Are preferences good or bad?

At 09:43 -0800 UTC, on 2007-11-19, David Silbey wrote:

[...]

> These arguments tend to go in the same way. The issue of mousing vs.
> keyboarding comes up, the HI studies that suggest that mousing is
> faster than keyboarding are cited, and a wave of responses arrive
> arguing with those conclusions.

I think that's an incorrect observation. No studies have been provided at all.

[...]

> "I'm no brain specialist, but it doesn't seem likely to me that my
> brain activity before cmd-c can be called "making a choice" (other
> than in strictly
> puristic terms, perhaps)."
>
> Lots of things that "don't seem likely" to me nonetheless appear to be
> true.

Absolutely. But you quoted me too selectively. I specifically said about
Tog's claim: "I would like to believe it, and would like to find it
interesting, and would like to have to adjust my opinion". I mean that. Life
is more fun when it now and then surprises you.

Also, let's be fair: when someone says "it seems likely to me" or "I
suspect", then he's being very clear that he's just giving an opinion -- not
claiming any truth. (I'm not saying that Lukas or Tog are lying. Just that
when it is claimed that "research shows", that research will need to be
available. Else, for all pratical purposes, there is no research, just a
claim/opinion.)


--
Sander Tekelenburg, <http://www.euronet.nl/~tekelenb/>

--On November 19, 2007 9:48:43 AM -0800 Lukas Mathis <Lukas.Mthis.li>
wrote:

> Well, no: The feature is there even if you do not use it. For example,
> say you usually close windows with Alt-F4. You're in a Windows
> Explorer window and want to select all files using Ctrl-A. If you
> accidentally hit Ctrl-W instead, the window will close, and it will be
> non-obvious as to *why* it has closed, because the you know that the
> keyboard shortcut to close windows should be Alt-F4, which isn't
> anywhere near Ctrl-A.
>
> Each new way to achieve a goal is a potential pitfall to those who
> want to achieve a different goal.

The mouse interface is not exempt from this, in fact I see more mistakes
made using the mouse than keyboard. Accidentally double-click the title
bar and the window closes, accidentally drag one folder into another (i saw
this ALL the time when I was on help desk, at one time I'd estimate 10% of
our backup recoveries were for directories that "someone had deleted" when
in reality they had been dragged by accident into another folder).


> What's more, all these features have to be documented and maintained.

I'm sorry but eliminating flexibility from software just so it's easier on
the programmer, rather than being able to fit the workflow of the user is a
poor interface. Documentation that just spews out every way of doing
something is poor documentation. Most documentation that I like typically
shows the mouse way, and the shortcuts are relegated to an appendix or a
power users chapter.

> I can close the frontmost window
> in Windows Explorer with Ctrl-W; I can't close it in Notepad with
> Ctrl-W.

I'll never argue that an inconsistent interface is a good interface, but
this is more a Windows issue than a Mac issue.

> All I can say is that Tog's test results agree with our own usability
> tests: Using the mouse is on average faster than using a combination
> of mouse and keyboard, or using the keyboard alone. There are
> exceptions, but as a general rule, it holds.

Hmmm, I wonder what type of application or tests you're specifically
looking at.

Here are a couple that I think would disagree with your results, and some
are not exactly in the category of "exception" but rather are things that
most users will have to do every day:

Find a web form (or a database form, or a spreadsheet, etc...) with lots of
text (not number) entries. Type each field in and do not tab between
fields. Instead switch between the mouse and the keyboard to select the
next field. Repeat tabbing between each field. I can guess which is going
to be faster. If in a spreadsheet, count number of times the wrong cell
was selected by user.

On a 20" monitor, click an app in the dock then mouse to the close button
on the window. Try it on a 30" monitor. Try it with Dual screens and the
window on the non-dock screen. Now click the app then hit cmd+w (this is
really fast if you mouse right handed and your hand doesn't have to lift
from the mouse.) Try with alt+tab, cmd+w (this will be slow if you have
lots of apps open and the one you want is last -- and you don't remember
alt+shift+tab goes backwards.)

Same test with any program that is primarily text driven: word processor,
e-mail. Type the body of what you're working on, pick up mouse and save or
send message. Repeat with shortcut for that action. I'm so paranoid about
power outages that I save everytime I hit enter. It's enter, cmd+s. Try
writing a 12 paragraph document using just the mouse to save at every
paragraph. Repeat with a programming IDE where you save after every line
(yes, I do this. It has saved me countless times.) I can make this kind of
fast with a mouse by pre-positioning the mouse over the save button. But it
is pretty much ruined as soon as I want to select a body of text with the
mouse, or switch to another program and then back and I need to reposition
the mouse again.

Open a nice long document (say 20 pages) that you want to enter text at the
end of. Use the scollbar to move to the end. Then try again, but this
time click the document, then ctrl+end (even if you first try end by
itself, then ctrl+end it's going to be faster.) Don't stop timing until
you've actually entered the text in it's proper place.

Some less common examples:

In a graphical program, use only the mouse to precisely place a graphical
object. Now try using the mouse to place it approximately, then use arrow
keys to nudge it into place. This one is really fast if you mouse left
handed (I like mousing left handed because it allows me to use the mouse,
arrow keys and number pad all at the same time. although it hurts for
things like closing windows, selecting/copying/pasting text since those
shortcuts tend to be on the left-side of the keyboard.

In a cadd package enter a line that is 1.2358 meters long with a mouse.



I do think there are programs that work best with one or the other
interface only (for example I don't think I've ever used a keyboard
shortcut in iTunes except maybe cmd+q). But your software should be geared
to allowing your users to perform their tasks with your software more
quickly, especially after they've used it for awhile. Using only a mouse
(or only a keyboard) interface because of some usability test performed on
software doing different things than your own is a very bad idea. And
generalizing your own usability tests on your software to all other
software is equally a bad idea.

On Nov 20, 2007, at 5:40 PM, Sander Tekelenburg wrote:

> Absolutely. But you quoted me too selectively. I specifically said
> about
> Tog's claim ...

Tog does UI very well, and I usually agree with him. (And often
change my mind so that I agree with him.)

I do remember what he was doing before joining Apple: running a San
Francisco area electronics store (which sold Apple ][s but not as
anything like a primary business). He also created the essentially UI-
less* but fun, well-done, and easy to watch "Great American
Probability Machine" and "Infinite Number of Monkeys".

* The UI: Load cassette. Watch. Listen.

Perhaps he was a UI expert pre-Apple, and the store was a resting
place in the career. Perhaps he became a UI expert (with help from
Jef Raskin????). He certainly is one, regardless. (And I'm assuming
that there aren't TWO Bruce Tognazini people involved, but no one I
noticed ever claimed that.)

   --John (who was in ComputerLand of San DIego when one of the owners
(Norm) came out of the back room with a message from headquarters
which he read to the other owner (Dave) which said that IBM Boca Raton
had just ordered 100 Apple ][s from ComputerLand of Boca Raton)

At 06:48 -0800 UTC, on 2007-11-23, johnbaxterlistsmac.com wrote:

> On Nov 20, 2007, at 5:40 PM, Sander Tekelenburg wrote:
>
>> Absolutely. But you quoted me too selectively. I specifically said
>> about Tog's claim ...
>
> Tog does UI very well, and I usually agree with him.

I don't mean to suggest that I dismiss Tog. All I'm saying is that on the
cited Web page, Tog says that research shows something, yet he doesn't
provide that research. Given his reputation, we can qualify that as a
valuable expert opinion, but not as evidence.


--
Sander Tekelenburg, <http://www.euronet.nl/~tekelenb/>

[Last time I'll bug the list with the difference between providing evidence,
and saying "evidence exists". I promise.]

At 06:48 -0800 UTC, on 2007-11-23, David Silbey wrote:

> On Nov 21, 2007, at 5:18 AM, <tidbits-talktidbits.com>
><tidbits-talktidbits.com
> > wrote:
>
>> I think that's an incorrect observation. No studies have been
>> provided at all.
>
> Tog's studies have been cited a number of times in this thread.

Where? I've only seen a pointer to
<http://www.asktog.com/TOI/toi06KeyboardVMouse1.html>, which contains no
study whatsoever. Just Tog saying that "study shows".

[...]

> Or gone looking for his studies?

I can't find them. If those studies are available, why is noone pointing to
them?

[...]

> $29.95 from Amazon:
><http://www.amazon.com/Tog-Interface-Bruce-Tognazzini/dp/0201608421/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195647797&sr=1-1>

The reviews all speak of "ideas, opinions, intuitive insights" etc. Nothing
that suggests that this book contains actual research. I'm sure it's probably
a good read. But that wasn't the point ;)


--
Sander Tekelenburg, <http://www.euronet.nl/~tekelenb/>

On 11/23/2007 6:48 AM, "David Silbey" wrote:
> My larger point is that the arguments have tended to be carried out
> with evidence (studies, research, etc--possibly flawed) on one side,
> and 'it seems likely to me' on the other. Those things are not of
> equal weight.

The only "evidence" that has been posed is Tog's comments, based on
usability studies performed in the early '80s. And those studies did not
show that it's always faster to use a mouse.

On the other hand, as far back as 1986, Buxton showed that keyboard
shortcuts allow users to work more efficiently -- meaning faster -- in many
situations; for example, in editing text, where you need to select and
copy/cut/paste frequently. Tog even acknowledges this in the very article to
which you're referring.


On 11/19/2007 9:48 AM, "Lukas Mathis" wrote:
> All I can say is that Tog's test results agree with our own usability
> tests: Using the mouse is on average faster than using a combination
> of mouse and keyboard, or using the keyboard alone. There are
> exceptions, but as a general rule, it holds.

The problem with that claim is that there is no "general rule" when you're
talking about a metric that changes dramatically depending on the context.
To achieve a predictable result, you have to define the circumstances to a
point where the rule is no longer general -- it applies only to the
circumstances of a particular study.

Specifically, whether mousing or the keyboard is faster in a given scenario
depends on many factors: the particular command; which key(s) are used for
the shortcut; whether the user will have their hand on the keyboard or the
mouse when the command is likely to be invoked; whether the onscreen command
is a button or buried in a menu; how long the person has been using the
program; how often the command is used; whether the command is typically
used several times sequentially; and so on. (And, of course, different users
are faster or slower with one approach relative to the other.) Because so
many factors influence the relative speeds of each method, the concept of
"average speed" is pretty much useless here.

Or, to put it another way, say I asked you, "Which is faster: using the
mouse to choose a command from the menu bar or using the equivalent keyboard
shortcut?" Would you wager your own hard-earned money that your answer would
be correct without knowing more about the program, command, shortcut, and
user? I wouldn't ;-)

That's the only point I, and several others, have been making, and one that
even Tog acknowledges. I don't think anyone is arguing that keyboard
shortcuts are *always* faster or "better."


And let's not forget that keyboard shortcuts are not designed to be used for
every command. Rather, they're designed to be an alternative way to access
frequently-used commands, with "frequently-used" being the key phrase. If
you use a particular command frequently enough to memorize and recall its
keyboard shortcut, you've decided for yourself that the effort it takes to
use that particular shortcut is outweighed by the increased efficiency that
comes from using it; for those commands you don't use very often, it's
easier to continue to use the mouse. In other words, in *real-world* use,
keyboard shortcuts are almost by-definition faster because they're selected
by the user to be so.

And that's really the problem with most "usability studies" that claim
mousing is faster than keyboard shortcuts: they don't take into account
real-world use and the fact that people choose to use *particular* keyboard
shortcuts, based on their own workflows, rather than using shortcuts
exclusively.

On 11/23/2007 08:48 AM, "David Silbey" <silbeysilbey.net> wrote:

Tog's studies have been cited a number of times in this thread. Have you read his book on interface design? Or gone looking for his studies?

Tog has some interesting opinions on UI design. Some I agree with, some I don't. However, he has a rather bad habit of making it look like he helped create the Mac UI rules, when he had nothing to do with the creation, just the documentation.

He is however *entirely* too rigid in his ideas on muscle/nerve memory, as he thinks that it is impossible, or really hard, to develop muscle/nerve memory in a dynamic environment. That somehow, the fact that the Dock is static will kill such things.

After having studied martial arts for almost twenty years, I can say that his ideas here are hogwash. Muscle/nerve memory functions quite well in a dynamic environment, as the nigh-200 joint locks I've learned at multiple angles, moving and from static "sets" have shown me. That one issue right there makes me discount a great many of his, and in fact, most of the OMGOSXUISUXXOR crowd's arguments.

As well, the idea that Mac OS 9 was some great bastion of consistency is absolutely laughable, but again, Tog, and to some extent, Siracusa both push that meme, so again, I have a rather hard time taking any of that POV's points seriously.

-- John C. Welch

On 23-Nov-2007, at 07:48, David Silbey wrote:

My larger point is that the arguments have tended to be carried out with evidence (studies, research, etc--possibly flawed) on one side, and 'it seems likely to me' on the other. Those things are not of equal weight.

Since the studies are based on data that is 20 years old, I don't think the studies are at ALL relevant. They also did not test how people actually use a computer, but rather how neophytes can follow and remember instructions on how to use a computer.

Is anyone seriously going to defend the notion that pasting something 10 times is faster via the menu and mouse than simply pressing command- v 10 times in rapid succession?

mousing is 'faster' for infrequently performed tasks because you have to remember far less specific information, just a general spacial 'it's over in this area' sort of memory. For frequent tasks though, the time taken to move to the mouse, orient the mouse, move to the menu, click and move again, and possibly wait for a secondary menu and move some more is MUCH longer than hitting a specific key combo you already have learned. I don't care how many studies there are, that is a simple fact. Even if the target is an icon on the screen with no menus (say a toolbar) just the act of moving from the keyboard to the mouse, orienting, selecting, and THEN MOVING BACK (something Tog ignores completely), is going to be longer for any task where you know the keyboard short-cut.

What's the fastest way for me to open an application on my computer. It is NOT to go to the Finder, go to the Applications, find the app, and double-click on it. I can time that easily, and it can take well over 10 seconds. I can open any app on my computer in less than a three seconds with the keyboard though, and if it's an app I use frequently, it might take less than one. It will never take 10.

Until there are studies done that 1) replicate how people actually USE computers and 2) use people who are not tyros; the studies are worthless.

Look at it this way, how do you learn to be a better tennis player? Do you go out and film a bunch of 6 year-olds who've never even SEEN a racket, analyze their movements and say "Hey, we can extrapolate from this the best way to play tennis" or do you look at professional tennis players and analyze their movements and motions. Which one tells you about the most efficient way to hit the ball?

Tog's studies looked at 6 year-olds who'd never seen a racket and claim to know how a Wimbledon Champion should play.

On 11/24/2007 06:21 AM, "John C. Welch" <jwelchbynkii.com> wrote:


> That somehow, the fact that the Dock is static will kill such things.
                                                          ^
                                                          not

sigh
--
John C. Welch

There has been little mention in this thread that people are
different, in addition to tasks being different.

This person has never been able to learn more than a few keyboard
shortcuts at a time. As one example, there is the series of arrow
plus modifier keyboard commands which select text or extend
selections. Those had settled down and become reasonably consistent
in text situations by the late 1980 or early 1990s. I've never been
able to learn them. (Yet I already use control-arrow happily moving
amongst "spaces"; so I'm not consistent in my lack of learning.)

That's one of the two reasons I never installed QuickKeys--the other
being the obvious trouble those who did had with every revision to the
system (CE Software did a great job of keeping up with the problems).

Many of you who are contributing to the thread would be seriously
annoyed if the keyboard commands you use were to vanish, just as I
would be if my mouse and menus vanished.

   --John

At 5:42 AM -0800 11/25/07, johnbaxterlistsmac.com wrote:
>Many of you who are contributing to the thread would be seriously
>annoyed if the keyboard commands you use were to vanish, just as I
>would be if my mouse and menus vanished.

I agree with John.

I also believe that we're beating this one in a little bit too much.
If someone shows me that they interact with OS X (or Windows XP/Vista
or XWindows) exclusively with the mouse (excluding text entry) or
exclusively with the keyboard I'll buy you a bag of cookies.

I think its been explored quite well, and there has been many
interesting observations and assertions on this thread, but its
getting to the point of fighting the OS X/Windows religious wars
here.. Both are necessary and both are valid ways to use the
computer. Certain users will be faster with one method than with the
other, and this will vary by user as well as other factors.

Respectfully,
~Nick
http://www.inmff.net

On Nov 21, 2007, at 5:18 AM, <tidbits-talktidbits.com> <tidbits-talktidbits.com
 > wrote:

> I think that's an incorrect observation. No studies have been
> provided at all.


Tog's studies have been cited a number of times in this thread. Have
you read his book on interface design? Or gone looking for his studies?

> Also, let's be fair: when someone says "it seems likely to me" or "I
> suspect", then he's being very clear that he's just giving an
> opinion -- not
> claiming any truth. (I'm not saying that Lukas or Tog are lying.
> Just that
> when it is claimed that "research shows", that research will need to
> be
> available. Else, for all pratical purposes, there is no research,
> just a
> claim/opinion.)


$29.95 from Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Tog-Interface-Bruce-Tognazzini/dp/0201608421/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195647797&sr=1-1

or Tog has a web site: asktog.com

My larger point is that the arguments have tended to be carried out
with evidence (studies, research, etc--possibly flawed) on one side,
and 'it seems likely to me' on the other. Those things are not of
equal weight.

cheers,
David

David Silbey History Alvernia College
silbeysilbey.net

The statement

> I don't care how many studies there are, that is a simple fact

Seems appropriate to go along with:

> but its
> getting to the point of fighting the OS X/Windows religious wars
> here

It's interesting to note that my comment--that the discussion of
mousing vs. keyboarding is dominated by anecdotal evidence with the
only data available (whatever its flaws) suggest that mousing is
faster--was greeted almost entirely by more anecdotal evidence. Dan
Frakes mentioned a study that contradicted the Apple UI studies, which
was kind of him.

I'm deeply skeptical that there hasn't been any research that advances
this, especially since the "Human Factors and Ergonomics Society" has
it's own peer-reviewed journal, the creatively named "Human Factors:
The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society." (http://www.hfes.org/Publications/ProductDetail.aspx?ProductId=1
).

I'm beginning to suspect that folks have pretty much decided what they
believe, and that evidence of one sort or another is essentially
irrelevant at this point.

cheers,
David

David Silbey History Alvernia College
silbeysilbey.net

Quoting David Silbey <silbeysilbey.net>:

> I'm deeply skeptical that there hasn't been any research that advances
> this, especially since the "Human Factors and Ergonomics Society" has
> it's own peer-reviewed journal, the creatively named "Human Factors:
> The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society."
> (http://www.hfes.org/Publications/ProductDetail.aspx?ProductId=1
> ).

Many researchers that get published here will make their work
available for free on their own web sites. If you see a title that is
interesting try pasting it into Google and see what turns up.

One article I found titled "KEYBOARD SHORTCUT USAGE:
THE ROLES OF SOCIAL FACTORS AND COMPUTER EXPERIENCE" contains the
quote (I've not read the whole article yet):

"Previous research (Lane, Napier, Peres, & Sandor, in press) has shown
that despite the fact that it typically takes half as much time to issue a
command to a computer application using that command?s keyboard
shortcut, most people issue a particular command by clicking an icon on a
toolbar or by selecting the command from a pull-down menu."

http://chil.rice.edu/research/pdf/PeresEtal-HFES.pdf

So apparently their is research showing keyboarding to be faster, but
that users prefer menus and this paper trys to explain why.

Admittedly, I'm somewhat surprised (nay, flabbergasted! :-) by the
vehemence of the discussion which the mere suggestion that keyboard
shortcuts may decrease your efficiency has spawned. I never intended
to start a religious war; I'm a scientist, not a priest. I'm almost a
bit sorry I mentioned it at all.

To be sure, I never intended to somehow insult people who are using
keyboard shortcuts. As I've said, I use them myself, and I feel more
productive using them, too. However, that doesn't change the fact that
I only *feel* more productive and probably am not, and it also doesn't
change the fact that the usability tests I've done suggest that
keyboard shortcuts tend to slow people down instead of speeding them
up. You're free to not believe me, of course, and you're obviously
also free to argue, and to find reasons as for why *you* are the
exception to this rule, although I'm not quite sure why you would; I
never suggested you should stop using keyboard shortcuts.

Admittedly I can't publish my results (I currently work for a private
company, and I've long lost the work I've done back when I was
studying, which I could publish, but was mostly about web usability
anyway, and thus didn't involve much on keyboard shortcuts) so I will
gladly admit that I can't prove this to you. So I dug up Tog's book.
He offers more details about his results, but does not publish the
actual studies he ran. He does, however, print letters from people who
disagree with him (many of those mirror the arguments brought up in
this disucssion) and explains why the reasoning in those letters is
faulty. There's too much to reprint here; if you find the book, look
in the Index under "Command keys vs. mouse." Here's an interesting
quote about something that was brought up in defense of Command keys,
copy and paste: Tog actually agrees with this one.

"Not that any of the above True Facts will stop the religious wars.
And, in fact, I find myself on the opposite side in at least one
instance, namely editing. By using Command-X, -C, and -V, ,the user
can select with one hand and act with the other. Two-handed input. Two
handed input results in solid productivity gains."

So hopefully, we can all calm down now :-)

As I've said, you're entirely free to not believe me; you're entirely
free to argue; all I can do is reiterate that 1) you're not objective
when evaluating your own efficiency, and 2) reasoning doesn't help a
whole lot with usability, as logic often has little correlation with
how people actually behave.

Given that I can't offer proof, there's no reason to believe me;
however, in this particular matter, there's just as little reason to
believe your own feelings.

Since I've probably mentioned these two points more than once by now,
and since I can't offer proof for my point, I henceforth shall say no
more on this whole issue :-)

lukas

On 29-Nov-2007, at 09:14, Lukas Mathis wrote:
> To be sure, I never intended to somehow insult people who are using
> keyboard shortcuts. As I've said, I use them myself, and I feel more
> productive using them, too. However, that doesn't change the fact that
> I only *feel* more productive and probably am not,

[Snip]

> "Not that any of the above True Facts will stop the religious wars.
> And, in fact, I find myself on the opposite side in at least one
> instance, namely editing. By using Command-X, -C, and -V, ,the user
> can select with one hand and act with the other. Two-handed input. Two
> handed input results in solid productivity gains."


Either keyboard commands are less efficient or they aren't. If the
editing keystrokes are somehow magically more efficient than mousing,
then other keyboard options must also be even if not all of them are.
And those options probably depend on the specific user, their usage,
and how familiar they are with the keyboard shortcuts for whatever
action they are telling the computer to do.

For example, when I am done sending mail I hit the command-shift-d to
send it. This takes me no time since I position my hands over the
right keys while I scan over the message. I never use the send button
in the toolbar or the menu command. Moving my hands off the keyboard
takes time, and there is simply no getting around that. Moving them
back also takes time, while positioning them over the right keys
takes, essentially, no time at all.

On the other hand, I see a lot of computer users who never use the
keyboard shortcuts, but these are people who use their computers far
less than I do (anything less than 12 hours a day is a neophyte :) and
I see them spending a lot of time hunting for the right menu option or
scrubbing the toolbar for the right icon. I finally got my wife used
to using command-p instead of looking for a print button that may or
may not be there, and that might still be the only command key she
regularly uses, but it's faster than hunting down the button and then
reverting to the menu.

The other thing to keep in mind is that for many users, the trackpad
is the only non-keyboard option, and there the difference is even more
obvious. the trackpad is a terrible input device, and much much
slower than anything else. But it's small, built in to the laptop,
and it works well enough for most uses and most users.

On Nov 30, 2007, at 5:32 AM, <tidbits-talktidbits.com> <tidbits-talktidbits.com
 > wrote:

> So apparently their is research showing keyboarding to be faster, but
> that users prefer menus and this paper trys to explain why.

Aha! Excellent. Thank you, that's very useful, and it advances the
discussion past the "Well, _I'm_ faster/slower with keyboard/mouse"
stage.

> As I've said, you're entirely free to not believe me; you're entirely
> free to argue; all I can do is reiterate that 1) you're not objective
> when evaluating your own efficiency, and 2) reasoning doesn't help a
> whole lot with usability, as logic often has little correlation with
> how people actually behave.

Amen.

David Silbey History Alvernia College
silbeysilbey.net

Lewis Butler wrote:
>the trackpad is a terrible input device, and much much
>slower than anything else.

It's so terrible that I refuse to use it. A standard USB mouse,
identical to the one on my desktop machine, lives in my laptop
carrying bag. Unless I there is space to use it, I won't even unpack
the laptop.

The trackball on my former Powerbook(?) 100 was a *much* more usable
device. Unfortunately, it's too large to be practical in today's
thin machines.

On 29-Nov-07, at 11:52 PM, LewisGmail wrote:

> On 29-Nov-2007, at 09:14, Lukas Mathis wrote:
>> To be sure, I never intended to somehow insult people who are using
>> keyboard shortcuts. ..... Two-handed input. Two
>> handed input results in solid productivity gains."
>
> Either keyboard commands are less efficient or they aren't....

Taking Lewis, and others who like keyboard commands, seriously: you
might like to look at Loopware iFlash as a memory aid.

The only ways I can remember text are as practical action; as a song
or as part of a picture, still or video. iFlash take text, audio &
still graphics.

George

Mouse-and-menu productivity is also affected by the size of the
screen on which you are working, and where your current work spot is
on that screen. Regardless of one's muscle memory for menu
locations, and regardless of mouse movement speed and acceleration
settings, moving a greater distance on the screen takes more time
than moving a lesser distance. This is counterbalanced to some
extent by the fact that on a larger screen you may need to scroll
less often because you can see more at one glance. (A scroll wheel
mouse helps, too.)

Much also depends on what features are available through the keyboard
and mouse portions of the UI. I still remember what a rush it was,
years ago, to discover that double-click-and-drag could be used to
accomplish word-at-a-time selection. Since I was already using a
Kensington two-button mouse, with the right button set to
double-click, that was an enormous boost to my productivity.
(NeoOffice hasn't implemented that yet, which is a drag!)

I find that I am most productive in applications and situations where
I can use both hand effectively - right hand on the mouse for
selection or placement, and left hand on the keyboard for
cut/copy/paste (as well as undo, select-all, save, close, quit).
This also applies in games, except that there it's called speed
rather than productivity. ;-)

But clearly a person with different abilities or limitations might
find some other combination of UI elements to be most productive. So
it is incumbent on software and hardware manufacturers to supply
products which can be used as the customer chooses, even whan that
might not be the manufacturer's own preference.