|
|
|
|
|
by CRConrad
1606 days ago
|
|
> Those laws your bring up, (if scientifically valid at all) likely refer to an extreme generality. [...] These laws obviously don't refer to windows, they refer to everything and as a result are only generally right, and not exactly right about everything. If you look up stuff that's referred to in stead of just spewing the first thing that comes into your head, you embarrass yourself a lot less. If you had looked up Fitt's law, for instance, you'd have known that it says "it's easier to hit the edge of a screen with a mouse pointer than some line in the middle, and far easier to hit a corner than some point in the middle". Now please explain how this "extreme generality" does not "refer to windows". (It's not like it's a "corner case" (hnyuk, nyuk).) |
|
With widescreens my mouse point never touches an edge. I mean that's a corner case your axiom fails to address. Because human behavior is part of the system you have to use science and data driven methods to determine the best course of action as human behavior can be unpredictable. Axiomatic statements like "it's easier to hit the edge of a screen with a mouse pointer than some line in the middle, and far easier to hit a corner than some point in the middle" are often invalid in the face of human behavior. Axioms and logic are the domain of maths and logic not human behavior. This is another reason why I sort of dismiss these "laws". This attempt to formalize rules as if they're axiomatic when clearly they are not.
>Now please explain how this "extreme generality" does not "refer to windows". (It's not like it's a "corner case" (hnyuk, nyuk).)
Almost every website or UI is a corner case. Even changing the color of the mouse cursor could have chaotic effects. New Coke is the perfect example of this where not even data could accurately predict the outcome... let alone logic.
In God we trust, all others must have data.