🚀 go-pugleaf

From article <6932@bunny.GTE.COM>, by rv01@GTE.COM (Robert Virzi):
> In article <4128@bgsuvax.UUCP>, instone@bgsuvax.UUCP I wrote:
>> I have been thinking about all the different ways people
>> are _studying_ user interfaces now-a-days.
>> 
>> 1.Lots of people are building user interface management systems (UIMSs) to
>> make building interfaces easier.
>> 
>> 2.Several companies are making prototype interfaces and testing them
>> to see which specific style/lookNfeel is best for them.
>> 
>> 3.Some people are doing laboratory experiments on both parts of the
>> interface (menus vs icons, choice of color, ...) and on complete
>> systems (direct manipulation vs commands vs menus, etc).
>> 
>          ... stuff deleted ...
>> 
> I don't know if this is what Keith had in mind, but I would like
> to bring up a 'new' methodology that seems to be a topic of invest-
> igation now.  
> 
   - - stuff deleted about hi-fidelity and lo-fidelity prototyping - -

Actually, no, this was not what I had in mind. You are dealing with
studying SPECIFIC interfaces (see #2 above) where I am more interested
in studying interfaces IN GENERAL (#3). But there are parralells (oops,
that should be parallels).

How should you study user interfaces? Look at just pieces of it
(icons, commands, menus), draw conclusions and then try to
incorporate your findings into a complete interface. (Is this
like lo-fidelity prototyping?) The problem is trying to use
the tightly-controlled results from the laboratory in the 
(uncontrollable) real world. Sometimes the lab stuff is far
removed from the actual computer. For example, some doctoral research
studying icons started with paper and pencil experiments (SIGCHI Bulletin, 
Oct 86). This is fine, but the REAL research has to come from
more real-world situations. Why did she start with paper and pencil?
There aren't any tools to support this on computers.

Or, build complete (but general) interfaces and test them. Afterall, you can
never be sure how things fit together until you try them together.
(Hi-fidelity?) Then you are studying real-world interfaces which
should hopefully give usable results. The problem here is the lack of
control: sometimes all you can say is "4 out of 5 subjects surveyed
recommend sugarless interfaces for their patients who chew interfaces".
Your conclusions are all sugar: no meat to the results. (Enough
of the analogy already!) Research studying complete interfaces has thus
far been confined to comparing existing packages (I think), like word
processors, because there are no tools for building general interfaces.
Protoyping will help here, but it different somehow.

Well, in any case, I haven't been able to find any general
tools to support research. I was looking for something to let
me tightly control all the little pieces of the interface while
maintaining the "big picture".

So far, I have to assume a "NO" to my original question. If this
is so, WHY?

> So, get out your flamethrowers, I've got my asbestos suit ready.  
I am not real good at flaming, but I'll do as-best-os I can! UGH!
(oooh, sounds like a new signature)

Keith Instone
"I am not real good at flaming, but I'll do as-best-os I can!" - me