Jump to content

Talk:User interface/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Merge with Human–computer interaction?

These two article seem to cover a great deal of common ground. Can they be merged? --Piet Delport 05:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The articles have very different emphasis. UI focuses on the actual types of interfaces. HCI focuses on the research and application of this research to creating such interfaces. While they certainly mesh, I think they'd be better off as separate articles. --Ronz 14:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The two concepts are different. HCI is more general term, covering also UIs as well as the design process and research. For the clarification, one could refer to the sections "1.3 What Is Interaction Design?" and "6 Interfaces" of "Interaction Design" by Rogers et al. 2011. --Akseli Palen 17:26, 9 Feb 2015 (UTC)

I've removed all external links per WP:EL and WP:SPAM. I went through them rather quickly, so may inadvertantly removed something that should be reintroduced or at least discussed. --Ronz 00:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this external link [www.uiresourcecenter.com] appropriate for this article? I am new to Wikipedia community and need advice on this question.

Thanks

Matthew Dombrow 10:49, May 28, 2008 (MTN) —Preceding comment was added at 16:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


can we replace any datagrids with excel? if so please can any one give the pros and cons of the issue!

what datagrids are you talking about? – Alexander Konovalenko 11:30, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Acronym Sources

I see that someone added reference tags to two of the acronyms used. Instead of filling them in, Ive decided to remove them as it will only make the article more complex and force the use of sources that would otherwise be deemed wikispam. Here are some links anyway.

HMI - Human-Machine Interface

http://www.iec.org/online/tutorials/hmi/

http://www.siemens.com/simatic-hmi

http://www.qsicorp.com/product/industrial/


OIT - Operator Interface Terminal

http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/Operator+Interface+Terminal

http://www.qsicorp.com/product/industrial/


OIC - Operator Interface Console

http://www.teicontrols.com/specs/3b2w_specs.pdf

http://www.surflo.net/product_3500.html


MMI - Man-Machine Interface

http://www.mpirical.com/companion/Generic/MMIManMachineInterface.htm


In the field of industrial automation, the term most frequently used is HMI. After that is OIT. I personally haven't seen OIC or MMI used. To make things more complex, I often use "touchpanel" or "touchscreen" so operators know what I'm talking about. We don't even have an agreement within our office. Our schematics say OIT but throughout the code comments read HMI. The various terms stem from the proprietary nature of the industrial controls business, where vendors often spawn new phrases to appear different from the competition. In the end it is a matter of personal preference. Krushia (talk) 02:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

But the topic shouldn't be referring to things that are not well-known enough to have reliable sources Tedickey (talk) 10:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

source for consistency

David Boundy's notes don't have much to do with user interfaces, and in particular are unrelated to the ip-editor's personal essay. Tedickey (talk) 13:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

For the benefit of editors without access to the given source, Boundy's notes deal with programming style; consistency is mentioned in the context of indentation and program variables. Tedickey (talk) 14:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

user environment?

user environment redirects to this article. What does it mean? --Abdull (talk) 13:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Standardization

I'm removing the "Standardization" section which just said

In 2008, ISO has published its standard of ISO/IEC 24752 to specify the technical requirement of IT system.

Clicking the link, I see that it somehow relates to user interfaces, but it's hard to tell how, and if it has any impact at all on a computer user's reality. Does it define the terminology? Will the next Windows come with a new ISO interface? Etc. Feel free to add it again – but please give some context. JöG (talk) 08:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this edition is still needed

for the sake of the following....

--222.64.219.102 (talk) 02:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

--222.64.219.102 (talk) 02:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

--222.64.219.102 (talk) 03:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

even though the above history may not reflect to truth. Somehow the mentioning of the standardization have been two years old --222.64.219.102 (talk) 03:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised that not many publications around for the relationship between.....

the topic of WYSIWIG and this one according to Google scholar

although the loose connections have been discussed

--222.64.219.102 (talk) 03:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

who knows that probably in the future all the topics at this site are related to the one of soul hijacking...ha....ha...ha... --222.64.219.102 (talk) 03:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

--222.64.219.102 (talk) 03:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

--222.64.219.102 (talk) 03:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

or soul cleansing....@___@

--222.64.219.102 (talk) 03:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

~__@ ~___~

--222.64.219.102 (talk) 04:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Maintaining the NPOV style at Consistency section

Boundlessly, you say "now do the math". Problem is, doing the math by yourself is original research and is prohibited by Wikipedia editorial policies (Wikipedia:Verifiability in particular). Also the "billions in loses" is a redflag: exceptional claims require exceptional sources.

Go read those policies and see how they apply to your edits. Claiming that the sources say what they don't say is a no-no. Also controversial claims (and the efficiency of the MS Ribbon is certainly controversial) must be attributed to the sources, not stated at the article as facts. If you don't address these problems in your edits I'll flag the section with a NPOV tag and begin a dispute resolution to get feedback from other users. Nothing is indisputable at Wikipedia, and that's by design ;-) Diego Moya (talk) 05:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I've removed a paragraph with multiple issues and copied it here. Please fix it before trying to reincorporate it to the article. The major problem is the lack of references; a good estimation of the economic impact should evaluate how the costs of the required training balance against the improvements in performance provided by the new interface. Diego Moya (talk) 16:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Multiplying out the numbers in this survey [in context, "this survey" is perfectly clear -- it's referred to in the exactly preceding sentence. Quit creating nonissues.] suggests that the total cost imposed on users[elucidate reason=does that mean for each single user? Of course not. "users" means plural, the total population of users. No native speaker of English would read it any other way. Don't create nonissues.] by Microsoft's change of user interface in Office 2007 was in the multiple billions of dollars.

  • the thing to clarify is "multiplying out", not "this survey"
  • we don't write suggestions here at Wikipedia, we use verifiable information
  • The wording could still be much better, which was my point. It is unclear what users you refer to, and "total cost" remains undefined. Diego Moya

The second part of your question is easy too. "balance against the improvements in performance provided by the new interface" is also a cost, additive instead of "balance against." The survey that you identified found that the "performance" change was a loss, and that the costs continue to accrue with time. The survey identifies two separate costs -- the learning curve cost, and the productivity cost of the constant 3 clicks to do a task in the new interface where the old interface requires only one click.

I explained already that the survey can't be extrapolated to users beyond the few that participated in it, and that those "identifed costs" were self-identified. This means that the learning time and performance cost are opinions reported by users who hated the interface, not an objective fact proven by a researcher in a lab. This is a problem with most online surveys, not just this one, that's why they're not accepted as scientific knowledge. If you want the article to say anything beyond this, find better sources. Diego Moya (talk) 04:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Several of the lawyers I work with have gotten past the learning curve, and find that the new interface is slower than the old one. The new interface is only good for new users, for the first few hours. Then once you get into production mode of doing real work, all the extra click click click is a continuing drain on productivity.

So what questions are left?

Look, facts are facts. Experienced users hate the new interface, and it reduces their productivity. The non-neutral POV is yours, as you try to suppress the facts.

148.106.4.6 (talk) 00:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

We can request a third opinion if you wish. The fact that "several lawyers you work with have some problems with Office 2007" is a different fact than "Office 2007 costs multiple billions of dollars", and you're treating them as the same. Anyway you'd have to explain much better why the cost of the new Office 2007 interface is so important in a small section that explains consistency in general. Diego Moya (talk) 04:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

HHI

The gallery captions frequently use the term "HHI", but the article never defines what it means. JIP | Talk 12:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Is it a typographical error? Should it read HMI? Best Regards. 212.140.251.35 (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
It's a translation error. HHI could stand for "Human-human interface" or "hand-held interface", but obviously the images are not those. I've "blamed" the creation of the gallery descriptions to this edit, and the initials were translated from the German "Mensch-Maschine-Schnittstelle", which should be "HMI" (or "MMI", Man-Machine Interface). I have corrected it. Diego (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Graphical User Interface, 1968 to... 1988?

The section entitled "Graphical User Interface, 1968 to present" (under History) is a kind of timeline. Leaving aside the fact that this is possibly not an ideal format, is there a reason it peters out around the '80s? Felixphew (Ar! Ar! Ar!) 09:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Physical User Interfaces should be added

The article does not mention about physical user interfaces even though they are an important type of user interfaces. Hardware interfaces are mentioned but they refer to physical interfaces connecting physical machines together whereas physical user interfaces consider human-machine interaction on physical level. One could refer to an article by Greenberg 2003: "Physical user interfaces: what they are and how to build them", See DOI 10.1145/1029632.1029660 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akseli.palen (talk • contribs) 17:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Men-machine interface

Is the term MMI still used in the English language area? For me, the reference given in the text is not really authoritative.

In the German-speaking world, HMI is almost exclusively used as an English term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinci69 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

"Qualia interface"

@Cale McCollough: This article mentions something called a "qualia interface," but I haven't found any uses of this phrase outside of Wikipedia. Have any authors or researchers used this term before? Jarble (talk) 21:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:User_interface/Archive_1&oldid=1255165041"