Interface Gripe #3 - Do what I say!

I'm not a huge fan of Python. I think it's okay, but every time I use it I find something annoying to gripe about. I've pretty much stopped programming in it in favor of Ruby.

However, every once in a while I need to check the version of Python that's installed on my mac. I do the usual version check -- type python -v in an iTerm window. Of course, the proper option for Python is -V, so instead I get a spewage of verbosity in my terminal, followed by the Python interpreter prompt.

The obvious next step for me is to type "exit" or "quit" (or maybe "bye"). What does Python do in response? This:


>>> exit
'Use Ctrl-D (i.e. EOF) to exit.'
>>>


Yep, instead of exiting the interpreter, Python feels the need to let me know I didn't issue what it considers to be the proper exit technique. I get Python's pedantic leaning, but do I really need to be trained to exit the interpreter? Just do it, damn it!

I know there could be lots of academic arguments for using an out-of-band signal to terminate the interpreter (namespace pollution, etc.), but I think they're all bunk when you have to put up a page that tells you how to exit. Usability, folks! At least treat the interactive interpreter in a more friendly way. Of course, I can hear the counter-arguments piling up against that (the principle of least surprise). Hey, in the remote cases in which I type "exit" in the interactive interpreter and there happens to be a function named "exit", then just prompt me to find out what I want!

Others have noticed this annoying behavior as well.

Interface Gripe #2 - Alt+Tab

This gripe is definitely minor, but minor annoyances can add up. Does anyone use alt+tab to cycle among open applications? I do, in my quest to avoid using my mouse for window navigation.

Let me throw out one thing first: alt+tab is a mode, similar to insert or ex mode in vim, or even the foreground application mode of a window manager. Once I hold down alt and hit tab, I've entered a new mode in my window manager -- certain keystrokes that were associated with some action a second ago are no longer associated with those actions. This provides an opportunity for accepting new actions for those keystrokes.

Which brings me to Mac OS X's support for alt+tab application switching. In short: I like it. That's primarily because of two things:

1. the icons are nice and large; and
2. the arrow keys work!
   

Here's a shot:


See, Apple appears to understand the modal nature of alt+tab switching. So for people like me who don't like to contort their fingers -- and minds -- to cycle back and forth among applications with alt+tab and alt+shift+tab, there is an alternative. I simply hold down alt with my left thumb (I'm on a laptop, by the way), tap my tab key, release it, and then use my left and right arrow keys to cycle among the application icons. This gets important when you have a lot of applications open.

This brings me to my gripe. And, like I said, it's a small one. I'm cycling among my ten or twenty applications with either the tab key or the arrows, and when I get to the end of the list, it cycles around to the beginning of the list. Why? I think the proper behavior should be one of two things:

1. stop the cycling and wait on the last icon until I release the key and (with tab still held down) re-press it; or
2. insert a short delay, similar to a détente in the potentiometer controls found on electronic equipment.
   

Either option would allow me the same functionality as before, but I would also have an anchor to use as a navigation aid. Look, I told you it was minor!

I can hear one response already: Why aren't you using Apple's Exposé? Well, here's my reasons on that one:

1. I don't really care for all that animation for something I do quite a lot -- I want speed.
2. I'm pretty good at recognizing my applications by icon, but I'm not as good at recognizing them by window.
3. The keyboard! Using the keyboard for Exposé is not that great -- the windows are arranged according to size, and there's no cycling order for them. You have to use the directional arrows to navigate the arbitrary ordering, so it feels like playing some kind of maze game. So you're left with the mouse.
   

Well, what about the Windows version of alt+tab? It's pretty terrible. No arrow key support. It works on the window level, not the application level like Apple's version. Have you ever tried to use it with, say, 20 windows open? I can't speak for Windows Vista, thankfully.

A final thought: I would appreciate having control over the application-vs-window cycling choice. How about allowing me to pick keys for either behavior? Alt+tab (with arrows) would cycle among applications, while Ctrl+tab (with arrows) would cycle among the open windows within a single application. How about that?

I'll wait for another day to expound my theories on keystroke economy (here comes jkl;!).

Interface Gripe #1

I'm fond of complaining about user interfaces. Isn't it everyone's right to be an armchair interface designer? Here's an example that's temporally relevant (to me) if not very significant in its severity.


A casual look at the graph above leaves me thinking that the x axis for the main graph is the one with the years marked out on it. I think this happens for several reasons:

• The actual x axis doesn't pop out at me (it has more marks and less contrast)
• There's not enough vertical separation between the two graphs - I think even having a thin line of separation would help.
• The year-scale graph at the bottom is so faint it's hard for me to see that it's there.
• The year labels on the x axis for the year-scale graph are above the graph, instead of below it.

I appreciate what they're doing with the moving zoom window. Maybe they could separate the two graphs just a bit more, and maybe show a zoom-like indicator, such as this (forgive the aliasing and general poor mod job):



This is a beta (but hasn't that term suffered a meaning decay?), so they're actively making changes. They've done some interesting things to it recently in which they annotate the graph with news stories that were released at the associated point in time. They've also got a handy management view where you can quickly find out about the recent stock activity of the executives.

The HeadOn Imperative

Commercials really annoy me. I don't know if I have some aural equivalent of an eidetic memory or what, but when I get some jingle in my head, it's hard to get it out, and it occupies much of my passive cycles.

I have no eyelids on my ears, so I can't keep jingles out. When I'm bombarded with something on TV or the radio, I feel like I'm being disrespected. Instead of appealing to my conscious mind with reasoning, the perpetrators are attempting to embed associations into my long-term memory. I've noticed a few tactics recently that particularly bother me:

• Terrible music - why would I ever want to hear a song some hourly studio musician wrote extolling the virtues of some laundry detergent? Some songs should not be written.
  
• Commandeering classic music - I can't listen to Led Zeppelin's "Rock and Roll" anymore without picturing a Cadillac motoring down a dusty road.
• Repetitive commands - Anyone seen the HeadOn commercials? They're shameless. Why don't you just point a gun to my head and get me to memorize your stupid application instructions? That's what it feels like. I won't buy that stuff specifically because of those commercials. And of course, they have to fold in on themselves by releasing a new commercial that has an actor state, "I can't stand your commercial, but your product is amazing!"
• Rapid-talk legalese - This is an old one that's used on radio a lot. If you have to double the duration of your spot by adding in disclaimers read by John Moschitta, you should rethink your approach.
  

A simple request: Please, just respect my intelligence and tell me what your product does and what its strong points are. I know, I know, I'm asking way too much. As Seth Stevenson notes in this article on Slate:

Maybe a small percentage of us will snootily refrain from buying HeadOn—as an act of protest against an ad we find irritating—but this is a small price to pay when millions of other folks are now familiar with HeadOn, curious about it, and unlikely ever to forget its name.

It's the same reason spam works -- some small clueless percentage of us think it's a good idea to buy some "v1agara" or "Codeinee no dr lvisit".