After Hours

General discussion


Reply to Dogknees response to me

By dogknees ·
Tags: Off Topic
article root

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

On Change For Change Sake

by dogknees In reply to Reply to Dogknees respons ...

I can't agree here. To return to the car analogy. The early ones did not have a steering wheel, they had a tiller. If we apply your principle to this, modern cars should still have a tiller, perhaps as well as a wheel and a joystick, which would be a pretty clumsy arrangement. If the "access method" limits what you can do in a new environment, it needs to change. If there is a more efficient way, it needs to change. People learn, that's our fundamental talent as a species. I will not assume they are unable, and if they're unwilling, they get what they deserve.

I'd also say that the existing skills of a small number of people are trumped by ease of use for the majority. No matter how much we might think we know better, we are a minority.

Collapse -

Wrong, some had a tiller and some had a car wheel, depending on the

by Deadly Ernest In reply to On Change For Change Sake

designer and their background.

But let's take your line that the tiller changed into the wheel and we should now go to the joystick as it's an improvement and we do away with the older tiller and the wheel. Now apply that to the braking system. The initial brakes were a simple mechanical extension of the human strength, often a piece of wood held against the wheel, and later changed to better materials and then later changed to hydraulics that amplified the human effort expended.; that was an improvement and the old wooden blocks got dropped. We now have ABS brakes that are computer controlled and kick in when you hit the brakes and they decide how much to brake and when. Why don't we just replace them all with a simple button that starts that system whenever we touch the button and totally do away with the rest of the braking system? We won't as we don't always need the full application of the brake.

Another example along this line is the early motor vehicles were nearly all manual gear boxes while most today are nearly all automatic gear boxes as they're a lot easier to operate, yet many motor vehicles still have manual gear boxes. For most users in the situation of using one style of device, the car, the automatic gear box makes a lot of sense for most people; yet it is not an improved way to operate all automotive vehicles and the manual gear box is the best way to operate most of the big trucks due to the better control they provide. Yet the way Mocrosoft does things they would make ALL vehicles use an automatic gear box as that's what they like.

If a change does not make something easier to use, then it's NOT an improvement. This situation we're discussion with regards to computers is the same basic one we often see where a change is an improvement in one special area but gets applied to all areas and is a retrograde step in other places. Things like the ribbon menus and Metro is a great improvement for small hand held touch screen devices and can even be good for a kiosk system, but is a retrograde step for use on a desktop computer controlled by keyboard and mouse. yet Microsoft wants to shove both onto everyone, regardless of if they want it or not.

Then you have to add in the cost of training people to use the new ways of doing things, very expensive in the business environment as it all happens on company time. Also there is what's known as the comfort zone, people like to do things within their comfort zone and they like to do many things the way they used to do them. You do not get applause from people by forcing them to do things in a new way, they will give grudging approval if it's a better way, but will hate you if it requires more work for them, which the ribbons and Metro do for desktop users.

Now, lets have a look at ho0w many people are still using systems like Win 98, Win 2000, Win XP with the versions of Word and Office prior to 2007, and similar systems - that far outweighs the number using Metro by a factor of many thousands to one, and also out weights the number using Win Vista and Win 7 by thousands to one. Thus the argument of the greater number winning is against what Microsoft is doing.

It's the training cost and the comfort zone that caused so many corporate roll outs to replace Vista and Win 7 on new systems with XP and to reuse their Office XP licences. I know of major world wide organisations that have dumped MS Office for Open Office and Libre Office because they could NOT afford the cost or time to retrain everyone to use the ribbons in Office 2007 and 2010.

Microsoft extended the drop dead date on XP and XP sales twice due to corporate demand for XP on new system from the vendors after MS released Vista as the corporate buyers did not want Vista at all. They wanted to stay with the system and style of usage they knew, again showing people wanted the old style but MS have ignored them.

Related Discussions

Related Forums