: if they are mainly motivated by getting new beginner users, they will just do the same as companies that are mainly selling licenses to new beginner users. Non-rationally, a project could have any other userbase goals but still act like they're aiming for beginners, because they follow UI advice designed for new beginner users without questioning whether it really applies.
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal, Québec