[Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted material.]
*Anirudha Joshi* <
anirudhaidc@...> wrote:
"...I noticed that no one actually resorted to a visual design solution..."
etc.
Hello Anirudha,
I have called the solution somewhat unfortunately "show-n-hide" interface
(also known as progressive disclosure interface):
"...the fields need to be used from time to time. For the same reason
"show-hide options" interface could become annoying very quickly if user
need to show-n-hide frequently enough.
And so once more the appropriatness of solution will depend on answer to the
simple time question: "How infrequent is seldom?"
--
Oleh Kovalchuke
Interaction Design is Design of Time
http://www.tangospring.com/IxDtopicWhatIsInteractionDesign.htmOn 6/18/06, Anirudha Joshi <
anirudhaidc@...> wrote:
>
> [Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted
> material.]
>
> Sure, we need to preserve ALL fields in the tab, but I noticed that no
> one actually resorted to a visual design solution. Simon could put the
> A, B, D, F fields 'at the top' of the page, followed by the OK (or
> Next) button. So the visual order AND the tab order match and ease of
> use is achieved for frequent tasks. One more tab, on the OK button,
> and the user lands on infrequent buttons, perhaps followed by another
> OK button. One could of course divide the infrequent fields with one
> or two more OK buttons if desired.
>
> How to group them? This will inevitably be a problem if there are 26
> fields. The frequent fields should be grouped together at the top
> (particularly if they are less than 7-9). I am assuming that
> contextually, this should take care of 70% cases (if less, then this
> strategy needs a review).
>
> Let us assume that after the first round of 7-9 frequent fields, the
> frequency difference between fields is not that high. In that case,
> group fields semantically and my guess is that the users will not
> remember the tab sequence, so they will just use the mouse the
> remaining 30% of the time.
>
> On the other hand, assume that there is a second round of 7-9 frequent
> fields that takes care of another 25% cases. Well, group them
> together. The users will perhaps take a month to get used to the
> second group and continue to use the keyboard. The balance fields that
> change less than 5% of the time will be used by a mouse (and they
> should be).
>
> A true jackpot if the frequency has a close, semantic reason. Then you
> get easy infrequent use as well as frequent. (my experience is that it
> usually has if we probe enough)
>
> Visually communicate that the two (three, four) OK buttons are all the
> same (same colour, similar location, similar affordances etc.)
>
> Anirudha
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list .......
discuss@...
> List Guidelines ............
http://listguide.ixda.org/> List Help ..................
http://listhelp.ixda.org/> (Un)Subscription Options ...
http://subscription-options.ixda.org/> Announcements List .........
http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/> Questions ..................
lists@...
> Home .......................
http://ixda.org/> Resource Library ...........
http://resources.ixda.org>
________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list .......
discuss@...
List Guidelines ............
http://listguide.ixda.org/List Help ..................
http://listhelp.ixda.org/(Un)Subscription Options ...
http://subscription-options.ixda.org/Announcements List .........
http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/Questions ..................
lists@...
Home .......................
http://ixda.org/Resource Library ...........
http://resources.ixda.org