Guest
Show Posts
31
General Mach Discussion / Re: Here is a sneak preview of the new screen I am working on.
« on: February 19, 2006, 09:54:49 AM »
Benny,
Great work! Just a couple of suggestions:
The cosmetic "glare" on the readouts makes them look realistic, but also introduces the negative of artificially introducing glare (something we fight to reduce).
The "tests" that I apply to a screen set are:
1) Is everything that I am likely to need to see or do within one keystroke?
2) Are tasks which are used together in a single location?
3) Is the use of (even rarely used) a group of functions (and the order of their usage) intuitive from the layout of the screen.
4) Are potentially dangerous actions difficult to take because the functions are blocked out (or at least on inconvenient other screens).
At this point, hopefully, the screen design is optimized for the intended usage.
After this, I would look at whether a change in the "cosmetics" (color, shape, style) make it easier to achieve the above. Some colors are associated with certain functions (green/go, red/stop, etc.) and can make the associated features easier to find.
At this point, a machinist familiar with MACH3, but not with your screen set, should be able to immediately use the tool with a minimum of studying or fear (think getting behind the wheel of a different model automobile).
Further cosmetic embellishment may be made as long as it doesn't interfere or distract from the above objectives.
The screens should be easy to edit, but if the designer has done their job properly, there should be a minimum of editing required.
I agree with much of what Olivier said, yet this should not be interpet ed as a criticism. Olivier was simply indicating his experiences and conclusions as a caution of where to be careful as you develop your screens. I did a bunch of work on screens a few months ago. I found that they were quite easy to use, though others went their own ways. I stopped developing them as MACH3 kept changing and it was simply easier to go with the flow of default screens for the time being.
I respectfully disagree with something John P. said. An MPG is certainly useful (though the way they are currently supported by MACH menus is not optimal, but won't go into that here), but I think that, unless you have three of them, a joystick (or screen button clone) is useful for gross jogging. As touch screens become more prevalent (I would use nothing else from now on - environment allowing), all such functions should be available by screen buttons properly proportioned for this usage.
I think you have done a good job on many of the above. I would be curious what people think of the above "tests". Are they all valid, should more be added? I find it useful to have a set of tenets to throw my work against, when I am designing. It keeps me from gong on tangents. If my work deviates, I evaluate whether to add another rule allowing the divergence, else I pull back within the constraints I've set up.
If you want to meet halfway, I'll be in Hawaii next week :-)
Keep up the good work,
Jeff
Great work! Just a couple of suggestions:
The cosmetic "glare" on the readouts makes them look realistic, but also introduces the negative of artificially introducing glare (something we fight to reduce).
The "tests" that I apply to a screen set are:
1) Is everything that I am likely to need to see or do within one keystroke?
2) Are tasks which are used together in a single location?
3) Is the use of (even rarely used) a group of functions (and the order of their usage) intuitive from the layout of the screen.
4) Are potentially dangerous actions difficult to take because the functions are blocked out (or at least on inconvenient other screens).
At this point, hopefully, the screen design is optimized for the intended usage.
After this, I would look at whether a change in the "cosmetics" (color, shape, style) make it easier to achieve the above. Some colors are associated with certain functions (green/go, red/stop, etc.) and can make the associated features easier to find.
At this point, a machinist familiar with MACH3, but not with your screen set, should be able to immediately use the tool with a minimum of studying or fear (think getting behind the wheel of a different model automobile).
Further cosmetic embellishment may be made as long as it doesn't interfere or distract from the above objectives.
The screens should be easy to edit, but if the designer has done their job properly, there should be a minimum of editing required.
I agree with much of what Olivier said, yet this should not be interpet ed as a criticism. Olivier was simply indicating his experiences and conclusions as a caution of where to be careful as you develop your screens. I did a bunch of work on screens a few months ago. I found that they were quite easy to use, though others went their own ways. I stopped developing them as MACH3 kept changing and it was simply easier to go with the flow of default screens for the time being.
I respectfully disagree with something John P. said. An MPG is certainly useful (though the way they are currently supported by MACH menus is not optimal, but won't go into that here), but I think that, unless you have three of them, a joystick (or screen button clone) is useful for gross jogging. As touch screens become more prevalent (I would use nothing else from now on - environment allowing), all such functions should be available by screen buttons properly proportioned for this usage.
I think you have done a good job on many of the above. I would be curious what people think of the above "tests". Are they all valid, should more be added? I find it useful to have a set of tenets to throw my work against, when I am designing. It keeps me from gong on tangents. If my work deviates, I evaluate whether to add another rule allowing the divergence, else I pull back within the constraints I've set up.
If you want to meet halfway, I'll be in Hawaii next week :-)
Keep up the good work,
Jeff