From: mike@isgtec.com (Mike Sellers)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x,comp.human-factors
Subject: Re: GUIs Considered Harmful
Date: 10 Sep 92 13:51:38 GMT
Followup-To: comp.human-factors
Organization: ISG Technologies Inc., Mississauga Ontario

Note the followup-to line.

mouse@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu (der Mouse) writes:
> I am not arguing with [Apple's] findings.  I am saying merely that it *is*
> slower _for_me_.  Or are you trying to say that my time-sense is so out
> of whack that I merely *think* I'm typing 10 to 20 cps? 

There is at least a moderate possibility of this.  People almost always
overestimate their typing speeds and underestimate their reaction times,
sometimes by an entire order of magnitude.

>  Or perhaps
> that I merely *think* that I can't make a mouse selection in .05 to .1
> second?

No, of course I'm not saying that.  Making selections with a mouse is 
almost always slower than doing the same from the keyboard, but this is
not an issue to many (most) users.

> In article <3243@isgtec.isgtec.com>, mike@isgtec.com (Mike Sellers) writes:
> > On the other hand, the folks at Apple apparently also found that the
> > mouse and keyboard was actually *faster* than the keyboard alone,
> > people's intuition notwithstanding.
> 
> With Apple's choice of subjects, choice of software, choice of UI.  

Of course.  They tested on their software/UI and with those who have
similar characteristics to those who are likely customers.  Doing anything
else would be senseless.  They weren't doing basic research.

> If the subjects had been shown the full spectrum of UIs available, had
> experimented with various ones, had each chosen a preferred one, had
> chosen software to fit that UI, had practiced for a week or so, and
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> they had then timed the result, I (a) am certain the results would have
> been different and (b) would say the result is much more applicable to
> the real world.  (And (c) that Apple wouldn't be trumpeting the
> results!)

Two points here:

First, the effect of practice is a strong one, but NOT one on which the
makers of software can rely.  Increasingly, people are not willing to 
give a program the benefit of the doubt and hope that after a week 
they'll be able to use it better.  Thus, UIs and programs have to be
usable both on the first day, and after a week or a month of use.
One proven solution to this is a flexible UI that includes both mouse
and keyboard input.

Second, there have been a few studies done such as you propose.  Basically,
it turns out that the type of UI really doesn't matter!  What matters is
flexibility, directness (whether via GUI or CLI or menus), *reliability*,
interactivity, and all the "small problems" that so often don't get fixed
in software ("well, it's not like it crashes the system").  Users report
higher satisfaction and lower frustration, AND their actual task-completion
times are lower when using "polished" products.  Now, lest you think I
discount any differences in UIs, there is also an emotional component:
Users will not use a product that they do not think, a priori, will do
the job or will not be enjoyable to use.  Would you drive a Porsche if it
only came in a dirt-brown package shaped and appointed like a Yugo?

> ...unless you are taking the interpretation that
> Apple's results mean that *everyone* is faster using both keyboard and
> mouse, even when allowed to choose their software to fit their
> preferred style of interaction...in which case I *strongly* disagree.

No, not everyone -- just the large majority of the *paying* public.
High-speed typists do not form a large enough segment of most markets
to be considered alongside the legions of computer-phobes and poor
typists who are willing to plunk down their dollars for software.

> >> If it takes as long as *one* second to decide which key to press, I
                                            ^^^^^^
> >> consider myself "idling".  I type well over 100wpm when I don't have
> >> to stop and decide what I want to type next.  

> > Unless you've had yourself independently timed, I doubt strongly
> > whether _any_ of these numbers are correct 

> That is not a *reaction* time, that is an *action* time.  

If you have to _decide_ what to do next, it is a reaction time; the
lowest RT figures I've been able to find are on the order of 0.3 seconds.
Even for spinal reflexes involving complex actions, I don't think the
action times are as low as 0.05 seconds for humans.  Still, this is 
splitting hairs.

> > Given this, your needs and abilities do not conform to the needs and
> > abilities of the vast majority of computer users; you cannot judge
> > them by looking at yourself.
> 
> I am not trying to.  I'm complaining about the syndrome of refusing to
> admit that anyone but the typical member of the majority even exists:
> the leap from "the majority of those we studied were this way" to
> "everyone is this way", or perhaps less obnoxiously phrased, but with
> the same effect, to "we can ignore everyone who's not this way".

Like I said before, Apple is looking at a particular sub-population.
It is not in their financial interest to cater to all parts of the
spectrum of, e.g., typing speeds, as this would add to the cost of
their products without adding proportionately to the money generated by 
them.  It's not that you don't exist, it's just that there aren't
currently enough of you to make a dent in Apple's (and most other 
company's) markets.

> 					der Mouse
--
              Mike Sellers      User Interface Team Leader
           mike@isgtec.com      ISG Technologies, Toronto, Canada
              "Actum ne agas" -- Do not do what has been done.
                         Furare tantum ab Optimis