Edit History

On 6/17/2020 at 6:02 PM, Ross Scott said:

No, I think you're misunderstanding me.  Ideally, I want accuracy to barely matter...  In other words, the GUI adapts to my movement and intentions, not the other way around.  I don't see what's contradictory about this... This is also why I got excited about mouse gestures.  It opens up a wide world of possibilities where accuracy isn't important.

 

This helps me understand your actual objectives a lot better but it's also completely unrelated to the issues I was trying to point out.

Quote

I think you see what I said as contradictory, because you're looking at this in terms of hitting a target of a certain size across a certain distance.  I'm talking about the potential of targets where distance and size are irrelevant.  In other words, Fitt's law doesn't even apply for that kind of manipulation.  It transcends it!

 

Now for more conventional GUI menus where that's simply not an option, I want what's fastest and feels best.  That's where that Fitt's law thing people are talking about come into play.  Tiny targets take longer to hit.  Targets far away take longer to hit.  You want everything semi-big and close-by, which is probably why I thought of that pie menu system.

Think I understand the reason for these seeming contradictions and inconsistencies now. It's due to the fact you're mixing up two entirely different issues:

• Loosing your current workflow when upgrading from Windows 7 to 10.
• Developing the most efficient GUI possible, regardless of OS.

All my suggested solutions were solely aimed at helping you migrate to Windows 10 with as little change to your CURRENT workflow as possible. They had nothing to do with your IDEAL dream GUI that doesn't exist yet. That's an entirely different subject. However, when I pointed out a feature of Windows 10 that works exactly like, or very similar to, your CURRENT setup, you either dismissed it as not IDEAL or bragged that you've already had that feature long before Windows did. All of which is beside the point and makes it seem like you just have a personal vendetta with Microsoft (no big surprise, ha!).

Your latest response mixes these two issues together even more, which makes it feel pretty incoherent. And all of this makes trying to help you solve the issues you have RIGHT NOW very frustrating because the goalpost keeps switching. Now I know you're not doing any of this on purpose, but that's exactly why I'm trying to make you aware of it! Because I really am trying to help you.

Quote

many comments seemed focused on me not providing solutions.  From my perspective, it's a little insane that's on my shoulders to begin with, but I plan to slowly figure out something for myself in the absence of other ideas.  I'll detail what I plan to have / what I think could be better in a followup later on, but it's a little disappointing seeing how narrow the range of ideas have been.

The problem here is that you're actually putting the burden of finding GUI "enlightenment" on the shoulders of everyone except yourself. The video could be summarized as "This all sucks and could be way better but I'm not an expert so I want you to show me how to fix it".  No offense but this is the easiest criticism anyone can make about literally anything because it doesn't require any real proof or effort from the person making it. So it's not surprising at all to have people ask for some kind of tangible course of action since you're making such a bold claim.

On 6/17/2020 at 6:02 PM, Ross Scott said:

No, I think you're misunderstanding me.  Ideally, I want accuracy to barely matter...  In other words, the GUI adapts to my movement and intentions, not the other way around.  I don't see what's contradictory about this... This is also why I got excited about mouse gestures.  It opens up a wide world of possibilities where accuracy isn't important.

 

This helps me understand your actual objectives a lot better but it's also completely unrelated to the issues I was trying to point out.

Quote

I think you see what I said as contradictory, because you're looking at this in terms of hitting a target of a certain size across a certain distance.  I'm talking about the potential of targets where distance and size are irrelevant.  In other words, Fitt's law doesn't even apply for that kind of manipulation.  It transcends it!

 

Now for more conventional GUI menus where that's simply not an option, I want what's fastest and feels best.  That's where that Fitt's law thing people are talking about come into play.  Tiny targets take longer to hit.  Targets far away take longer to hit.  You want everything semi-big and close-by, which is probably why I thought of that pie menu system.

Okay, think I understand the reason for these seeming contradictions now. It's due to the fact you're combining two entirely different  issues into one when addressing my feedback:

• Loosing your current workflow when upgrading from Windows 7 to 10.
• Developing THE most efficient GUI possible, regardless of OS.

All my suggested solutions were solely aimed at helping you migrate to Windows 10 with as little change to your CURRENT workflow as possible. They had nothing to do with your IDEAL dream GUI that doesn't exist yet. That's an entirely different subject! However, when I pointed out a feature of Windows 10 that works exactly like, or very similar to, your CURRENT setup, you either dismiss it as not IDEAL or brag that you've already had that feature long before Windows did. All of which is beside the point and makes it seem like you just have a personal vendetta with Microsoft (no big surprise, ha!).

Your latest response mixes these two issues together even more, which makes it feel pretty incoherent. And all of this makes trying to help you solve the issues you have RIGHT NOW extremely frustrating because the goalpost keeps switching. Now I know you're not doing any of this on purpose, but that's exactly why I'm trying to make you aware of it! Because I really am trying to help you.

Quote

many comments seemed focused on me not providing solutions.  From my perspective, it's a little insane that's on my shoulders to begin with, but I plan to slowly figure out something for myself in the absence of other ideas.  I'll detail what I plan to have / what I think could be better in a followup later on, but it's a little disappointing seeing how narrow the range of ideas have been.

The problem here is that you're actually putting the burden of finding GUI "enlightenment" on the shoulders of everyone except yourself. The video could be summarized as "This all sucks and could be way better but I'm not an expert so I want you to show me how to fix it".  No offense but this is the easiest criticism anyone can make about literally anything because it doesn't require any real proof or effort from the person making it. So it's not surprising at all to have people ask for some kind of tangible course of action since you're making such a bold claim.

On 6/17/2020 at 6:02 PM, Ross Scott said:

No, I think you're misunderstanding me.  Ideally, I want accuracy to barely matter...  In other words, the GUI adapts to my movement and intentions, not the other way around.  I don't see what's contradictory about this... This is also why I got excited about mouse gestures.  It opens up a wide world of possibilities where accuracy isn't important.

This helps me understand your actual objectives a lot better but it's also completely unrelated to the issues I was trying to point out.

Quote

I think you see what I said as contradictory, because you're looking at this in terms of hitting a target of a certain size across a certain distance.  I'm talking about the potential of targets where distance and size are irrelevant.  In other words, Fitt's law doesn't even apply for that kind of manipulation.  It transcends it!

 

Now for more conventional GUI menus where that's simply not an option, I want what's fastest and feels best.  That's where that Fitt's law thing people are talking about come into play.  Tiny targets take longer to hit.  Targets far away take longer to hit.  You want everything semi-big and close-by, which is probably why I thought of that pie menu system.

Ironically your response about not seeing a contradiction is itself contradictory. In the first paragraph you say Fitt's law doesn't matter, and in the very next you say it does. Now you could say it depends on the context, but the latter situation is exactly where the original contradiction I was talking about with Fitt's law and your own logic lays.

Edit: Okay, think I understand the reason for these seeming contradictions now. It's due to the fact you're combining two entirely different goals and issues into one:

1. Loosing your current workflow when upgrading from Windows 7 to 10.
2. Developing THE most efficient GUI possible, regardless of OS.

All my suggested solutions were solely aimed at helping you migrate to Windows 10 with as little change to your CURRENT workflow as possible. They had nothing to do with your IDEAL dream GUI that doesn't exist yet. That's an entirely different subject! However, when I pointed out a feature of Windows 10 that works exactly like, or very similar to, your CURRENT setup, you either dismiss it as not IDEAL or brag that you've already had that feature long before Windows did. All of which is beside the point and makes it seem like you just have a personal vendetta with Microsoft (no big surprise, ha!).

Your latest response was mixing these two goals/issues together even more, which made it feel very incoherent and contradictory. And all of this makes trying to help you solve the issues you have RIGHT NOW extremely frustrating because the goalpost keeps switching. Now I know you're not doing any of this on purpose, but that's exactly why I'm trying to make you aware of it! Because I really am trying to help you!

Quote

many comments seemed focused on me not providing solutions.  From my perspective, it's a little insane that's on my shoulders to begin with, but I plan to slowly figure out something for myself in the absence of other ideas.  I'll detail what I plan to have / what I think could be better in a followup later on, but it's a little disappointing seeing how narrow the range of ideas have been.

The response is completely logical and predictable because your actually putting the burden of finding GUI "enlightenment" on the shoulders of everyone except yourself. The video could be summarized as "This all sucks and could be way better but I'm not an expert so show me how to fix it".  No offense but this is the easiest and laziest criticism anyone can make about literally anything because it can apply to all things and doesn't require any proof or effort from the person making it. So it's quite sane to have people ask for some kind of tangible course of action since you're making such a bold claim.

Also, the fact you thought this video would be a one-off with no follow up suggests you actually thought this was the definitive examination of all the issues with GUI design today. But I think the vast majority completely disagrees or at the very least there is no consensus and it's very controversial due to many subjective grievances.

On 6/17/2020 at 6:02 PM, Ross Scott said:

No, I think you're misunderstanding me.  Ideally, I want accuracy to barely matter...  In other words, the GUI adapts to my movement and intentions, not the other way around.  I don't see what's contradictory about this... This is also why I got excited about mouse gestures.  It opens up a wide world of possibilities where accuracy isn't important.

This helps me understand your actual objectives a lot better but it's also completely unrelated to the issues I was trying to point out.

Quote

I think you see what I said as contradictory, because you're looking at this in terms of hitting a target of a certain size across a certain distance.  I'm talking about the potential of targets where distance and size are irrelevant.  In other words, Fitt's law doesn't even apply for that kind of manipulation.  It transcends it!

 

Now for more conventional GUI menus where that's simply not an option, I want what's fastest and feels best.  That's where that Fitt's law thing people are talking about come into play.  Tiny targets take longer to hit.  Targets far away take longer to hit.  You want everything semi-big and close-by, which is probably why I thought of that pie menu system.

Ironically your response about not seeing a contradiction is itself contradictory. In the first paragraph you say Fitt's law doesn't matter, and in the very next you say it does. Now you could say it depends on the context, but the latter situation is exactly where the original contradiction I was talking about with Fitt's law and your own logic lays. So the former situation is completely unrelated to the issue in any case.

However, I don't think I can make you understand my issues here so maybe we can just more on to something more productive .

Quote

many comments seemed focused on me not providing solutions.  From my perspective, it's a little insane that's on my shoulders to begin with, but I plan to slowly figure out something for myself in the absence of other ideas.  I'll detail what I plan to have / what I think could be better in a followup later on, but it's a little disappointing seeing how narrow the range of ideas have been.

The response is completely logical and predictable because your actually putting the burden of finding GUI "enlightenment" on the shoulders of everyone except yourself. The video could be summarized as "This all sucks and could be way better but I'm not an expert so show me how to fix it".  No offense but this is the easiest and laziest criticism anyone can make about literally anything because it can apply to all things and doesn't require any proof or effort from the person making it. So it's quite sane to have people ask for some kind of tangible course of action since you're making such a bold claim.

Also, the fact you thought this video would be a one-off with no follow up suggests you actually thought this was the definitive examination of all the issues with GUI design today. But I think the vast majority completely disagrees or at the very least there is no consensus and it's very controversial due to many subjective grievances.