Summary of questions with CC

While some of these questions are yes/no questions, I have no desire to
present you with a false dichotomy or to include any incorrect assumptions
in the questions. If you feel their are any please feel free to elaborate
*briefly* in your answer:

Q1) Do you agree that UI principles for web forms, such as not having a
submit button, need not apply to other areas, such as how to handle non-UI
elements of the form or other UI elements not in a form?

cc: <http://goo.gl/FMr3i>
False premise. There are no such thing as UI principles for
web forms. So I agree that Web form principles for web forms
need not apply to other areas.
snit:
Of court there are UI principles that apply to web forms! An
example being not to use buttons to reset the whole form.
And, no, of course these need not apply to other areas.


Q2) You have repeatedly accused me of trying to apply a principle to the
wrong scope, such as applying Gnome UI guidelines to OS X. Please present
the quote or quotes where you believe I did this.

cc: <http://goo.gl/FMr3i>
A:
"which show general guidelines for different systems (hint,
including Gnome... think back to your past claims about Gnome
not being referenced... LOL!)"

http://groups.google.com/group/comp...ocacy/msg/
68d573f843b9958b

B:
"The general rule is not to have one"
snit:
A:
You even quote my noting the "guidelines [are] for different
systems (hint, including Gnome..."

In other words: you *think* you can only because you fail to
understand what you read. To be clear: while many general
guidelines apply to both Gnome and OS X, guidelines for one
need not apply to the other (you have to understand the scope
of the guideline!)

B:
Nothing in that quote says you should ignore the scope of a
guideline. See explanation A.


Q3) Do you agree that there are guidelines which UI designers should be
aware of and use in their designs?

cc: <http://goo.gl/6mGTR>
There are guidelines for specific platforms and classes of
UIs, but not general HCI guidelines.
snit:
There are guidelines that cover pretty much all UI
situations (such as the much discussed ones dealing with consistency).

cc: <http://goo.gl/FMr3i>
project specific principles are best. There are
platform-specific guidelines like GNOME, and other guidelines
for specific classes of UIs that should be followed.
snit:
Of course, you should look for guidelines that are the most
specific to your situation. This does not mean the guidelines
with the larger scopes will disagree, but they will bit be as
specific.


Q4) If so, do you agree that, based on those guidelines, both internal and
external consistency should be considered and arbitrary inconsistencies
avoided.

cc: <http://goo.gl/FMr3i>
False premise. "Arbitrary inconsistency" is not a phrase that
has any meaning to design principles and appears no where in
any text.
snit:
I accept you do not understand the concept. Obviously,
though, it has meaning and *the concept* is often discussed
in the literature.


Q5) Do you agree that I am not the one who originated the idea that
consistency in a UI is important; that these ideas are common to many
"takes" on UI guidelines.

cc: <http://goo.gl/FMr3i>
You originated added the word "arbitrary" in front of words,
totally misusing it.
snit:
Your answer is a complete dodge. My answer: of course
guidelines related to consistency are oft-discussed in the
literature - I did not create them.


Q6) Do you agree that while Gnome guidelines need not apply to, say, OS X
packages that many of the Gnome guidelines were based on broader principles
which do apply to OS X, KDE, Windows, etc.?

cc: <http://goo.gl/FMr3i>
GNOME guidelines may have been based on broader principles
common to desktop OSes, but those specific UIs are a small
subset of HCI.
snit:
Sure, guidelines for desktop OSs need not apply to things
outside their scope. Good to see you accept there are
general guidelines for desktop OSs.


Q7) Do you now have enough experience and knowledge to find flaws in the
examples of poorly done UIs I have shown you. I am happy to provide them
again if you do not recall them.

cc: <http://goo.gl/FMr3i>
I remember the examples, and I have agreed they are flawed.
snit:
Excellent! You finally agree with me that they are flawed (in
the past you said you could not determine it without knowing
the intentions of the designers). Now can you explain why
they are flawed? My take: they are flawed largely because
they lack consistency in areas they clearly should be
consistent.


Q8) Do you agree that principles, by their nature, *must* be general... that
if the apply to only a specific instance of something they are not
principles?

cc: <http://goo.gl/FMr3i>
They can apply to specific classes, certainly. So when I say
they are guidelines specific for classroom diagnosis, it
means they are guidelines for the situation of classroom
diagnosises, not general guidelines for all diagnosises. And
when I say there are specific guidelines for web forms, I
mean they are guidelines specifically for web forms in all
their situations, not general guidelines for all UIs.
snit:
This is a dodge. Do you agree that principles, by nature,
are general; that if they apply to only a specific instance
of something they are not principles.


Q9) Do you agree that your unsupported claims of your education and
professional experience are completely irrelevant to the discussion?

cc: <http://goo.gl/FMr3i>
No, I think they are completely relevent, unsupported or not.
snit:
I disagree. Your unsupported claims are completely
irrelevant.


Q10) Do you think it is acceptable behavior to publicly insist someone
advocates something they have never advocated? If so, why... and if not,
why not?

cc: <http://goo.gl/FMr3i>
Oh, of course not. That's why I make sure to go back and read
the post and have the link handy to supply context when
necessary to prove that if I say someone is advocating
something, they have certainly advocated it at least in the
past, if not currently as well.
snit:
And yet you do it. Repeatedly. Remember: I have never
advocated the things you attribute to me. Good to see you
acknowledge your behavior is wrong.


Q11) Here are two hypothetical web form principles:
1) Make sure the form sends its data to somewhere useful.
2) Do not use a reset button that resets the data of the
whole form.
Which of those two principles is a UI principle?

cc: <http://goo.gl/FMr3i>
neither. You call them web form principles yourself.
snit:
The second item is a UI principle (with its scope being that
of web forms, as defined in the question). The idea that the
principle is a "web form principle" is not in question, the
question is if it is a UI principle (in this case one with a
scope applying to web forms). In other words: another dodge
from you.




Questions from cc:

Q1) Can you find any use of the phrase "arbitrary inconsistency" in
anything written about design? Cite?

snit:
The concept is very, very common and others have used that
phrase. Here are some examples: <http://goo.gl/C4Tmk>,
<http://goo.gl/75qGO>, <http://goo.gl/RYGRd>, etc. When you
focus on a phrase and not a concept you are showing you are
missing the point. For more on the concept, follow links
here <http://goo.gl/x954h> and here <http://goo.gl/uf8r>.
That will lead you to *dozens* of examples, almost all of
which will have similar discussions on consistency.


Q2) If not, why not?

snit:
See Q1: I can, but the concept is far, far more important
than the term. If the term does not work for you I am open
to others. What suggestions do you have?




Comments on Snit's questions:

Q1: You think it is a false premise to think there can even be UI principles
for web forms. This is so amazingly wrong and absurd as to, by itself,
prove you are lost in terms of UI issues. I have even provided examples of
UI principles that apply to web forms.

Q2: You repeatedly accuse me of things you cannot show me doing... and when
asked to you show you cannot understand what you read. The idea that you
have a better understanding of what I have said and what I meant than I do
is absurd... but it is something you repeatedly do.

Q3: No real problem with your answer, though it might be nice if you had
answered a bit more broadly, as I did.

Q4: You showed you cannot even understand the question. The answer, of
course, is that these things should be considered.

Q5: You dodged and whined about terminology not even in the question. The
fact is I did not create the principles / guidelines we have discussed.

Q6: No complaint with your answer. Good to see you acknowledge the broader
(or more general) guidelines. Before you denied the general guidelines even
existed.

Q7: You finally admitted the examples I showed you were flawed, but you show
no understanding of why. I have asked you why and you have not been able to
offer a reason. Seems you are merely parroting my claim while you deny the
reasons. Odd.

Q8: You completely dodged the question.

Q9: You think your unsupported claims about yourself and your experience
should be seen as relevant. This is absurd.

Q10: You admit that behavior you engage in is wrong, but you still deny you
engage in it even though you do so in pretty much every one of your posts.

Q11: You dodged the question. The topic clearly goes over your head.



Comments on cc's questions:

Q1: A focus on terminology and not concepts. Shows a lack of understanding
of the topic.

Q2: Same.