| This is just math, so I will continue to elaborate. Mouse clicks and distance are two of the most basic metrics. And straight forward. So why wouldn't you optimize there? But what you're referring to is that which can offset and add to those metrics. "Mouse click" in and of itself means nothing in the context of the program. So it's the "other stuff" that pushes against the goal being accomplished in 1 click. So the answer is, considering that "other stuff", what is the most efficient, as in, fewest clicks and shortest distance possible? The gripe that should be had is not even optimizing on this level, and even worse, prioritizing "fancy" animations as if that's a good thing and as if that's your main job. > The most efficient path for a person is not necessarily the one with the fewest clicks/shortest mouse travel. The most efficient path for that person is necessarily the one with the fewest clicks/shortest mouse travel (for that person). And that is the optimization process of 1 use case (user usage case path). The goal of UI is to optimize efficiency across most use cases (and hence users) as measurably possible. (all the fancy animations can be added after that, so you can bill for those hours, and add an obvious "animations off" button, and you'll literally make everyone happy). |
That's the McNamara fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McNamara_fallacy Basically: enemy bodycount is easy to measure and thus you should optimize for it. Conversely if you can't measure it, it must not be important. The fallacy is that enemy body count is not wrong per se, but oversimplified.
I don't disagree with focusing on making most use-cases faster, but treating a human like a machine ignores things like error rates, understanding, lasting impressions, and ease of learning, which are important for users who have a choice in software. If you have vendor lock for your software, you don't need to optimize at all so it's kinda moot.