On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 22:07, Thorsten Wilms <t...@freenet.de> wrote: > On 02/25/2012 07:58 PM, Ian Santopietro wrote: >> >> Directory based navigation is a bad concept for modern computing. Not >> even Windows is holding on to that in Windows 8. Users don't care about >> folders or files. They only want to interact with data. > > > Segmenting data into chunks helps tremendously in dealing with it. A > relation between a number of items, like their membership in a certain set, > is data, too. > > Search-based access breaks down, if you have only a vague concept of what > you are looking for and of what is actually available. It is not a good > strategy for building an overview, to access the big picture.
Yes , that's the point . With a classic apps menu it's super-easy to see the big picture : see what applications are available . > Browsing and searching are 2 approaches that both have their values and > drawbacks. Often best to have both. It's certainly possible to have an implementation that fulfills both usages . > Large numbers of items need to be organized to become browseable. Be that > directories, categories or sets, trees, graphs ... > > > The scenario Adrian touches upon can be summed up as "I want to play – what > games are available on the spot?". Understanding 'Games' as category is > easy, if that label appears on screen. > > Another scenario that suggests a need for straightforward category-based > browsing: > "I vaguely recall that I installed some image-manipulation utility, but do > not recall the name – lets look among apps in 'Graphics'" One more scenario : "I vaguely remember that 5 months ago i've installed 25 audio apps in order to test them . Then I've chosen 4 for everyday use. Let's do some cleanup" . With a classic apps menu the user sees the unused apps every time when he starts an audio app. He is aware that there are some unused programs that waste space . With a search approach , the user will soon forget about uninstalling the unused apps . > Categories can help with step by step narrowing down choices, changing > something like a 1 out of 50 selection into a 1 out of 5 followed by 1 out > of 10 selection. > > >> The number of clicks in this case is completely irrelevant. If the user >> is in a hurry, they will know what they want and use search or a >> launcher shortcut. If they want to browse through the applications >> installed, then the number of clicks doesn't matter. They aren't in a >> hurry to get work done, and individual clicks aren't hard or time >> consuming in this scenario. > > > It always matters if the interface feels efficient and supportive, or > needlessly complicated. Exactly . > Each added step reduces the likelihood that a user becomes aware and sure of > the functionality and completes the task. Setting a "Filter" does not fit > well into a browsing approach. > > If a user is looking for an application that is not on the Launcher and not > among the most recent used of the first Dash page, the probability that they > don't know or have forgotten details like the exact name increases. -- Adrian -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~unity-design Post to : unity-design@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~unity-design More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
