Take this example. How do you edit the blog post in this user interface?



... or you could click on the blog post to select it and then click on the pencil icon on the toolbar.

Two of those three methods have an unlabeled icon for a non-standard operation (Edit), so it's just as well that there are three different methods. Oh, wait, I forgot. You can also double-click the line.
One Good Way
Instead of providing multiple not-so-great ways of editing the blog entry, why not just provide one good way?

Then why do we still support double-click?
Good question. We probably won't document double-click, but double-click happens to be a near-universal standard for editing. If a user does double-click the row, what would they expect to happen? Our choices are: something else, nothing, Edit. Let's take this point-by-point:
- something else - this is pretty unlikely. Double-click almost always means Edit.
- nothing - the user double-clicked. What is the chance that they did it just for fun?
- Edit - this is almost certainly what the user expects. Whenever possible, we should do what they expect.
Sure, but that doesn't mean multiple ways at the same location. It means that there may be completely different places in your user interface where access to a feature makes sense. While changing this, we did add another access point -- at the blog entry itself. If you view the blog and you have permission to edit an entry, then an edit icon appears next to the title of the entry.

In Summary ...
The principles are simple:
- When providing access to a feature, provide a single, clear method in any given location.
- If users expect to get access to the feature in multiple locations in your user interface, then there's a good chance you should be meeting their expectations.
- If users expect a standard mechanism (like double-click) to work for accessing a feature, then you should probably make it work -- but don't rely on this for making the feature discoverable.
No comments:
Post a Comment