Skip to main content

R.I.P. WYSIWYG - Results-Oriented UI Coming (Jakob Nielsen's Alertbox)

Saw this on ProFox (thanks AGAIN , Malcolm)

It's interesting that Neilsen jumps over the new "results-oriented user interface", as noted by Office 12's interface. His big statement: "We know from user testing that users often demand that other user interfaces work like Office"

It will be interesting to see how this plays out - but keep the key poitns in mind from the new Office 12 interface - it's still all about the document-centric vision.

What do I mean by that? The O/S used to be application-centric - that is you choose the application to do the job you need done. Windows (and the web for that matter) has always tried to be more
document-centric - you work in a document and choose the right tools to do the job.

This new results-centric approach says you choose the tools based on the results you want and it's the job of the interface to make it easier to show what the results are - in short, you don't have to deduce or figure out what the tools mean, the interface should make it plainly obvious to you.

MS has been doing this for a few years now -still it's very telling that Jakob Neilsen is noting the big change in Office 12 as the telling signpost for the next generation user interface.

His comment: "But Microsoft Word 2003 has 1,500 commands, and users typically have no clue where to find most of them." Well the question really should be - do you NEED 1500 commands? (ask that to any Fox developer who knows all about dBloat) - maybe the real solution is the 37signals approach of less is more.

Most people who are starting with word processing (and there are a lot of them) don't get the difference between spaces and tabs or tables or columns so having 20 different commands for each of them essentially creates the UI conundrum.

It's a good article to read though - whether or not you agree or disagree with his conclusion that the Office 12 interface is going to be the defacto standard.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Elevating Project Specifications with Three Insightful ChatGPT Prompts

For developers and testers, ChatGPT, the freely accessible tool from OpenAI, is game-changing. If you want to learn a new programming language, ask for samples or have it convert your existing code. This can be done in Visual Studio Code (using GitHub CoPilot) or directly in the ChatGPT app or web site.  If you’re a tester, ChatGPT can write a test spec or actual test code (if you use Jest or Cypress) based on existing code, copied and pasted into the input area. But ChatGPT can be of huge value for analysts (whether system or business) who need to validate their needs. There’s often a disconnect between developers and analysts. Analysts complain that developers don’t build what they asked for or ask too many questions. Developers complain that analysts haven’t thought of obvious things. In these situations, ChatGPT can be a great intermediary. At its worst, it forces you to think about and then discount obvious issues. At best, it clarifies the needs into documented requirements. ...

Respect

Respect is something humans give to each other through personal connection. It’s the bond that forms when we recognize something—or someone—as significant, relatable, or worthy of care. This connection doesn’t have to be limited to people. There was an  article  recently that described the differing attitudes towards AI tools such as ChatGPT and Google Gemini (formerly Bard). Some people treat them like a standard search while others form a sort of personal relationship — being courteous, saying “please” and “thank you”. Occasionally, people share extra details unrelated to their question, like, ‘I’m going to a wedding. What flower goes well with a tuxedo?’ Does an AI “care” how you respond to it? Of course not — it reflects the patterns it’s trained on. Yet our interaction shapes how these tools evolve, and that influence is something we should take seriously. Most of us have all expressed frustration when an AI “hallucinates”. Real or not, the larger issue is that we have hi...

When A Machine Starts To Care

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Arthur C. Clarke (1962)  I first used that quote when I was starting out in the tech industry. Back then, it was a way to illustrate just how fast and powerful computers had become. Querying large datasets in seconds felt magical—at least to those who didn’t build them.  Today, we’re facing something even more extraordinary. Large Language Models (LLMs) can now carry on conversations that approach human-level fluency. Clarke’s quote applies again. And just as importantly, many researchers argue that LLMs meet—or at least brush up against—the criteria of the Turing Test.  We tend to criticize LLMs for their “hallucinations,” their sometimes-confident inaccuracies. But let’s be honest: we also complain when our friends misremember facts or recount things inaccurately. This doesn’t excuse LLMs—it simply highlights that the behavior isn’t entirely alien. In some ways, it mirrors our own cognitive limits....