I cannot find any valid support that
one-button is more intuitive.
Maybe it is in your definition of "valid". The justification for the one-button mouse is explained in several papers by Raskin, and from other sources.
The one-button mouse prevents "button-errors", ie, you meant to hit one button, but you hit the other by mistake. Remember, humans weren't really built to operate computers genetically - the brain favors thumb-forefinger coordination.
The original work at Parc focused on one, two, and three button mice. They documented that the most important facet of the control device was STANDARD behavior.
They actually favored a two-button mouse, but for reasons actually specific to the Star system. In general, they found most people made button errors up to 46% of the time using 2-button mice, even with standard functions.
Windows is even worse since the second mouse button behaves differently in different applications.
X-Windows I won't get into.
This is old hat, really. MS has excellent interface design departments that know all of this. But they must work with the archtiecture they are given.
The one-button/two-button debate was a big one in the HI community. In the end, I think people decided that reality dictates that people are going to use 2 (thanks to Windows), so it's time to move on to a debate that can actually change something.
As a side note: The bane of the interface design profession is "anecdotal proofs." They are basically, "well, when I did this, it worked OK..." or "My father tried this and this and this happened."
Anecdotes can offer insight, but they represent literally zero proof of any generally applicable trend or behavioral pattern. |
