|
|
Posted by usenet+2004 on 09/26/06 07:57
dorayme:
[re Mentioning The Mechanics]
> There are many reasons to avoid it, I agree. But this sort of
> reasoning worries me. "any mention..." sounds to me to be weak.
What if it was worded more generally:
Anything unrelated to the real content distracts
the user from the real content.
> To go on and on about it, yes. To not try to avoid the need, yes.
> But now and then one gets caught. I imagine it helps people that
> I very very occasionally "say things about the mechanics".
I think I would need examples to agree or disagree with that.
> In one case I mention that a following list of files are not intended
> to be viewed necessarily on screen but downloaded for printing,
> but that if viewing is wanted and simple clicking or double
> clicking is not succesful, to try to right or control click and then
> save etc.
Remembering this is the WWW, I don't think users have to have any
conception of files, of downloading, of screens, of (double, right, or
control) clicking, of printing. 'Viewing' is too restrictive. And
there seems to be an underlying assumption that retrieval is the only
action performed on URLs. These are all system- and user-specific
details that I would try to avoid mentioning.
> Yes, I have thought to make the headings convey the message
> "Publications for printing, not viewing" and other strategies.
That's still mentioning the mechanics.
> But in the end in a practical situation for which a client is
> paying good money, I want to make sure he is happy, his website
> users have success. And I can't be running to others all the time
> if I cannot see a time efficient "good design" solution. And to
> be fair, it may be that you are simply wrong and no one, however
> good, can do away with such help by clever design. I am not
> disagreeing with your sentiment here, just any extreme form of
> it.
I think we would need specific examples to agree or disagree with each
other since we're both talking generally.
> > Another reason to follow the principle in this case is the difficulty
> > of writing the instructions. Since all but the most basic instructions
> > would necessarily be system-dependent, one set of instructions would
> > not be sufficient. They would also be incomplete, because to cover all
> > platforms, all browsers, and all users is not feasible. Brief
> > instructions are probably useless: those who know what to do don't
> > need any instruction and those who don't know what to do require fairly
> > detailed instruction, instruction they can find either in the manual
> > for their own system or in one of the webpages *about* PDF reading on
> > the WWW.
>
> I think this reasoning should not stop website makers from the
> occasional tactical intervention.
It describes the difficulty of writing instructions for everyone or
anyone.
--
Jock
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|