From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More on mouse buttons (was: Macintosh advocacy (really!))
Date: 20 Dec 92 23:05:43 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <1992Dec14.043801.23705@squid9.cuc.ab.ca>, terry@squid9.cuc.ab.ca (Terry Wilcox) writes:
> In article <6526.2b278fc4@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
> 
>> * A double click should invoke a function that is a shortcut for a single
>>   click as a rule. The double click function shouldn't be NECESSARY for the
>>   operation of the program. For example, in the Finder, you can single
>>   click then File / Open documents, applications, folders, etc.
>> 
> 
> That's a fair bit of cognitive load, isn't it? After all, you have to click  
> once, then select a menu, then select an action. Clicking the other button once  
> is a great deal less strenuous.

Yes, but the fact that double-clicking will open a document, folder, etc, isn't
visually obvious. So, the cognitive leap needed to double click is actually
more strenuous.

In actuality, double clicking is so easy that it is pretty much second nature
to most users.

>> The nature of "cognitive load" is that you don't notice it. Ever been so
>> busy that you look at the clock and realise it is really late? That's 
>> an example of timing effects of cognitive load. You won't realise it is
>> taking any time, because your brain is busy making decisions.
>> 
> 
> So if I don't notice time going by, what's the big deal?

It takes longer!

>> The key difference here is that double-clicking is an OPTIONAL behavior,
>> whereas a two-button mouse is a PERMANENT behavior.
> 
> Not a valid argument. My two button mouse has an optional behavior. 

No, having two buttons is a PERMANENT attribute. It isn't optional. The second
button is always there, it never goes away -- it always does something.

> Double  
> clicking may be optional, but the single click/menu option takes more cognitive  
> load. Therefore, people should be forced to use a double click because it takes  
> less cognitive load.

I believe the loads are similar for either double clicking or using the
selection / menu route. 

>> > But there is confusion over whether to click or double click. I get people
>> > like that in my Mac lab all the time. They double click everything.
>> 
>> Does it really hurt them? Do they end up with the wrong action?
> 
> As a matter of fact, yes. The first click does the right thing (say 'Cancel' on  
> a panel or something), but the second click goes somewhere. It's not  
> immediately apparent to them that that second click did something. They don't  
> notice until their next action. It can have interesting results.

My point is that even if they double-click when they aren't supposed to, 
things usually work out. On the other hand, if you have two mouse buttons
and you click the wrong one, something unexpected usually happens.

>> > Clicking the button the wrong number of times is just as likely as
>> > getting the wrong button.
>> 
>> Interesting hypothesis. Perhaps you should conduct an experiment to see
>> if it is true or not.
> 
> Why should I? People will just refute the results anyway. There's a complete  
> lack of non-biased people in the computer industry. We all skew reality to fit  
> our perceptions. :) :)

I was being serious, not humorous.

>> > This 'my mouse is better than your mouse' argument is silly. 
>> 
>> Then why did these Amig-o-philes bring it up?
> 
> They feel a need to legitimize the machine. They see the Mac as the only true  
> competitor for the Amiga (quite flattering to the Mac) and are irritated when  
> Mac users put down the machine due to hearsay. I rarely hear a Mac user say  
> 'I've got both machines and the Mac is better.' Most say 'I used an Amiga once  
> and it wasn't as good as the Mac I worship.'

Well, you can still have an opinion without having broad experience. I can
satisfactorally say that there's nothing about an Amiga that attracts me
to buy one (which says something in equal amounts about Amiga's marketing
and technical abilities), even though I haven't used one in a few years.

> Of course, talk of 'cognitive load' forced them to respond. It's such a  
> non-issue that they can't believe people would use it in a discussion. I  
> personally prefer to deal with reality, not pop-science. 

Cognitive load isn't "pop-science", unless you consider psycology to be
"pop-science."

" I refuse to believe in  
> cognitive load, cold fusion, and black holes (they're not holes and nobody has  
> proven that they exist. I understand the theory, but there's no concrete  
> proof).

I'll pass on cold fusion, but black holes we can test. We'll start by
dropping you into one. <grin>

(PS -- I had a plane seat two years ago next to a Ga Tech Physicist who
 was very much convinced about the possibilities of cold fusion. So, there
 may be something there after all)

-- 
Bill Coleman, AA4LR                ! CIS: 76067,2327    AppleLink: D1958
Principal Software Engineer        ! Packet Radio: AA4LR @ W4QO
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc. ! UUCP: uunet!hayes!bcoleman
POB 105203 Atlanta, GA 30348 USA   ! Internet: bcoleman%hayes@uunet.uu.net
Disclaimer: "My employer doesn't pay me to have opinions."
Quote: "The same light shines on vineyards that makes deserts." -Steve Hackett.