Re: What to use on GTK+3

[Tristan Van Berkom <tristan upstairslabs com>]

On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 10:09 PM, Igor Korot <ikorot01 gmail com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 8:00 AM, Thiago Bellini Ribeiro
> <hackedbellini gmail com> wrote:
> >  On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 1:46 AM Daniel Kasak 
> > <d j kasak dk gmail com> wrote:
> > >  No no no. Everybody is wrong. What we need is:
> > >
> > >  [ Actually, now that I come to think about it, this is not the 
> > > action
> > >  I would like to take at this time. Thankyou all the same]
> > >  [ This is precisely the action that I require, and I thank you for 
> > > the
> > >  explicit dialog and verbose text in the buttons; it really makes 
> > > sure
> > >  I know what it about to happen, and possibly makes the rest of the
> > >  text of the dialog redundant, but hey, at least there is zero scope
> > >  for confusion]
> >
> >  The whole point here is to _be redundant_. Why? For some reasons, 
> > but a
> >  major one is: Users don't read dialogs!
> Why people think this? Was there a statistical analysis about it?
> How many people do read them comparing to how many people don't?


I understand the curiosity, but if your goal is to develop 
applications, I'm unsure you are asking the right questions.

A.) Microsoft and Apple both have long standing documentation in their 
human
   interface guidelines to discourage dialog response buttons that
   dont have their own context (i.e. "Yes" or "Go ahead"), most UX 
experts
   seem to agree on this, for close to a decade. I would not take it 
on myself
   to try to prove them wrong.

   In other words, in absence of proof, either you spend enormous time 
yourself
   doing these studies, or, the practical thing is follow current 
recommended
   practices.


B.) As Thiago mentioned, this need not be about whether users read all 
the text
   or not, but "you reduce the user's memory load", this in itself is 
a very
   good argument, your software is easier to use, the appropriate 
response
   can be 'gleaned'.

   I.e., Even if you assumed everyone read dialog text, it would 
_still_
   be worth the effort to make your application more user friendly, by
   reducing what they have to remember from session to session.


> Where can I see it? And who did it?


Some have provided links, but I think the best source of the 
documentation
you are asking for will be in the (probably private) bug tracking 
repositories
and tech support history and documentation for companies with large 
user bases,
who had to learn this from experience (I can only imagine how many disks
have been completely wiped just because your common grandmother 
followed her
grandson's advice to just say "yes" to "all that complicated stuff").


That said, there is another interesting point which nobody has brought 
up, and that is translatability of your application.

Consider the phrase: "Don't you want to go home ?"

English: No, means "no I dont want to go home"
Korean:  No, means "no, I do want to go home"

Especially in the majority of cases, where application developers use 
GTK_STOCK_YES, and the translation actually comes from GTK+, there is no
way for translators to read the question, and put an appropriate word
for the response, instead they are stuck with a translated "Yes". Even
if you did not use the stock GTK+ "Yes" and translated your own "Yes" 
string,
it will be more work for translators to cross-check the dialog string
and make special exceptions for scattered occurrences of "Yes" 
throughout
your application.

A translated "Yes" without context becomes meaningless in many 
languages.

Regards,
   -Tristan