Must We Click To Interact?

Rockgod writes, "Here is an interesting experiment (warning: heavy Flash!!) that urges you not to click anywhere in the site yet wants you to navigate through it. It's an exploration of the clicking habit of computer users and aims to help understand why it is so hard not to click." The site records the mouse movements of each visitor and offers you a sample of them to replay. Doing so is a little unnerving, like peering into people's minds.

Yes, we have got to click

[Anonymous Coward]

The cursor isn't always "pointed at something" when it is over the client window. Clicking is often unnecessary, but not always. Anything that reverses itself at once when the cursor leaves the area is fine, but if actions which require another action to reverse the effect are triggered by a mouse-over, users feel that they need to be careful where they point their mouse. They shouldn't have to be careful because mouse movement is not exclusive to one application.

Even they miss the point?

[bigberk]

I'm wondering if even they miss the point of a click. I tried out the site and the problem is unexpected things triggering when I move the pointer past them. The click is a confirmation of a selection, so the pointer selects an option (from a massive grid on our screen) but the click confirms it. Otherwise, as happens with this site, you end up going to wrong places because you have no way of confirming a selection.

Re:Yes, we have got to click

[pchan-]

Someone mod this AC up. It's not that users "need" to click. It's that the mouse interface is designed to safely float over elements without triggering them (although the old X-mouse is a notable departure from this). Only when the user has hit the target is the mouse "active". This is because the mouse is an imprecise and difficult to control tool. Have you ever tried freehand drawing with it? Compare that to what you can do with a pen. Forcing precision on the mouse action requires finer movement, greatly increases the likelyhood of unintentionally selecting something, and is generally far more stressful. This is why the users seem to get anxious and want to click. They really want to avoid this horrid new interface that, for some reason, some jackass is trying to force on them.

Re:Even they miss the point?

[p0tat03]

Agreed. The click is a useful way to confirm your selection. I found that the site needlessly responded to my mouse movements just because I was in-transit to another location. Or worse, if I paused too long in one place it would take that as my choice and run with it. The only way to tell the difference between passing over a button and intending to click it is *time* spent there. This is time I would rather spend being productive, and not waiting for the system to realize that this button is indeed the one I want to go through.

The click makes the interface faster, it is only limited by how quickly one can move his/her mouse (and damn, I can move pretty quick). An interesting study to be sure, but as an actual interface it leaves much to be desired.

... Not to mention that the site itself is bloated and looks pretty. Can you imagine adapting that kind of interface for more practical applications, where user speed becomes an issue? Can you imagine programming an IDE with a no-click interface? Ewwwwww.

Don't press any key to continue

[Dachannien]

Using a mouse interface without clicking is akin to using a command line interface without pressing enter. The mouse click serves a very important purpose - to ensure that selections and actions are performed on the correct item. This greatly reduces errors, increases the speed of interaction, and reduces the real estate required by the interface.

Creative ways of using a mouse have been tried repeatedly (such as the gesture selection system in Black and White and Darwinia), but the conclusion is invariably that such systems are just pains in the ass once the novelty wears off.

Re:Yes, we have got to click

[Tim C]

Not only that, but if simply moving the cursor over an interface element is enough to activate it, you're going to end up tracing a very circuitous route around the screen in order to avoid activating any elements by mistake.

RSI is already a worry when we can take the shortest route to an element, without having to add lots of unnecessary manoeuvring around icons, etc.

Re:nope

[jellomizer]

Well I am one of those people who move the mouse out of the way after I select stuff to read. On this site it is damn annoying because it opens the text then I move the mouse out of the way to read it because I don't like an arrow on my text. I guess the site is good for people who setup there window managers with sloppy focus that follows the mouse, with instant bring to front on focus. But clicking is a way to say Dude that is what I want to see show it to me not just my mouse moving over it.

Re:Yes, we have got to click

[Bastard of Subhumani]

it's that the mouse interface is designed to safely float over elements without triggering them (although the old X-mouse is a notable departure from this).

Stops and starts, hovers, and little movements are to a pointing device what "ummmm" and "errr" and pauses are to speech recognition, i.e. the thing that the user does unconsciously, the thing that breaks it. In consequence they're the things that no sane UI designers would associate a meaning or action with, though clearly not all UI designers are sane. Trackpads in particular seem to be afflicted with this.