> But it works well in more simple use cases, and it is certainly > the most easy to understand and use for any user. My experience is that the other method works equally well for simple use cases -- like application menus. Further, I do not find the arbitrary applicability in the Windows environments to be easy to understand. It is needlessly confusing. File lists in Windows Explorer use first-letter-only-check-where-you-are-repeat-as-necessary whereas email lists in Outlook uses type-as-many-letters-as-you-like-and-jump-there. Do you disagree that these UI situations are similar? Jesper, you are a big proponent of consistency and simplicity. I find it a little surprising that you are not willing to acknowledge the cognitive load associated with determining (or guessing) from context which find-as-you-type modality is in effect. With regard to lists of links, how does the end user know a priori if the list will be short or not? Should the find as you type method change depending on size? A short list will be reasonable to navigate with any method -- since it is short! With long lists, the simple first-letter-only algorithm can be virtually useless. It seems to me than the more sophisticated algorithm with wider usage case would be preferable. There is a challenging issue associated with making type-as-many-letters-as-you-like-and-jump-there useable for slow typists (be they assistive technology users or not). I am not arguing that first-letter-only is *never* better. I am asserting that, even for short or trivial lists, reasonable people can disagree about its inherit superiority to other methods. I would love to see a rigorous investigation and comparison of the two methods.Received on Saturday, 29 July 2006 14:36:52 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 18:14:41 GMT