That's kind of the point. You're able to make estimates of efficiency without actually running the usability studies, based purely upon the mathematical relationship of the distance and target size in two interactions.
I'm going to have to go out on a limb and say that you can't really support you claim that Fitts' law has "other formulations". Because, well, it doesn't. Fitts' law is an equation, that's well defined.
It's really not, because I'm always going to be able to do it in fewer clicks my way.First of all, you don't know where in the filesystem I am navigating from or to, so it's ridiculous to make claims about how many clicks you can use to get there.
It does for me. Maybe you have that feature turned off for some reason.Secondly, I already explained that in Windows 7 (which I am using), the sidebar file tree does not automatically navigate to the current location
I think there's an option in the browser to automatically navigate to the current location, and I had thought it was on by default.
No, I know how my UI works, and it's Windows 7.. and I know what you're trying to do based on your description, and it's obvious that I can do it in fewer clicks compared to your desired ability of being able to open windows displaying exactly what you're already looking at.So you're trying to argue, based on no knowledge of what I'm doing and ignoring how my UI works, that you can do what I need to do with fewer clicks. Patently ridiculous.
Again, shake your fist at the notion of a hierarchical tree display of a file system all you want. Most people don't find navigating a tree difficult at all.No, it's easier to navigate relative to my current location, instead of having to start navigating from scratch using a one-inch-wide file tree in the margins of my current window.
No, it's more clicks. It's not quicker.I did count those user interactions. It's still quicker for me to open a new window and navigate from there.
This isn't a matter of opinion. This is simply counting clicks.