FW: [Sigia-l] Nielsen: It's the end! (long)

[Bill Killam]

What about looking at the facts of his claim instead of just the form of his
delivery.

He begins with this description of Mac-style GUI...

"Menus, toolbars, and dialog boxes operate on the screen's visual objects,
which faithfully represent user goals. This is known as WYSIWYG, or What You
See Is What You Get."

The menus, toolbars, and dialog boxes are part of the application's sequence
control. WYSIWYG is an attribute of visible display. They are not
synonymous. Sequence control may be used to act on the data that is
displayed, but it's not part of the data display and may be used to control
operations or functions that have no visual representation.  In addition,
WYSIWYG is an end state of the data, not how you got there.  Then he starts
referring to it as "direct manipulation" as though it's synonymous with what
he's been talking about so far. But direct manipulation is a different form
of sequence control and only one alternative to menu-style sequence control.
So, if you understand what he's suggesting (though he's using imprecise
terminology) is not the death of the GUI but the death of directly
manipulation and menu driven forms of application sequence control.  It
can't be the death of WYSIWYG since even this supposedly new form of
sequence control results in a WYSIWYG display of the data.

Then he explains that the new paradigm will be based on selection from "a
galleries of possible end-states, each of which combine many formatting
operations". This isn't not new. I have multiple version of this concept as
a feature in many applications I have been using this feature for years.
Excel, PowerPoint, and Word have had elements of this in them for many
generations.  And to believe that a preview form of sequence control can be
used to replace both data direct manipulation and menu-driven interfaces is
to believe that someone can present a gallery of every possible combination
of formatting options a user might want to use.  This suggests a very large
gallery or a very small set of options. If not, users would still have to
edit the results after selecting from a gallery of options, so some form of
data manipulation will still be required - DM, menu, or some other form.

Then there internal consistency in his argument. He states on one part
"Compared with earlier interaction paradigms, the Mac-style GUI's features
*are far more usable*" and then later states "[Microsoft] tried to retrofit
usability onto *an overly complicated foundation* and failed." So which is
he claiming, GUIs are far more usable or overly complicated? (And it not
both.) It is, in fact, not an overly complicated foundation, it is, at
worst, a foundation based on presumptions about the user base that is no
longer appropriate for most users (i.e., casual users who must reply on
recognition over recall). But usability of this paradigm is defined by the
user, not the application.  The paradigm of a WIMP interface (which is the
correct title, not GUI), is, in general, far more usable for casual users
but overly pacing for frequent users (not overly complicated). But we're not
talking about the paradigm.  We're talking about specific interfaces
developed within this paradigm.  Some interface designs, containing too many
options, poorly worded or poorly organized menus, or misused approaches may
be overly complicated but that's not a function of the paradigm.  It's a
function of the application design.  A redesign (within the same paradigm)
could make the same application for more usable.  And this has been
discussed before - also triggered by his comments.  When the claim was that
[whatever] is 99% bad (Flash, PDF, GUI, etc.), it was discussed that
"whatever" isn't what's bad, it's how good the design is that uses whatever
(Flash, PDF, GUI, etc.).

Then there's the accuracy of his representation of the new design itself. He
states "the most obvious departure from the past is that menus and toolbars
are all but wiped out". The new interface is based on "command tabs". These
are described by Microsoft this way: "Command Tabs display the commands that
are most relevant for each of the task areas". Take a look at them yourself.
You access each command tab by selecting from a list of types of functions
based on the type of operation you are performing (e.g., Write, Insert, Page
Layout, etc.). That's a top level menu. And what you get are graphical
representations of the commands that were formerly displayed as text menu
items.  You only see one set of commands at a time.  This is a replacement
of the traditional text menus with graphical representations of text menus.
Graphical menus are still menus.  And as to the ability of this new design
to kill the GUI or replace the menu-driven or DM interfaces altogether.
Well, Microsoft's "overriding design goal for the new UI" is much different.
It is designed to enable users "to be more successful finding and using the
*advanced features* of Microsoft Office." Not basic operations, advanced
features.  Users will still select text and click on the Bold button for
change something to bold.  Hardly a complete paradigm shift.

Yes. Most application designs become too complicated as more and more
features are added. It's been that way since before Microsoft and will be
that way after Microsoft. And yes, the new UI to the Microsoft office is a
shift away from text menus.  This is not a paradigm shift. It's is not an
acknowledgement of a basic failure of the GUI. It's not the death of
anything. It's some good ideas to try to simplify the existing design for
frequent users. No more. No less.

Bill
-------------------------------------------------------
Bill Killam, MA CHFP
President, User-Centered Design, Inc.
20548 Deerwatch Place
Ashburn, VA 20147
email: bkillam at user-centereddesign.com
Work/Fax: (703) 729-0998
Mobile: (703) 626-6318
Web: www.user-centereddesign.com