| Andrew Thompson 2007-01-22, 8:20 am |
| phillip.s.powell@gmail.com wrote:
> Andrew Thompson wrote:
I will attempt to rephrase what I said, in the event
that it may be of use to you in future.*
[color=darkred]
(Ummm..) OK. Given the target group, I was far
too blunt and direct there..
FWIW. My apologies, my comment was uncalled for.
[color=darkred]
> I have no competitors, and I'm not looking to compete. Allow me to
> blow your mind and say that I am doing this for the sheer thrill of
> creating my own applications for my own personal use that doesn't
> involve competitors, those that probably don't design "wierd"
> "counterinutitive" software for your PC.
* When (later) making applications for 'general users',
always attempt to follow the 'path of least surprise'.
This is the way of going about things, that would be
most obvious to the end user. If you have a GUI where
the task seems to justify breaking away from the
path of least surprise, it is best to
- check that with more experienced GUI developers,
by describing ...
- what end ability you wish to provide to the end user, ..
- your proposed path to achieve that, and ..
- asking if there are better ways to provide that ability
(the answer might be hidden in some class not yet
encountered).
- Even once you have what seems to be an on-screen
solution, sit actual end users in front of it, and check
that they can understand what they see (if they ask
"What does it do?" that is a good indication of 'no'**),
and how it works.
** I mention that specifically because I have had that
reaction to some of my own GUI ideas! Time to dump
that approach and try something entirely new...
> Glad you don't design spellcheckers;
Yes, I make spelling mistakes, but then..
Eye Haight spell chequers. ;-)
Andrew T.
|