The Physical Architecture of Shortcut keys is limited by the source of inspiration for their design. The initial keys introduced like Ctrl, Esc, Alt etc. drew their inspiration from the keyboard structure itself. Later keys like Fn and the introduction of Color still leveraged the keyboard as the base device of inspiration. The route to the evolution of shortcuts was therefore within physical limitations of the keyboard. The physical architecture of the shortcut keys today is based on the multi-finger use of the keyboard, rather than the right-hand-index-finger use of the mouse for example, which is a different device. The power of the habit of the double click has not been leveraged in the creation of Keyboard shortcuts for programs like Excel or even the basic Explorer type programs. For example, even in FB, the link in the bottom that says Older Post could have a shortcut key like "Down Arrow Doubleclick", ditto for closing a file in Excel.
Similarly, there are usage patterns in extended devices, such as the remote control or a PS2 game console, which are just not even considered in the physical architecture of shortcuts. The fact that we swap channels on our TV remotes has not resulted in “Channels” out of people’s web book mark folder, with names and numbers, operated by the thumb. Take another device, the cellphone. The usage of Numbers in a cellphone is not based on a linear number scale of a QWERTY keyboard, but rather on a 3X3 grid, operated by the thumb or index finger when the device is placed for speaker use. For example, Double-Click 1 top open Gmail, while Double-Click 2 top open FB in a new tab, laid out in a Grid 3X3 structure, for use by the thumb. Thus the physical architecture of the shortcut keys today is limited by the device which is their source of inspiration.
Another structural limitation of shortcut keys is their technical programming rigidity. A more flexible programming structure would place the power of the shortcut in the hands of the user. For example, in Shortcut 2.0, every user should be allowed to define his set of shortcuts for each of his mainly visited sites, or say Bookmarks. For example : LinkedIn – I’ll have Ctrl O for search person, Ctrl-Shift O for advanced keyword people search. In FB, I’ll have Ctrl O for “view pic” and say Ctrl-Shift O for “view slideshow”. Shortcut keys therefore are currently non customizable. The new Windows 2007 (or is it Office 2007... the one where Excel > 65536) has some features like this in its "customize ribbon", which is quite fantastic and powerful.
The challenge of product evolution of Shortcut 2.0 is deeper though. Just as there are challenges in the physical architecture of shortcut keys, there are challenges at a more philosophical level. Shortcut keys today lack the understanding of the nature of people’s surfing habits & its implications on their shortcut key needs
Currently shortcut keys are aimed at saving time within the use of a program or at most, within a website on the internet, such as gmail’s shortcut keys. They evolved in an email-era, and thus are frequently based on more obvious click-thru patterns making them time saving efficiency drivers within a website - ex Compose Mail, Reply etc. However, even there, shortcut keys today are unintuitive. For example, if one particular repeated sequence of click-thru’s on LinkedIn is Search Person, Select & Open Profile and then either close/send message/add to network, there are no shortcut keys matching this click thru stream. A study of the click-thru patterns by a newspaper site, for example, could lead to an interesting outcome of shortcuts and channels. Click Thru Analysis therefore can be one of the prime drivers of shortcut key creation.
Another trend in surfing habits today is the shift from transactional surfing to exploratory surfing, leading to multi site concurrent usage. This requires a modification of the view on saving time within websites to saving time across websites, where there is a continuity of content. For example, the shortcut keys within gmail are currently designed to handle the usage of email. There exist usage scenarios perhaps, where the gmail site is used as a gateway to a google search, for users of Google Alerts. However there is no shortcut key that is based on measures of such usage patterns across sites. Amazon itself doesn’t have shortcut keys inspite of an extremely intuitive website that demands exploration. Websites that depend on exploration and wish to retain eyeballs are not creating shortcut keys that facilitate exploration & yet save time, since shortcuts are seen not seen from the perspective of concurrent multi-site exploration. In the Amazon example, this could mean Right Arrow Double Click to visit IMDB, and Escape (on the IMDB site) to return to Amazon; or Ctrl Double Click to visit Wiki and Escape (on the Wiki site) to return to Amazon.
The product creation/evolution in shortcut keys therefore needs to work across two dimensions. Firstly, the physical architecture dimension – Multiple Device Inspiration & User Generated Shortcuts. Secondly, the philosophical architecture dimension – Click Thru Analysis & Concurrent Multi-site Exploration. A more detailed structural analysis on Shortcuts therefore can provide a roadmap for an improved usage experience. Shortcut Keys are powerful drivers of stickiness & are integral to the UI of any intelligent website. The real mindset shift is required to move shortcuts from the realm programs such as excel or even the browser, into the reaml of content and the nature of its navigatory consumption in today’s Internet world.
No comments:
Post a Comment