- From: Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>
- Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2004 11:01:12 -0400
Chris Kaminski wrote:
>>But users do have a way of knowing when labels exhibit
>>the HMTL 4.01 specified behavior. It happens only in
>>browsers.
>
> And how many users know what a browser is?
They don't have to. The just need to know what the window that had
the "Internet" in it looks like. My sister refuses to use Mozilla
Firefox on the house computer because it's "different" from Internet
Explorer. Similarly, people know what their browser looks like, even if
they don't know what it is.
> My experience indicates that
> many--if not most--users have no clue where the browser ends and native apps
> begin. Other web developers I've discussed the issue with tend to have
> noticed the same thing. Barring research on the issue saying otherwise, I
> tend to think that's a pretty fine distinction for most users to make.
For web apps that are launched from the desktop by an icon the
administrator created for them, I'd tend to agree. For situations where
the user has to launch a specific program and either select a bookmark
or enter a URI, I would disagree because the method of activating the
application puts it in a separate context.
>>There are many software publishers that use
>>refinements to UI that aren't strictly according to OS
>>conventions, and users are typically not confused by these
>>differences so long as the differences are not difficult to
>>perceive and understand.
>
> Right, but 'difficult' for whom?
The average web user, I'd presume.
>> You're not talking about specifying UI. You're talking
>>about UNspecifying it, after a five years, when most browsers
>>and nearly all of the browser marketshare is conformant.
>
> Lack of functionality is a design decision just as is functionality. Just as
> in an image, negative space has visual weight the same as positive space.
> Two sides, same coin.
Hardly. That's like saying the fact most people use IE is a browser
decision, which, as you point out in this very message, is not the case.
Lack of functionality MIGHT be a choice, or it may simply be an
oversight. Functionality shouldn't be forbidden simply because the OS
developers didn't think to put it into the operating system.
> I'm not particularly fussed about <label> focus passing one way or the
> other, truth be told. Personally, I think Fitt's Law tends to argue *for*
> focus passing on graphical UIs (larger target -> faster acquisition).
In your other message, about your S.O., the lack of a large target
may actually be beneficial. ;)
> Other than that, though, I'm not seeing any big deal either way.
To me, it represents a larger case. If we try to add features to web
app markup that aren't in the OS, no matter how beneficial they may be,
will they be removed from the draft to serve OS conventions?
Received on Thursday, 5 August 2004 08:01:12 UTC