Interesting read. It sounds like this person is just now re-discovering what people used to know back in the 1980s.
People forget, but double-click was supposed to be an advanced way of opening files in MacOS, quicker but less obvious than selecting your file and then clicking "File-Open". Also somewhat a side effect of their one button approach. When Microsoft ripped of the Mac GUI in 95, they did not include a file menu for the desktop level, making double-clicking a requirement.
And I absolutely have to agree with the abuse of the so-called "system tray". Programs used it as a substitute for a quick-launch toolbar. As I recall Lotus Symphony for Windows 95 was a big offender, throwing so many icons in there, some users hardly had room for task bar buttons.
The whole Minimize/Maximize thing is not exceedingly obvious, but this is the sort of thing that should be introduced with a brief tutorial. But modern software is to cheap to include manuals.
Of course half of the software on this site demonstrates why people needed standard user interfaces and controls. (Is exiting F10? Ctrl-Q? Ctrl-C? Alt-X? and so on and so on.) It is bad enough when lazy or idiot developers get it wrong, but these days they have made a science out of deceptively abusing user interfaces for marketing purposes and such.
That was a loaded argument. Define the people who agree with his changes as smart and try to use that to overturn 40 years of research into GUI design. I guess he hasn't seen someone accidentally clicking a few times and launching many programs which is one of the problems of single click launching.
Double-clicking was never a requirement in Windows. Highlighting an item and hitting <ENTER> provides the same result as double-clicking. Necessary part of design for the possibility of users without mice who can highlight by using arrow keys.
That was a loaded argument. Define the people who agree with his changes as smart and try to use that to overturn 40 years of research into GUI design.
Except the point was that this 40 years of research has already been mostly overturned and pissed on.
Double-clicking was never a requirement in Windows. Highlighting an item and hitting <ENTER> provides the same result as double-clicking. Necessary part of design for the possibility of users without mice who can highlight by using arrow keys.
Which is even more non-discoverable and less intuitive. You can also start stuff from the command line, but that is equally irrelevant.
Comments
People forget, but double-click was supposed to be an advanced way of opening files in MacOS, quicker but less obvious than selecting your file and then clicking "File-Open". Also somewhat a side effect of their one button approach. When Microsoft ripped of the Mac GUI in 95, they did not include a file menu for the desktop level, making double-clicking a requirement.
And I absolutely have to agree with the abuse of the so-called "system tray". Programs used it as a substitute for a quick-launch toolbar. As I recall Lotus Symphony for Windows 95 was a big offender, throwing so many icons in there, some users hardly had room for task bar buttons.
The whole Minimize/Maximize thing is not exceedingly obvious, but this is the sort of thing that should be introduced with a brief tutorial. But modern software is to cheap to include manuals.
Of course half of the software on this site demonstrates why people needed standard user interfaces and controls. (Is exiting F10? Ctrl-Q? Ctrl-C? Alt-X? and so on and so on.) It is bad enough when lazy or idiot developers get it wrong, but these days they have made a science out of deceptively abusing user interfaces for marketing purposes and such.
Double-clicking was never a requirement in Windows. Highlighting an item and hitting <ENTER> provides the same result as double-clicking. Necessary part of design for the possibility of users without mice who can highlight by using arrow keys.
Which is even more non-discoverable and less intuitive. You can also start stuff from the command line, but that is equally irrelevant.