The entries in the HUD are definitely hierarchical, so I don't see a good reason why there can't be a way to browse through them "the old fashioned way". I wonder if the autocomplete suggests submenus, or just terminal entries?
I also hope this provides a nice, general way to introduce sciptability into applications, and that actions will be able to take arguments in the future. Or is that going too far?
Comments
This completely violates one of the most important aspects of interface design:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordance
The article says: "One of the first things people do [when they get a new piece of software] is go through all the menus".
Of course we do! That's how we learn what the program can do, not just how to do it. That's affordance.
After reading the brief history of this word, I think "discoverability" is a more recognized and less ambiguous term (albeit not as elegant).
Also, I think if the HUD is added to, rather than replaces, the menus, then the HUD has the potential to significantly increase discoverability.
The entries in the HUD are definitely hierarchical, so I don't see a good reason why there can't be a way to browse through them "the old fashioned way". I wonder if the autocomplete suggests submenus, or just terminal entries?
I also hope this provides a nice, general way to introduce sciptability into applications, and that actions will be able to take arguments in the future. Or is that going too far?
That sounds inaccurate.
The example for affordance I always use is the door handle example.
The pull handle on a door 'affords' pulling. The metal pad 'affords' pushing.
(a keyboard button 'affords' pressing)
Essentially they look like they should be pulled, pushed and pressed.