Original post:
http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/hiner/?p=6305
Discussion on:
View:
Show:
This is why I am not accepting any maintenance jobs. What they want you to implement is new user expectations. That is a loop that will last with the lifespan of the software. But Google's idea of innovation may not be the best; they have so many failed experiments. I didn't even like App Engine. So many limitations!
Disagree re: IT jobs. Every day I deal with people who can't understand 'self-evident' tech. I see the same blank stares from the mucky mucks as last year. They are required to use so much more technology to keep up than they used to, and most of them are running like deer in the headlights.
I'm not sure I buy the "less is more" argument.
It might be apples and oranges, but look at cars as a product. Simplicity it not what people are seeking. They want GPS, MP3 input, Backup cameras, and every other bell and whistle they can cram into a monthly payment.
Software is just a commodity the same as a car. People like bells and whistles. If they didn't we'd all be using Notepad.
Plus... As a business owner, how am I supposed to compete with the argument that "my product has half the stuff that my competitors use". Even if my software was half the cost the pitch would fail miserably.
It might be apples and oranges, but look at cars as a product. Simplicity it not what people are seeking. They want GPS, MP3 input, Backup cameras, and every other bell and whistle they can cram into a monthly payment.
Software is just a commodity the same as a car. People like bells and whistles. If they didn't we'd all be using Notepad.
Plus... As a business owner, how am I supposed to compete with the argument that "my product has half the stuff that my competitors use". Even if my software was half the cost the pitch would fail miserably.
Sure people want GPS but they want it to be simple and not something they have to pull over to figure out how to use.
You can try selling a product with the less is more mentality by saying "We won't waste your time with our product, it will do what you need and get out of your way. You don't need to hire more it to support it. It will save you time and money."
You can try selling a product with the less is more mentality by saying "We won't waste your time with our product, it will do what you need and get out of your way. You don't need to hire more it to support it. It will save you time and money."
I use metapad for about 90% of the things I do. It's easier to use unless you really have to have all the features.
Yes, indeed, look at the features people want on their cars: Every one of them is individually simple. GPS that talks to you, MP3 input that you just use, backup cameras that you just look at.
You sell simple by selling the client what they really want: a product that they don't have to spend three weeks learning to use, and three months trying to forget the ways they did things with the last version. Are you kidding me?
Users are not usually hardcore geeks. We are a very small segment of the population. Most people, "just want the damned thing to do what it's supposed to" and aren't interested in the details. When you swipe your credit card at the gas pump do you really want to have to think about how the gas is sent through pipelines that carry gas for many different stations and how they don't all get mixed together? Do you want to have to think about all the details of how the payment gets transferred from your account to the gas station? Of course not. You just want it to do what it's supposed to do.
If you can't pitch easy to use I feel bad for your clients.
Yes, indeed, look at the features people want on their cars: Every one of them is individually simple. GPS that talks to you, MP3 input that you just use, backup cameras that you just look at.
You sell simple by selling the client what they really want: a product that they don't have to spend three weeks learning to use, and three months trying to forget the ways they did things with the last version. Are you kidding me?
Users are not usually hardcore geeks. We are a very small segment of the population. Most people, "just want the damned thing to do what it's supposed to" and aren't interested in the details. When you swipe your credit card at the gas pump do you really want to have to think about how the gas is sent through pipelines that carry gas for many different stations and how they don't all get mixed together? Do you want to have to think about all the details of how the payment gets transferred from your account to the gas station? Of course not. You just want it to do what it's supposed to do.
If you can't pitch easy to use I feel bad for your clients.
Self-evident means that things are so intuitive that users instinctively know how to use the application. Not going to happen in my world. This may work for people who deal with computers for a living, but I deal with a lot of people who have trouble checking email. Not going to happen until you have mind-reading computers.
If what you want is a solid user-interface, you take Apple's route and give the user one and only one way to do things and leave everything else out. The more ways you give people to do things, and the more things you allow them to do, the more complex you make your application, the bigger the application gets, and the more opportunity for user error and bugs.
You can have simplicity OR complexity - not both.
What I'd like to see are basic applications and plug-ins to extend functionality that users can install on an as-needed basis. Just like taking a basic iPhone and adding Apps from the iStore, do the same with MS Office. Most users don't need goal-seek or extensive VB support in Excel: they just want a simple spreadsheet with a standard function library. Want csv import/export? There's a plug-in for handling other data formats. How many people need mail-merge in Word? Or Meta-tags?
I contend that if you took out all the default forms, VB support, other-language support, and bells and whistles, you could get Office back to fitting on 1/2 a CD instead of requiring a DVD. Plus, they can lower the price back down to a reasonable $40 and charge those who need it a few more $ for each add-in. They can even group the add-ins and offer them as upgrade packages for expert users. It would certainly make me take another look at MS as opposed to OpenOffice. $350 vs free? I'll deal with the minor idiosyncrasies in OpenOffice. $40 vs free and I'm not so inclined...
If what you want is a solid user-interface, you take Apple's route and give the user one and only one way to do things and leave everything else out. The more ways you give people to do things, and the more things you allow them to do, the more complex you make your application, the bigger the application gets, and the more opportunity for user error and bugs.
You can have simplicity OR complexity - not both.
What I'd like to see are basic applications and plug-ins to extend functionality that users can install on an as-needed basis. Just like taking a basic iPhone and adding Apps from the iStore, do the same with MS Office. Most users don't need goal-seek or extensive VB support in Excel: they just want a simple spreadsheet with a standard function library. Want csv import/export? There's a plug-in for handling other data formats. How many people need mail-merge in Word? Or Meta-tags?
I contend that if you took out all the default forms, VB support, other-language support, and bells and whistles, you could get Office back to fitting on 1/2 a CD instead of requiring a DVD. Plus, they can lower the price back down to a reasonable $40 and charge those who need it a few more $ for each add-in. They can even group the add-ins and offer them as upgrade packages for expert users. It would certainly make me take another look at MS as opposed to OpenOffice. $350 vs free? I'll deal with the minor idiosyncrasies in OpenOffice. $40 vs free and I'm not so inclined...
Plugins or "load as you need" would be a perfect solution. BTW, old idea, hackers have been doing htis for qwuite a while with windows, removing all the fluff and bloat since Windows 98 (Lite) and it continues today with Windows 7 (Tiny) (Oh, No! He's condoning Illegal Activities, quick, remove his Offensive Post!)
Indeed, self evidence is indeed in the eye of the beholder... Give the user CHOICE to REMOVE the fluff... Don't force YOUR idea of simplicity upon him (hint, hint, Google!), THEN it will become self evident
Indeed, self evidence is indeed in the eye of the beholder... Give the user CHOICE to REMOVE the fluff... Don't force YOUR idea of simplicity upon him (hint, hint, Google!), THEN it will become self evident
yeah not all user dont know what they want/need, in that case i will give them standard version of COSTLY application!
Ouch.
As a usability designer for over 30 years, I am not nearly as pessimistic as you about the ability to create intuitive UI's for a wide-range of users.
You are proposing some fixes to the problem of bloat and unneeded complexity: use plug ins, create only one way to do any function.
These may work in some situations and not in others.
I have found that with thoughtful design you can pack a great deal of functionality and options into a simple UI and make it intuitive as well. Of course you will always find some users who are confused but you can support most of them.
UI design is like teaching or playing the piano. Many can do it but only a few do it really well.
I have had the experience of working with comapnies who had been struggling with interactive product UIs for a long time -- sometime years -- and never felt they got it right. I have been able to help many of these companies. How?
1. Understand the task flow (as contrasted to functionality).
2. Understand the audience and their skills and limitations.
3. Understand the encironment in which the product will be used.
4. Develop conceptual designs that are simple and flexible.
5. Hide details and bring them up when required so they do not clutter up the UI.
6. Be very careful about prompts and labels. Make sure they are self-explanatiry and provide more information on demand.
7. Usability test the designs and fix any problems that appear.
A good UI designer can work wonders. At least that has been my experience.
Charlie
As a usability designer for over 30 years, I am not nearly as pessimistic as you about the ability to create intuitive UI's for a wide-range of users.
You are proposing some fixes to the problem of bloat and unneeded complexity: use plug ins, create only one way to do any function.
These may work in some situations and not in others.
I have found that with thoughtful design you can pack a great deal of functionality and options into a simple UI and make it intuitive as well. Of course you will always find some users who are confused but you can support most of them.
UI design is like teaching or playing the piano. Many can do it but only a few do it really well.
I have had the experience of working with comapnies who had been struggling with interactive product UIs for a long time -- sometime years -- and never felt they got it right. I have been able to help many of these companies. How?
1. Understand the task flow (as contrasted to functionality).
2. Understand the audience and their skills and limitations.
3. Understand the encironment in which the product will be used.
4. Develop conceptual designs that are simple and flexible.
5. Hide details and bring them up when required so they do not clutter up the UI.
6. Be very careful about prompts and labels. Make sure they are self-explanatiry and provide more information on demand.
7. Usability test the designs and fix any problems that appear.
A good UI designer can work wonders. At least that has been my experience.
Charlie
Don't try to be all things to all users.
Like a mail client that is also a frontend for a database. (Yes, I know. Lotus Notes is still stupid.)
It seems like every company wants their software to do everything anyone would ever want to do. With that attitude they may as well put out their own OS. Anything that tries to do all things does none of them very well. It's like trying to have a multi-billion dollar business be a one-man-show.
Like a mail client that is also a frontend for a database. (Yes, I know. Lotus Notes is still stupid.)
It seems like every company wants their software to do everything anyone would ever want to do. With that attitude they may as well put out their own OS. Anything that tries to do all things does none of them very well. It's like trying to have a multi-billion dollar business be a one-man-show.
that even a fool can use it and only fools will use it. - Murphy's Laws of Computing
That said, I remember when Windows first came out and many of us thought it would never catch on as societies normally don't advance from writing to pictograms
That said, I remember when Windows first came out and many of us thought it would never catch on as societies normally don't advance from writing to pictograms
... Some of th most advanced societies (some would argue they are the most advanced) this planet have writing based on pictograms ... What are you driving, and who's going to get on the Moon first in this century? Hmmm?
... What are you driving, and who's going to get on the Moon first in this century? Hmmm? 
Don't think so.
Author seems to be looking not so far in the future (2-3 years max)
We have now very specific time when high-tech mobile devices are exploding to rich the dumbest of the uneducated in the world. That's why simplicity is the only way to go at this period of time.
As soon as the dumbest person finish learning how to push 3 buttons, he/she will immediately claim the fourth button, and so on...
P.S. Jason has quoted Leonardo, but only half of the sentence, which can be formulated
like this:
*** every complex thing must be designed and constructed in the simplest way possible ***
Limiting functionality has nothing to do with what was meant by Leonardo.
Author seems to be looking not so far in the future (2-3 years max)
We have now very specific time when high-tech mobile devices are exploding to rich the dumbest of the uneducated in the world. That's why simplicity is the only way to go at this period of time.
As soon as the dumbest person finish learning how to push 3 buttons, he/she will immediately claim the fourth button, and so on...
P.S. Jason has quoted Leonardo, but only half of the sentence, which can be formulated
like this:
*** every complex thing must be designed and constructed in the simplest way possible ***
Limiting functionality has nothing to do with what was meant by Leonardo.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that it's all learned. -- Bruce Ediger
People have been arguing that (insert new technology) has a self-evident or intuitive interface since at least 1984, with the first Mac. Trouble is there's no such thing. Much as it pains me to say so, since I'm proud to be an Apple fanboy, the first time I used a Mac ("Test Drive a Macintosh"---anyone remember that?) I couldn't for the life of me figure out how to change a font or cut and paste text. I figured out clicking to set the insertion point, but click and drag was in no way self-evident.
Bottom line, there's no such thing as self-evident when it comes to computers. There's "easily learned and used"---the best examples being the original Mac OS and Jef Raskin's work like Swyftware and the Canon Cat---and there's "complicated, more difficult to learn, but powerful," the best example being something like Photoshop. There's room for both in the market place and dumbing down the latter at the expense of power users is the wrong way to go. Nobody expects an SLR camera to be as easy to use as a point-n-shoot, and software should be the same.
People have been arguing that (insert new technology) has a self-evident or intuitive interface since at least 1984, with the first Mac. Trouble is there's no such thing. Much as it pains me to say so, since I'm proud to be an Apple fanboy, the first time I used a Mac ("Test Drive a Macintosh"---anyone remember that?) I couldn't for the life of me figure out how to change a font or cut and paste text. I figured out clicking to set the insertion point, but click and drag was in no way self-evident.
Bottom line, there's no such thing as self-evident when it comes to computers. There's "easily learned and used"---the best examples being the original Mac OS and Jef Raskin's work like Swyftware and the Canon Cat---and there's "complicated, more difficult to learn, but powerful," the best example being something like Photoshop. There's room for both in the market place and dumbing down the latter at the expense of power users is the wrong way to go. Nobody expects an SLR camera to be as easy to use as a point-n-shoot, and software should be the same.
You're missing something. Google can assume that stance since they are, by and large, the only game in town. The presence of equitable competition leads to finer/more granular distinction of features - something which runs deeply into the nature of human psyche, both push-and-pull directions. If humans were only driven by functional elements, your argument would hold water. However...
So no, I don't agree your scenario will play our over the next decade. Not while it's in our human nature to always seek out the edge.
Fudley Bezuidenhout
So no, I don't agree your scenario will play our over the next decade. Not while it's in our human nature to always seek out the edge.
Fudley Bezuidenhout
and novelty is fun, but when you trying to do a job, a little stability in the tool belt is handy. Right now, users are like carpenters building a house, and every time they pick up the hammer, somebody has moved the handle to a new location.
Word 97 is better than vi. Office 2007 is not.
Word 97 is better than vi. Office 2007 is not.
If stable tools is the core need then there are stable platforms and tools to choose from. One can use Vi today just as one could use Vi before. It has remained consistently good at what it does.
On the other side, when you have to drive your next quarter's profits based on retail software competing with it's own previous version. Word97 works great; one can organize text and print it to paper. It does nothing fundamentally different than WordPerfect, Word1 or Word 2007. To convince consumers to upgrade, we instead get makeup changes and re-hashed functions.
On the other side, when you have to drive your next quarter's profits based on retail software competing with it's own previous version. Word97 works great; one can organize text and print it to paper. It does nothing fundamentally different than WordPerfect, Word1 or Word 2007. To convince consumers to upgrade, we instead get makeup changes and re-hashed functions.
Developing software and teaching software development, you acquire an overview between what is taught ("developing to user specs/needs") and what is done ("You code while I go talk to the customer about what he thinks he wants").
When the vendors need for profits doesn't align with the customer's needs, it's not time for a new feature. It's time to move on.
And you don't operate in a vacuum. While it is true that you can always stay with word 97 (or vi), you will always have to deal with the new vendor who starts sending you docx files because he bought the latest version. Or, to simplify, not deal with such vendors.
When the vendors need for profits doesn't align with the customer's needs, it's not time for a new feature. It's time to move on.
And you don't operate in a vacuum. While it is true that you can always stay with word 97 (or vi), you will always have to deal with the new vendor who starts sending you docx files because he bought the latest version. Or, to simplify, not deal with such vendors.
File format has become just another feature to differentiate from the previous version and force upgrades to the current. Again, not a problem that can't be solved by technology if the politics didn't stand in the way.
That idea for software is great for simple directed software ideas. We use many of those less frequently used items in Office. Our Word Processing tears out their hair when someone at MS changes or deletes a feature that has been in use, just because someone there doesn't see a need for it. Your kind of "kiss" doesn't work for all software.
Though this is a crude statement, essentially there are 2 classes of people, those who do, and those who don't "get tech." So the question is not the "what", but the "who" of the self evident equation: self evident to whom.
The richness of MS Word features are all second nature to me, without having had an hour of training. No so to many others. I work in an industry where we design apps that assume a basic level of ability to navigate through the Internet, and up to 40% of our customers need remdial training anyway.
Design is always an expression of elegance. Any elegant design will achieve it's mark, no matter what principals it is built upon.
The richness of MS Word features are all second nature to me, without having had an hour of training. No so to many others. I work in an industry where we design apps that assume a basic level of ability to navigate through the Internet, and up to 40% of our customers need remdial training anyway.
Design is always an expression of elegance. Any elegant design will achieve it's mark, no matter what principals it is built upon.
Totally agree. If developers only listen to their users, they will go out of business. Users ask for a million enhancements, but fail to see 'the next big thing' which is over the horizon. Developers need to identify 'the next big thing' and re-write the software from scratch to cater for that. If they do not do that, they will eventually die.
Could somebody please give me a self evident remote control for my sound system?
Music, videos, podcasts and almost everything else goes through a single set of audio channels depending on what you choose. It's remarkably simple and easy to use--a perfect UX for most people.
That's selling him a completely different product. That Apple remote won't work with his current sound system.
... the next big thing is DEFINITELY NOT removing basic features such as Gmail's lack of sort and (until very recently) inability to NOT group emails by 'Conversation' (would someone please tell Google that email is NOT chat?)
I would have liked to see you mention Apple on this as an example and not just Google, as their simplicity in software rules are based on most of what you are saying in this article. We (Apple techies) used to brag about not running after clients all the time cause (Apple keeps it simple, with advanced planning and implementation), and we used to lose all tech fights cause Word has this and that feature that we could not match.
Funny thing is you call it a the new way of building tech products, but Apple has been working like that for many a year. Just shows you that if the client wants features, then features are cool, and when the client wants simplicity, then simplicity is cool.
Maybe it all has to do with the average computer literacy out there, and the better we get with computers, the more we want to make it a tool or set of tools that can be used and implemented quickly?(without a manual)
Reynier
Funny thing is you call it a the new way of building tech products, but Apple has been working like that for many a year. Just shows you that if the client wants features, then features are cool, and when the client wants simplicity, then simplicity is cool.
Maybe it all has to do with the average computer literacy out there, and the better we get with computers, the more we want to make it a tool or set of tools that can be used and implemented quickly?(without a manual)
Reynier
... "There are those who go out of their way to make an easy process look difficult." While I may not be a fan of Ping, it took me no time at all to activate it and try it out. Simple, free and easy.
It is true that Apple doesn't write or ship manuals for their products, however this is not a good thing. Their products are as complicated and buggy as anyone else's. In fact, they are often HARDER to use than Window's programs because they have insufficient controls to get at what you need to change, and no documentation explaining the tricks required to get the tools to do what you want. I used an iMac for many years in my videography and DVD production business; I know of what I speak. As further evidence, consider the whole series of popular books known as the "Missing Manual" series. This project started off primarily focused on Apple products that were hard to use to their full potential without documentation of how to exploit features that were effectively hidden by the "self-evident" interface. As more companies moved away from providing decent documentation (as a cost saving measure I'm sure) the Missing Manual series was expanded considerably. But it started with people setting up their Macs and getting them to provide basic functionality, then not being able to figure out how to get them to do exactly what they need. Dumbed-down interfaces have their place as our civilization devolves into a second dark age, but it's nothing to be proud of.
... then just wait until the first real EMP pulse over a population center. What you're thinking of is nothing compared to that.
However, the dumbing down of our civilization is hardly due to Apple's streamlined interfaces; it's due to mankind's growing dependence on technology without allowing for some sort of backup when that technology ultimately fails. I don't deny the benefit of the Missing Manual series, but 90% of users can do what they want with what they can work out for themselves on an Apple product--the other 10% are people like us who want to use the added built-in capability. It's not that Apple hides it, it's simply that if it's not absolutely necessary for everyday use, why shove it into everybody's face?
Honestly, Missing Manuals are far more useful for today's software offerings than they are for the hardware platforms. I have three different books on how to use Photoshop and not one of them covers every aspect of what I try to do with it. I really feel that simplifying these applications would not only reduce their up-front price--making it likely more people would buy it--but then by offering plug-in packages the user could fine-tune the application to their specific needs without adding more than they want. To me, Paint Shop Pro Photo is a far more useful photo-editing app than Photoshop CS5 because it has the proper tools I need for photo editing at a third of the cost--without all the 'artistic' gee-gaws that so bloats CS' app and price.
However, the dumbing down of our civilization is hardly due to Apple's streamlined interfaces; it's due to mankind's growing dependence on technology without allowing for some sort of backup when that technology ultimately fails. I don't deny the benefit of the Missing Manual series, but 90% of users can do what they want with what they can work out for themselves on an Apple product--the other 10% are people like us who want to use the added built-in capability. It's not that Apple hides it, it's simply that if it's not absolutely necessary for everyday use, why shove it into everybody's face?
Honestly, Missing Manuals are far more useful for today's software offerings than they are for the hardware platforms. I have three different books on how to use Photoshop and not one of them covers every aspect of what I try to do with it. I really feel that simplifying these applications would not only reduce their up-front price--making it likely more people would buy it--but then by offering plug-in packages the user could fine-tune the application to their specific needs without adding more than they want. To me, Paint Shop Pro Photo is a far more useful photo-editing app than Photoshop CS5 because it has the proper tools I need for photo editing at a third of the cost--without all the 'artistic' gee-gaws that so bloats CS' app and price.
Silly boy/girl! What you want to do shouldn't even be in the program because it's too complex to be "self evident". The premise of this thread is that there shouldn't need to be any docs because the programs should be crippled to only do what "most people" want to do "most of the time".
It all depends on how many tools you need. For simple photo editing of the family album, Paint Shop Pro has all the right tools.
If you are a professional photographer, anything LESS than the toolset available in Photoshop CS5 is extremely frustrating and limiting.
It's just a matter of choosing the right tool for the job
If you are a professional photographer, anything LESS than the toolset available in Photoshop CS5 is extremely frustrating and limiting.
It's just a matter of choosing the right tool for the job
... I've found Photoshop to be massive overkill for the majority of my work. I don't deny that for image repair and retouch some of Photoshop's features are of help, but I have no need for a hundred or so 'artistic' filters or the ability to create an entire artwork without starting from a photographic base. Why not use a painting application instead?
That said, you are exactly right on one point. "It's just a matter of choosing the right tool for the job." The full Photoshop CS is far too much for my needs; Photoshop Elements is nowhere near enough. My later comment (farther down in the thread) points out that starting at an Elements level and adding 'plug-in' feature stages would allow each individual to have as much capability as they need or want without forcing everybody to settle for too little or too much. By making each stage a reasonable price, you could still have the all-out version of CS priced at $750 or so while someone who doesn't need all that capability might have what he needs at only $250 or so--a couple steps up from Elements alone.
This idea is just as possible for a word processor, a 'writer's application' or an all-out office package. Plug-ins could let you upgrade from a simple digital typewriter (which even analog ones had a few formatting tools) to manuscript/playwriting tools to basic desktop publishing to full-fledged commercial publishing package including the DBM, Presentation and Accounting packages. The customer would only need to pay for what he wants to use and doesn't have to worry about all the extras he may never even touch. The applications would be more streamlined, faster and more intuitive to the level of the user.
Yes, I said 'faster' because by eliminating all the extra code, tags and calls, the user's computer would itself run faster than ever before.
That said, you are exactly right on one point. "It's just a matter of choosing the right tool for the job." The full Photoshop CS is far too much for my needs; Photoshop Elements is nowhere near enough. My later comment (farther down in the thread) points out that starting at an Elements level and adding 'plug-in' feature stages would allow each individual to have as much capability as they need or want without forcing everybody to settle for too little or too much. By making each stage a reasonable price, you could still have the all-out version of CS priced at $750 or so while someone who doesn't need all that capability might have what he needs at only $250 or so--a couple steps up from Elements alone.
This idea is just as possible for a word processor, a 'writer's application' or an all-out office package. Plug-ins could let you upgrade from a simple digital typewriter (which even analog ones had a few formatting tools) to manuscript/playwriting tools to basic desktop publishing to full-fledged commercial publishing package including the DBM, Presentation and Accounting packages. The customer would only need to pay for what he wants to use and doesn't have to worry about all the extras he may never even touch. The applications would be more streamlined, faster and more intuitive to the level of the user.
Yes, I said 'faster' because by eliminating all the extra code, tags and calls, the user's computer would itself run faster than ever before.
I agree wholeheartedly, just look at what Windows has become, where it is more difficult than ever now to make YOUR computer do what YOU want it to do.
And it's all because "features that [are very] effectively hidden by the "self-evident" interface"
And it's all because "features that [are very] effectively hidden by the "self-evident" interface"
Yep, I completely agree, I find I prefer working with Apps which have a clean and instinctively easy to use U.I.
As an i.t professional in a fast paced agile world I need to get productive and deliver asap, I simply can't afford to be bogged down with a 200 page manual, in most cases I simply move on to an easier to use alternative.
As an i.t professional in a fast paced agile world I need to get productive and deliver asap, I simply can't afford to be bogged down with a 200 page manual, in most cases I simply move on to an easier to use alternative.
know what the manual contains and how to work it in practice?
When I go to the doctor, I would hope he's already read HIS manual and has some skill at the contents. Seems fair to me!
When I go to the doctor, I would hope he's already read HIS manual and has some skill at the contents. Seems fair to me!
Press F1, find what you want to do, add this new functionality to the UI and move on...
A program that learns what you use the product for and keeps the feature bloat in the background. Interesting concept.
A program that learns what you use the product for and keeps the feature bloat in the background. Interesting concept.
A program that learns what you use and hides everything else in the background? That's Microsoft Word with their stupid hiding of menu options.
If you click a menu like file or view, you always need to click the more options button to see the full menu. It drives me crazy when I'm trying to find something. It even makes it more complicated when telling a user where to find something.
I think it's a bad idea. I think the interface should appear the same across all standard installations of the same program unless the user explicitly exercises their options in changing it, which most don't.
Another thing that annoys me is the pointless changing of the UI across successive installations of Windows. Particularly, the interface for managing networking. It has become more complicated to do simple things like changing an IP address. If a user calls me up and asks for help on a simple problem in Windows XP, I can just say, go to start, control panel, network connections, right click local area connection, etc. But in Vista and 7, they've changed it in both versions. So it's more like, go to the start pearl, control panel, network and sharing centre, and then figure out how to get the user to the NIC settings on the phone. Great.
If you click a menu like file or view, you always need to click the more options button to see the full menu. It drives me crazy when I'm trying to find something. It even makes it more complicated when telling a user where to find something.
I think it's a bad idea. I think the interface should appear the same across all standard installations of the same program unless the user explicitly exercises their options in changing it, which most don't.
Another thing that annoys me is the pointless changing of the UI across successive installations of Windows. Particularly, the interface for managing networking. It has become more complicated to do simple things like changing an IP address. If a user calls me up and asks for help on a simple problem in Windows XP, I can just say, go to start, control panel, network connections, right click local area connection, etc. But in Vista and 7, they've changed it in both versions. So it's more like, go to the start pearl, control panel, network and sharing centre, and then figure out how to get the user to the NIC settings on the phone. Great.
A program that learns is not one that forces you to hunt for the feature every time, it's one that keeps the features that you use up front all the time and hides the rest. This is not what you describe.
I do agree with you on one point: "Another thing that annoys me is the pointless changing of the UI across successive installations of Windows." Microsoft is obviously trying to make Windows more user friendly, but by changing the names of certain functions and hiding them behind one or two more layers of menus, they've made it less friendly, not more. It looks cleaner, but it actually adds to the user's workload. One place where I believe OSX is superior is that what you need is usually easy to find and that there are shortcuts to access whatever level of UI you feel you need. Most of Apple's software works the same way--but even Apple's OSX isn't perfect, not in the way this article promotes. Still, for the money, I'd rather use OSX than Windows simply because it gives the user all the power at a lower cost with an easier interface. I use it to the level I need and want while my wife uses it to the level she needs and wants. And for $29, I'm not going to argue.
I do agree with you on one point: "Another thing that annoys me is the pointless changing of the UI across successive installations of Windows." Microsoft is obviously trying to make Windows more user friendly, but by changing the names of certain functions and hiding them behind one or two more layers of menus, they've made it less friendly, not more. It looks cleaner, but it actually adds to the user's workload. One place where I believe OSX is superior is that what you need is usually easy to find and that there are shortcuts to access whatever level of UI you feel you need. Most of Apple's software works the same way--but even Apple's OSX isn't perfect, not in the way this article promotes. Still, for the money, I'd rather use OSX than Windows simply because it gives the user all the power at a lower cost with an easier interface. I use it to the level I need and want while my wife uses it to the level she needs and wants. And for $29, I'm not going to argue.
In quite a number of corporate setups I've seen the standard image includes some gadget that puts machine name, IP address and logged-in user name as an overlay on the desktop.
Just tell the user to minimize everything and read what's in the bottom-right corner of his/her screen.
Just tell the user to minimize everything and read what's in the bottom-right corner of his/her screen.
For Windows systems, the free BGInfo utility will do this, along with a couple of dozen other pieces of info. You can also add custom fields.
You can customize Word to show full menus. In 03, it's a checkbox under View, toolbars, customize, options.
I completely agree, except for the sentence "IT pros have benefited from the overly complex technology".
It's a fact that one could charge high costs for sometimes evident problems, that happened to require a long time and a complex solutions to fix. But on the other hand complexity was a huge source of frustrations for the IT pros themselves too. I think everyone benefits from this change eventually.
It's a fact that one could charge high costs for sometimes evident problems, that happened to require a long time and a complex solutions to fix. But on the other hand complexity was a huge source of frustrations for the IT pros themselves too. I think everyone benefits from this change eventually.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
