Hidden Costs of Graphical User Interfaces: Failure to Make the Transition from Menus and Icon Toolbars to Keyboard Shortcuts

Satisficing and the Use of Keyboard Shortcuts: Being Good Enough Is Enough?

Keyboard shortcuts are generally accepted as the most efficient method for issuing commands, but previous research has suggested that many people do not use them. In this study we investigate the use of keyboard shortcuts further and explore reasons why they are underutilized by users. In Experiment 1, we establish two baseline findings: (1) people infrequently use keyboard shortcuts and (2) lack of knowledge of keyboard shortcuts cannot fully account for the low frequency of use. In Experiments 2 and 3, we furthermore establish that (3) even when put under time pressure users often fail to select those methods they themselves believe to be fastest and (4) the frequency of use of keyboard shortcuts can be increased by a tool that assists users learning keyboard shortcuts. We discuss how the theoretical notion of ‘satisficing’, adopted from economic and cognitive theory, can explain our results.

Keyboard Shortcut Usage: The Roles of Social Factors and Computer Experience

Previous research (Lane, Napier, Peres, & Sándor, in press) has shown that despite the fact that it typically takes half as much time to issue a command to a computer application using that command's keyboard shortcut, most people issue a particular command by clicking an icon on a toolbar or by selecting the command from a pull-down menu. This study examined reasons why that might be the case with a web survey that focused on demographic characteristics of people who do and do not use keyboard shortcuts, as well as social factors of computer use that might influence use of keyboard shortcuts. Participants' shortcut usage was influenced by social factors, such as working in an environment with other shortcut users and experiential factors, primarily the hours spent using a computer per week.

Invisible details - Building contextual menus - Linear

We recently added contextual menus to Linear. This makes the app faster and easier to use for people who prefer their mouse. One small thing that you won’t see or think about but will hopefully feel is a detail we designed into how sub-menus work.

How AI Tools Differ from Human Tools

Why the mental models we've built for human interfaces don't work for AI, & how Anthropic's latest guidelines are reshaping tool design for better performance & efficiency.

Our interfaces have lost their senses

We programmed them by punching cards, plugging in wires, and flipping switches. Programmers walked among banks of switches and cables, physically choreographing their logic. Being on a computer used to be a full-body experience.

10/GUI

Here it is: my crazy summer project to reinvent desktop human-computer interaction. This video examines the benefits and limitations inherent in current mouse-based and window-oriented interfaces, the problems facing other potential solutions, and visualizes my proposal for a completely new way of interacting with desktop computers. There's more information at http://10gui.com .

Prefab: implementing advanced behaviors using pixel-based reverse engineering of interface structure

The rigidity and fragmentation of GUI toolkits are fundamentally limiting the progress and impact of interaction research. Pixel-based methods offer unique potential for addressing these challenges independent of the implementation of any particular ...

GUIdebook: Graphical User Interface gallery

GUIdebook: Graphical User Interface gallery

How an accessibility designer adds keyboard shortcuts to a web app

Keyboard shortcuts occupy a strange area for web design.

Desktop Neo – rethinking the desktop interface for productivity.

The desktop computer hasn’t changed much in the last 30 years. It’s still built on windows, folders and mouse input. But we have changed. We now use smartphones and tablets most of the time, since they are much easier to use.The traditional desktop computer is struggling to adapt the simple interfaces of mobile devices while also keeping its focus on productivity. With people switching to mobile devices for mundane tasks, we have the opportunity to rethink the desktop computer with a focus on getting professional work done.

Games Done Quick's Long, Difficult Journey To A Better Gaming Future

Progress isn't linear, and there are no skips or shortcuts

psf (@psf@oldbytes.space)

In their article ["Malleable Software"](https://www.inkandswitch.com/essay/malleable-software), Ink & Switch list various ways that modern software applications fail to serve the user: - Software is too rigid: users can’t tailor it to suit their workflow, except by entering the role of programmers. - Software applications are overspecialized "avocado slicers", not general tools like "knives", so their lack of tailorability is keenly felt. - Software doesn’t provide a reasonable learning curve from beginner to expert; in other words, time spent learning an application doesn’t unlock tailorability, instead the end user must learn an unrelated skill like a markup/scripting language or even the tool’s implementation language. - Software applications are increasingly siloed, so sharing data between apps, let alone orchestrating cross-app workflows, is overly difficult. These are real problems. From what I can tell, Ink & Switch are software researchers, and view the problems from a highly technical perspective, focusing on novel infrastructure that enables end-user programmability. They pose questions such as "how do we ease users into programming?" and "instead of shipping a dead, static binary, can we ship a living image containing programming tools allowing it to be modified in arbitrary ways while still running?" These ideas are technologically exquisite, but they fail to provide a gentle learning curve. (cont'd) 🧵

vorssaint/vorssaint-utils

Free and open-source macOS menu bar toolkit.