[OT] "The Condescending UI" (was: Do we need Win95/98/Me support?)

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 06:59:46 -0500, Nick Sabalausky <a at a.a> wrote:

> "Walter Bright" <newshound2 at digitalmars.com> wrote in message

>> Ever since the industry helpfully stopped labeling switches with "on"  
>> and
>> "off" my usual technique is to flip it back and forth until it goes on.  
>> Is
>> it really progress to change from a system where 99% of the world knows
>> what it means to one where 2% know?
>
> I'd say more like "from 99% to 90%". And those who do know can read it  
> more
> easily, at a further distance, with worse eyesight, in worse lighting
> conditions, at a breifer glance, etc.

This has nothing to do with it.  They could have come up with a *million*  
better choices.

Couple that with the fact that:

a) you usually want something on or off.  If it's already in the desired  
state, you can usually tell without looking at the switch.
b) It's far more mentally taxing to read/understand the symbols, remember  
how they apply to circuits, then determine whether it's on or off, than it  
is to simply start flipping switches until you get the desired result.

I think you'd be better off without *any* symbols, or with only a single  
symbol indicating 'on'.

For my money, the *best* on off switch is the lighted pushbutton, which  
has the two symbols combined.  I know that it's a power button, and if I  
see no light, I know it's off.

And the WORST on/off design ever (mandated by regulation, I believe) is to  
have a light turn *ON* when something is off.  For example, my TV  
helpfully has an LED that turns on when it's off, presumably to let me  
know that it's connected to power.

-Steve