On May 22, 2008, at 12:10 PM, Dave Land wrote: > On May 22, 2008, at 7:01 AM, David Hobby wrote: > >> Ronn! Blankenship wrote: >>> At 05:51 AM Thursday 5/22/2008, David Hobby wrote: >> ... >>>> The problem was that the thing had 4 buttons, pretty much >>>> unlabeled. I tried pressing all 4, then holding all 4, >>>> then pressing twice, then combinations... And never did >>>> find the setting mode. Of course the only test for the >>>> setting mode was that you could set the watch in it, and >>>> maybe you had to hold a button before it started to set, >>>> or something. Or maybe the watch was just broken, and >>>> COULDN'T be set. >>> >>> >>> >>> Did any of the buttons cause any change at all, e.g., toggle between >>> time and date display? >> >> Ronn-- >> >> Oh, of course. And I could get 12-hour or 24-hour >> display, and some other stuff. Just not what I wanted. >> ... >> >> I figured somebody would propose taking out the battery, >> and then putting it back in at just the right time. >> But we agree that's cheating? > > Oh, no, that's not cheating at all: that's hacking, the highest form > of geek art -- use some built-in characteristic of the system to your > advantage. > > It probably means inserting batteries at midnight, and you still won't > get the alarm set. > > I am not a fan of any interface that requires holding a button down > until it activates a second function (or, as in my Honda Accord to > open all the locks at once, turning and holding the door key long > enough) because it does not have a "positive" feel. I would prefer > double-clicking (or turning the key twice, as in my wife's VW). > > On the Mac, under the classic OS, at any rate, with the single-button > mouse, that was how you got a pull-down menu in some circumstances: > just hold the button down long enough. Never liked that. Right- > clicking (a la Windows) is preferable. Option-Clicking (the Mac OS X > equivalent of right-clicking) is OK, but sometimes takes 2 hands. > > Dave
Modality can be handy, if it's a modality that has some sort of intuitive value to it. I agree about switch/button controls that have a "hold longer" modality, though, because it makes the functions both harder to find and somewhat confusing when you do find them. It's a very cheap modality to put into a product, because it's only software, but the "double click" modality is better for those solutions. :) (I do kind of like the "press harder" modality that puts a second "click" into the switch mechanism that provides a second function. That's something intuitive my finger can feel, and it instantly registers that there's a second function on that button. But that requires special switches, not just software.) I tell people the Mac actually has 16 mouse buttons, it's just that they all share the same switch and which one you're clicking depends on which binary combination of Shift, Ctrl, Option, or Command you hold down. (Pretty sure only Adobe uses all 16. :D ) I will concur wholeheartedly, though, that hidden modality on unlabeled buttons is a Bad Thing. Especially if finding the right combination of unlabeled buttons and second/third function modalities by trial and error takes any significant amount of time per trial .. "I'm over the moon. This is my over-the-moon face." -- Toby Ziegler _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
