Loading...
Please wait, while we are loading the content...
Similar Documents
The Case Against User Interface Consistency Designers striving for user interface consistency can resemble
| Content Provider | Semantic Scholar |
|---|---|
| Author | Jonathan Grudin |
| Copyright Year | 1999 |
| Abstract | Many writers have presented the case for user interface consistency. Ben Shneiderman's [48] first “Golden Rule of Dialogue Design” reads: “Strive for consistency. This principle is the most frequently violated one, and yet the easiest one to repair and avoid (violating).” Rubinstein and Hersh [46] conclude their book, The Human Factor: Designing Computer Systems for People, with the directive, “Build consistent human interfaces.” Such methodological encouragement has been buttressed with empirical work presented in support of user interface consistency. Polson [43] summarizes several experiments by stating, “Experimental results . . . show that consistency (leads) to large positive transfer effects, that is, reductions in training time ranging from 100% to 3003'0.” Smith and Mosier [49] conclude the introduction to their compendium, Guidelines for Designing User Interface Software, in which over 60 guidelines contain “consistent” in the title, by stating, “the common application of design rules by all designers working on a system should result. in a more consistent user interface design. And the single objective on which experts agree is design consistency.” Several steps m.ust be taken before such advice is useful. First, consistency must be defined. Second, one must be able to identify good consistency, since foolish or undesirable consistency is possible. More subtly, one needs a procedure for discriminating among conflicting approaches to achieving consistency. Finally, a method must be found to determine when other design considerations overshadow consistency in importance. There has been little progress in these matters. In 198l, Reisner [45] wrote, “What is (not) clear, however, is precisely what we mean by consistency and, more importantly, how to identify its absence.” In 1988, a two-day workshop of 15 experts was unable to produce a definition of consistency [35]. Acknowledging the difficulty of defining the term, one prominent interface designer said, “I know consistency when I see it.” One researcher has suggested that perceived consistency might be a better goal [26]. |
| File Format | PDF HTM / HTML |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | http://www.idemployee.id.tue.nl/g.w.m.rauterberg/lecturenotes/DA308/CACM(1989)grudin.pdf |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | https://wiki.cc.gatech.edu/ccg/_media/classes/hcisem/p1164-grudin.pdf?cache=cache&id=classes:hcisem:home |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/redmond/groups/coet/Grudin/papers/CACM1989.pdf |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | http://research.microsoft.com/research/coet/grudin/papers/cacm1989.pdf |
| Language | English |
| Access Restriction | Open |
| Content Type | Text |
| Resource Type | Article |
