Advice for Developers: Make Common Usage Easy 637
Ken Hendrickson writes "Thomas Sowell has some fantastic common-sense advice for software developers from the viewpoint of an ordinary user: Make it easy to do what almost everybody wants to do. I don't believe he uses Free Software; that means that Microsoft is not satisfying their customers, and Free Software can perform better than Microsoft even in the ease of use area!"
It's just too difficult! (Score:5, Insightful)
<WHINE> All I want to do is forward an email! </WHINE>
Okaaaaay (Score:3, Insightful)
And Jesus, write my congressman? "My computer is hard to use, I want you to make it all better."
I've seen poorly designed software, with poorly thought out UI, but its a big step to go from that simple fact to some blanket article which just says what we all already know (User Interfaces should be intuitive and easy to use), and doesn't even address the issue of HOW to make an interf
You just don't get it, do you! (Score:4, Insightful)
For instance, in MSWord-97, I type file/new and it asks me if I want a blank document or blank template. Duh!!
Try to load your old Netscape or Mozilla mail files to your new computer so you can continue seamlessly. Same for the bookmarks.
Think ahead, not behind. Programs do not need bells and whistles to be good, but they do need to do the things people need done.
Yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yeah (Score:5, Funny)
that's what you UI people have been saying for years. It's like us developers saying "Writing safe, bugfree code is impossible." Bah!, i say. You're just saying it to demand a premium pay and more flexible schedule. UI's are simple! just look at Emacs.
(just busting your balls, i'm completely kidding)
Re:Yeah (Score:3, Funny)
I'd love to see that guy try and use EMACS. Ctrl-X Ctrl-S is "Save/Quit" and Ctrl-Meta-PowerButton-Esc is "Go back to your fucking scrabble"
Re:Yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
When a commercial developer works on a GUI, he first has to sit down with his peers, the art department, marketing, and eventually focus groups to yell, scream, and throw things. Out of these heated arguments tends to evolve a product that has a better balance between functionality, looks, and ease of use then what the developer could have produced by himself.
Of course, different companies have different focuses. Microsoft's focus is to pack features like crazy, then try to find a way to make it usable. Apple's focus is to make a product that does the core job first, then evaluate how necessary the extra features are.
Re:Yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
You wish.
When a commercial developer works on a GUI, there's two ways it usually goes.
One: the art department and marketing come up with something that looks cool, and he has to do his best to implement it whether it makes sense or not. The focus groups don't get involved with the actual software until the 11th hour, and shipping fever is upon the company... up until then they're working with webpages and powerpoints that sort of do what the art department thinks is cool.
Two: the developer implements a prototype, and management tells them to ship it because they heard that Microsoft is thinking of making a similar product.
Re:Yeah (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know--if an OSS programmer writes something that is hard to use, two things will happen:
1. People will complain. Long and loud.
2. People will write patches or offer constructive criticism.
Some developers will design solid UIs from the start, requiring only minor tweaks. Some will create freakish monstrosities requi
Re:Yeah (Score:4, Funny)
No it isn't!
It would become easier (Score:5, Insightful)
This is serious, people. I do not know of any other product where the designers/developers are so far removed from the end user. Something that makes perfect sense to a highly trained, technically capable person will make absolutely no sense to a person who has trouble remembering 2 passwords. Really.
Re:Yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, but he's not necessarily talking about the UI. His primary examples are a scrabble game that blasts music while he's playing and a chess game that takes a 'computer expert' to install. His issue is that all the fancy extras are in the way. He's not proposing that they be eliminated, but that the average joe who's not going to use them 90% of the time doesn't have to fight past them.
For example, my digital camera has all sorts of options for saving in different file types, different visual effects, etc. But if I hand it to someone - asking them to take a picture of me - they just point it at me & press the button. They don't have to struggle through the rather clumsy menuing system in order to do that. But if I want to learn all about that stuff its available to me. Thats the difference.
Re:Yeah (Score:5, Informative)
Both are excellent reading for those interested in the art (science?) of good UI/usability design.
It's tough.... (Score:3, Interesting)
As far as Televisions go.. this really isn't the case anymore. With more and more high-end TVs taking over the market and as they continue to do so in the future, thanks in part to HDTV, there will be a brutal setup process just to turn it on and start watching any kind of TV.
The point is that these devices/programs are being made for just about everyone they need to adapt to everyone's skill level. In the case of software development, it doesn't make sense to create several different versions of software with different default options turned on or off. A lot of the times this software has to be scaled to many different types of users on both ends of the spectrum. As a software developer myself, I try to make things as easy as possible that once the program is loaded they can begin their intended task. However, this may not always be possible all of the time.
I do agree with the following though... Stupid bundled software.
You missed the point completely (Score:5, Insightful)
So don't buy a camera with features if you're not going to use the features? His point is just to make a camera with features that I don't have to worry about if I don't want to use them. If that means a lower quality picture fine - it should be at least the same quality as the disposable without the features though. It should not be complex to not use the complex features. That's all.
Graceful scaling complexity (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the point Mr. Sowell was trying to make with the camera analogy was that for 90% of the pictures I take, the "automatic" defaults produce a good serviceable photo. The advanced features (Program and Manual modes) are available and easily accessable when conditions or desire call for them.
I think Mr. Sowell would compare various programs that he complains about to the camera I learned to shoot on - my father's old Nikkromat. Manual everything, with a SLR light meter. Every shot required evaluating the shutter speed, film speed, f-stop, focus, depth of field, flash/no flash, etc. This was not a camera I could hand to a novice and tell them to "just shoot".
Developers and designers have to make reasonable decisions about default settings, and make those settings easy to change.
They also need to resist the urge to add every feature into the product. Does a chess or scrabble game really need to play music?
Re:Graceful scaling complexity (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's tough.... (Score:4, Interesting)
What? Oh, please. This is exactly the kind of problem that we have in a lot of software, especially smaller projects. First of all, why should I tell the car where I live just because I want to find the nearest Taco Bell? A perfect (although unintended) example.
As far as Televisions go.. this really isn't the case anymore. With more and more high-end TVs taking over the market and as they continue to do so in the future, thanks in part to HDTV, there will be a brutal setup process just to turn it on and start watching any kind of TV.
My TV has an annoying tendency to go into a reconfigure-me mode if its been without power for too long. Oddly enough, it never loses its settings (weird). Anyway, you know what I do? Its the equiv. of Next->Next->Next->Next->OK but more annoying.
Even if it did lose its settings, instead of prompting me to check the convergence it could just power on with a set of defaults. Probe to see if a coax is attached. If it is, check to see if there are channels with signals on them. Check to see if there are powered devices on the line-in and component-in ports. All of that. Then it could stick a little note up in the main menu that says, "You have not performed advanced configuration yet. Doing so will result in a superior picture. Press (X) to configure your TV." Or something.
You completely missed his point... (Score:5, Insightful)
See, this is where you missed his point.
I have a fancy camera (analog), and a less fancy digital. With the fancy analog camera, if I want to take a family photo, I press the button. At most, I need to hit the clearly marked flash button to turn it on. Of course, if I'm feeling artistic, I may want to adjust the exposure, shutter speed, etc., and those features are all there. However, to simply to the most common operation, take a picture, I don't need to do anything.
Your attitude is elitist, "if you don't want the fancy features, get a disposable camera." Beyond the fact that disposables get expensive real fast, what if I want to have a single camera and be able to take real photos AND snapshots?
The point of the article is that the simple should be simple. If I want to take a picture, I press a button. When I install a dictionary program, instead of being interviewed by the program, let me quickly look up words.
The most common use for the references is a lookup mode, and the application vendor could certainly include a dictionary application AND a multi-media application.
I have an HDTV. Yes the DirecTV box required some settings (which are supposed to be done by the installer)... it asked for my zipcode for the guide. HOWEVER, if I just wanted to watch TV, I could have plugged in the box, turned on the TV, and let it auto-scan the antenna (this should happen on first use, instead of via menu, but it wasn't too bad).
I can adapt the colors, I can go into the service menu and tweak further, etc., for a reasonable picture I needed to calibrate the convergence, etc. However, if I just bought the TV and the HDTV box, on Sunday and set them up 15 minutes before kick-off, I could have been watching the game without problem.
The SIMPLE operation: watch a football game, is easy (could be easier, but pretty easy).
The COMLICATED operation: calibrate colors to the Avia disc, adjust convergence, etc., was complicated.
With MOST computer software, it wants me to go through a process to use the application. That is unacceptable.
Most SOFTWARE SHOULD run off the CD, or like MOST Mac software and be a draggable install (drag into Applications). Installers are bad (make them for unusual use), better search order for applications to it can be one Folder/Bundle is better.
If you have features that require libraries to be installed at boot-time, make them optional. If the library isn't there, no feature unless you run the installer.
Wouldn't it be great if simply RUNNING a computer program/game was as easy as playing a PS2/XBox/Gamecube game?
Sure the powerful functionality can be there for power users, but most people should be able to use your program without help. That sadly isn't the case.
Camera analogy still a poor one... (Score:3, Insightful)
I have a fancy camera (analog), and a less fancy digital. With the fancy analog camera, if I want to take a family photo, I press the button. At most, I need to hit the clearly marked flash button to turn it on. Of course, if I'm feeling artistic, I may want to adjust the exposure, shutter speed, etc., and those features are all there. However, to simply to the most common operation, take a picture, I don't need to do anything.
Your attitude is elitist, "if you don't
Re:You completely missed his point... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's tough.... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It's tough.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll bite. Eckel, in his book "Thinking in Patterns," has a list of 9 design principles that good software follows. One of them reads "Simplicity before Generality." The idea is simple: if you sacrifice even the slightest bit of simplicity to make a program generally accessible, you have not solved the problem.
I've seen this first hand -- I worked
Re:It's tough.... (Score:3, Insightful)
No interest in doing (Score:4, Insightful)
Like clicking on any of the advert around this article!
Tell it to Java? (Score:2)
Excuse me, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Case in point: iTunes vs. MusicMatch
No one is hearing. (Score:5, Insightful)
THis has been said before (Score:3, Insightful)
Logic proves free software is the best (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't really follow the logic in that statement. Someone help me out, why would Microsoft not satifying their customer base suddenly make free software easy to use? (and how come as a long time open source user I never noticed this?)
Oh this is slashdot, I'm just supposed to assume that Free Software is better in all respects.
Re:Logic proves free software is the best (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Logic proves free software is the best (Score:3, Insightful)
You have the power to do it how *you* want to do it, for example:
ls | more /tmp/ls.out ; cat /tmp/ls.out | less /tmp/ls.out ; vi /tmp/ls.out
ls >
ls >
ls | grep "something"
You don't ever want software to guess what the user is thinking, or to pre-suppose that you know what the user really wants. Software that tries to be cute, fancy, or a mind-reader is almost always wrong for someone. In fact, software like that usually g
M$ has that now (Score:3, Interesting)
To make OS products more widely used they have to be easy and intuitive for your common non-geek user to use. This is an area we have failed in before. The products that are easy and intuitive to use from OS do well.
Note to developers... this is a very very very big deal if you want your product picked up. It's not just how good your product is at doing the technicalities but how easy you can do them with.
Re:M$ has that now (Score:3, Insightful)
That must explain why I have to go through the AutoCorrect setup and uncheck at least 20 boxes anytime I want to sit down and use Word on a new machine...
forget the article, read this book (Score:5, Informative)
This book clearly and succintly states the difference between how programmers and engineers design (for the edge case), and how people really want things to work (make the common cases easy.) An excellent book, it could be used as a textbook but it's too short. Go read it.
Design Of Everyday Things (Score:3, Insightful)
Message To Developers?? (Score:2, Funny)
isn't that like:
Message to blonds.... Breathe in, breathe out?
The two demons... (Score:5, Insightful)
Mr. Sowell complains that computer programs aren't as easy to use as an automobile. Well, the first person to design the steering wheel probably didn't think to patent it; nor did the first person who put the accelerator pedal to the right of the brake pedal and make them thus and so. The auto UI "jest grewed" and became standard through market forces. It became a commodity such that it can't be patented, yet nobody dares to go against it lest they not sell a car.
On the other hand, the designers of software are careful to put a lock on every little feature that they come up with, ensuring that they wring the maximum value from its implementation. Are we ever going to see a ubiquitous interface? Not while the Patent Office lives. (tongue planted semi-firmly in cheek)
And all the bells and whistles? That's simply more commercialization -- let's get more out of it by climbing into bed with the people whose offers we bundle. And make it glitzy, and make it shiny, and make it loud.
I despair of ever seeing an end to this in commercial software.
the Seldon Patent (Score:3, Informative)
Blame it on magazine articles (Score:5, Insightful)
With cars, the situation is different. First, as you mention, the UI for automobiles has stabilized long ago. The last significant modification was the automatic transmission. Before that, the last mass-produced car with a different UI was the Ford model T, which had a separate throtle pedal for reverse. Besides, cars today are compared for marketing purposes with features like style, power and speed, not the raw number of options, like software is.
Re:The two demons... (Score:3, Insightful)
The solution? Why, free commercial software! Apple's free apps are some of the best programs I've used in terms of doing what they're supposed to and nothing more. AIM has a pretty good interface.
Incidentally, I don't find automobile interfaces all that easy. The pedals and wheel I can find, sure. But everything else is wherever the designer thought they'd look nice. For example: you're in a ca
Umm (Score:3, Interesting)
that means that Microsoft is not satisfying their customers, and Free Software can perform better than Microsoft even in the ease of use area!
When "Free Software" has a sizable amount of the desktop market then I think we can say that. Until then, how many years has it been "this year for desktop linux!"???
A comparison chart. (Score:2)
Then the chart could show the number of steps required for each operation and maybe a difficulty level. I know this has been done before, but that other time it wasn't doing it based on tasks, it was looking at the design of the GUI more.
Joel has a little bit about this idea too (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Joel has a little bit about this idea too (Score:3, Informative)
Ditto for library developers (Score:5, Insightful)
The FreeTTS [sourceforge.net] guys does a good job in this regard - just a few lines of code gets some words going.
Re:Ditto for library developers (Score:4, Insightful)
A lot of F/OSS project devs don't seem to care much if anyone adopts their tools. Those that do often count on consulting- and so what's the point of making it easy and including clear documentation?
Coding is only a small part of the work. To make things public domain in a way that really enriches the commons, we have to make them easy to use.
give me a toaster (Score:5, Insightful)
I do technology for a living, and I STILL pull what's left of my hair out just trying to figure out how to make word stop putting bullets and numbers in front of my "paragraphs" every time I indent (please, no advice -- I haven't used WORD for years -- it's an illustration).
Re:give me a toaster (Score:3, Insightful)
I have a simple camera. Turn it on, point, and shoot. Now, it's a digital camera, and gives me other options, but I don't have to use them.
He complains about software that he purchases. Fine, that's all good, but that doesn't make the software or product bad because he doesnt' like it. It just means he selected a product he didn't want.
Some people want the Encyclopedia on the
OT: But... (Score:3, Interesting)
I sure hope not. Now being able to add an addendum, I could agree with. But, even that is risky.
Consider for a moment that there are always active trolls who repost previously 5 star posts just to get karma from unaware mods. Now take the case of an editable post. You can get the post modded to 5 then swap the contents out with a porn troll. Not pretty.
Use Cases (Score:3, Informative)
Scientific method (Score:3, Informative)
Also don't forget that, most of the time, the way that an user thinks about the application (the user "mental model") is really different than the designer's mental model.
has he ever written a program? (Score:4, Insightful)
I ended up with an easy to use web GUI, but I had to fight to get the people to understand what they wanted wasn't parallel with what the database was designed for.
I'm not saying that all programs are great... there are a lot of junk ones out there. But I'm sure some people can agree, with changing goals and deadlines, finished products are often not what they started off being.
What is the saying, "You can have two of three... Cheap, Fast, Good..."?
What an inane comment (Score:5, Insightful)
Per-lease.
So now we've basically got a world of free software and Microsoft software and that's it? What the hell has this got to do with the freeness or otherwise of the software? Microsoft is not even mentioned in the article!
Re:What an inane comment (Score:5, Insightful)
The important word is can (Score:4, Insightful)
Convert that can to does, and you've got something. Fortunately Microsoft has been helping by shoveling new features into their Office products for many years. (Have to justify those updates prices somehow.) The only way they could help more would be to add a stupid animated paperclip to explain all those new features and changes to how to do simple things, but that would be stupid.
Um - what does this have to do with OSS vs. MSoft? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet the article is him complaining about a new chess and scrabble game that he bought. No mention of Microsoft - or even Windows.
For all we know - he is running a Mac. Sheesh people - get over yourselves.
Clearly Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
And Steve Jobs is clearly the George Eastman he talks about.
I'm not a Mac fanatic (I don't own one, but I do work with them regularly), but it seems to me that this guy is clearly elucidating what is Apple's strategy: make stuff easy to use. For everybody. Without any pain.
I mean, this guy would *love* the free chess app that comes with OS X.
-Shylock
OSX useability overrated and degrading fast (Score:3, Interesting)
At this point I don't think you can strongly claim that OSX is any more useable than Windows or GNOME or KDE.
Re:OSX useability overrated and degrading fast (Score:3, Interesting)
Two, usability is not a static thing. We have a computer userbase that is significantly savvier than the guy who walked into a computer store demanding a "VisiCalc" not knowing he needed a computer for it. This means they recognize common widgets like scrollbars, drop-down menu
depends on your budget. (Score:3, Interesting)
Those, like Mr. Stowell, who simply want their old computer to work and do all the things it used to might give free software a spin. Most people are ple
Easy to use, yes... but features important also!! (Score:3, Insightful)
This is where modular development comes in and where Firefox excels..
I started an open source portal, with simplicity in mind. It was great for what "I" wanted, but not everyone else...
Some wanted a membership only, some wanted to sell items, some wanted this that, etc etc... You get the picture. Different web site, different needs.
Of course no one wanted to program something for themselves, so I tried to accomodate them as the versions went up. Well, by the end of the year, I had this bloated / complicated portal.
Now I'm on the modular path... I really no longer have time for it, so others have taken over.
---------
Sorry to make a short story long, but the point of this one should be:
Make it simple - Fast - Easy to Use, and then allow modular capabilities to add everything else under the sun.
Don't try and make one program do it all.... Not everyone needs it ALL.
Cost. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sometimes, the cost of developing incredible interfaces is not something a company wants to pay for. I'm a developer for my own company and I find that most of my clients want to get the task done (read "functionality"), with all options available, and would rather inform their staff and/or clients on how to use the software rather than spend double the cost to add ultra friendly interfaces.
That being said, of course I always try to develop the most user-friendly screens as possible, but sometimes business functions are just complex. Period.
Geek factor (Score:3, Interesting)
This goes directly to the geek factor. Certain types of people like to interact with technology, whether it be primitive or in front of the curve. Learning enough about the ins and outs of the technology and production leads to epihanies, eureka moments and generally groking the thing at hand.
Isn't this PERL philosophy in a nutshell? (Score:5, Insightful)
However, the "easy" thing is not always so cut-and-dried. Maybe he wants to remove red-eye from his digital photographs, and maybe he's using Adobe Photoshop. Photoshop can remove red-eye, but that's not its primary purpose. Removing red-eye in Photoshop is going to be a bit more complicated than a program dedicated to red-eye removal, but that is not a fault in Photoshop. In fact, an experienced Photoshop user could probably remove red-eye faster than an inexperienced user could remove red-eye in a dedicated program.
This is where usability testing is key--why spend time on a feature that only a tiny fraction of your user base is trying to do? Which would you rather see happen to The Gimp: a red-eye wizard, or a Windows version that doesn't spawn a new taskbar item for each new window?
It seems like a "duh" comment to say "make it easy to do common things!" but you have to know what the common things are, first!
Nathan
Re:Isn't this PERL philosophy in a nutshell? (Score:3, Insightful)
No menus (Score:4, Interesting)
What about trying to learn from games, and for example; stop using menus? Those small labels on the upper part of the windows, there are a lot, but we seldom use a few of them.
Ergonomic interfaces don't present more than a few options at a time, if my memory es corerct there were studies about using more than 7 options as being confusing. If few options are presented, you don't need menus.
This is hardly news (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of his rant has to do with all the unnecessary glitz and flash that has been added to what used to be simple software. One of the problems with technology today is that it has become too easy to add stupid unrelated glitz to basic information. This simply obscures the information.
For example, many (most probably) DVDs have these complete stupid animations that have to play when moving from one menu to another. I recently rented a movie (can't remember which) where you had to sit through 15 seconds of animation before the Special Features menu was displayed. It wasn't impressive, it was just annoying.
There is more and more of this every day. It seems that media and product producers do not have any really new features to add to new releases, so they just add some unnecessary glitz and animations and sell it as a new version.
The producers of Scrabble should take a hint. The Scrabble board game hasn't changed in 50 years, and it's still popular. Some things just don't need new features.
Re:This is hardly news (Score:3, Insightful)
There are two ways XYZ could stay in business: they could exercise their imagination, pay the devel
Troll Warning: Isn't this just a technophobe rant? (Score:4, Insightful)
I would pick holes in just about all his arguments - he seems to ignore the initial training and years of condition on how a car works. The same with a TV set. I'm sure I could find somebody that has horror stories trying to figure them out for the first time and could write an article on how counter-intuitive these items are (like, why do you need a key for a car ignition when you've unlocked the door?).
I've seen many articles like this on the VCR, not to mention ones complaining about more sophisticated cars, kitchen appliances, telephones, heating/air-conditioning systems, all of them wanting the systems to be simpler (and most, like this one, wanting to return to simpler times).
One of the things that infuriates me the most about this article is that the writer doesn't try to do anything himself; his "computer guru" doesn't seem bright enough to be able to load software without getting his mom angry because he is late for dinner.
In any case, if he really wants to play scrabble simply, why doesn't he drop twenty bucks (probably less than he paid for the CD) and buy a hand held scrabble game?
Sorry for the Rant - I would be a lot kinder if the writer had tried to load an application, got a GPF and ended up in phone support hell between the ISV and Microsoft with each blaming each other and the theme of the article is that he just wanted it to work.
myke
Re:Troll Warning: Isn't this just a technophobe ra (Score:3)
Case in point. I once taught someone to drive who had absolutely no idea what the function of the clutch was. He knew that he had to press it when shifting gears but didn't have a clue why. In fact he would at times forget to depress the clutch pedal especially when switching to neutral. He probably "discovered" that it was possible to do and seemingly no malfunction ocurred. It was only after I drew him a couple of napkin diagrams and explained that clutch was dise
Required Reading (Score:3, Informative)
This book was written in the 80's but the concepts are timeless. It's not software specific but it is an excellent primer for designers and engineers of all types.
The Design of Everyday things [amazon.com]Classic designs, or Software isn't a camera.....? (Score:5, Insightful)
The best designs become classics, and really change the way we work and live. And there really aren't all that many classics, vastly fewer than the number of designs that try and fail.
So why aren't there more really classic software designs? Part of it is that all of us programmers have drunk the koolaid about uniform interface designs. They simplify learning by creating references to things previously learned in other contexts. But a real "classic design" is easy to learn because it's *internally* coherent- its reference points are meaningful in terms of its own functionality. If there is complexity, it maps directly to the problem domain and not to the UI design. That makes it far easier to deal with, because it "just makes sense." The iPod is a very interesting recent example, but I can't think of something analogous in the realm of pure software.
Maybe if we break out of the box on UI design, then we might be able to stop complaining about how stupid our users are. After all someone who uses something I wrote is supposed to be *smart* not stupid
It's hard to make things easy (Score:4, Interesting)
Reactionary... (Score:3, Informative)
Mr. Sowell, however, seems pretty reactionary about software change.
He is upset that his scrabble vendor released their game on CD. He would rather have it on floppy disks, which are more expensive to produce. And, some machines now don't have floppy disks. This complait has no merit.
He is upset, that the scrabble game he has plays music. Probably because his old game didn't. What he doesn't consider is that most users of this product probably want the music. Products should ship exactly like this. Turn on all the options that the majority of the users want. Make those in the minority use the preferences.
Software is going to change, and make more use of increased hardware capabilities. There is no stopping that. Although there is some truth here, there is a lot of pointless ranting.
This is a stupid article (Score:5, Insightful)
>Too many other computerized products and computer programs, however, force you to get bogged down in so many options, functions, and modes that you may just give up before finding the simple thing you want to do.
In a windowed program, there are menus. Don't want the options, don't go hunting for it.
>Today, it takes a CD to hold all the bells and whistles that have been added
No the reason why they use CD is not because its complicated, its because it cheap to mass produce. A program is > 2 megs and If you are awake in the middle of the night in a hotel room and your spouse is asleep, you would never dare to turn on the new Scrabble game.
Its called a volume control. Either built in, on the OS level or the physical speakers has them. What would the user want?
>Since my old computer chess game will not work on the new computers, I had to get a new chess game
But when you bought the old chess game it didn't specify it would work on the new OS? And this is the programmers fault for not making things compatible with technology 10 years in the future?
FireFox gets it right... (Score:4, Interesting)
This is something I think FireFox has gotten very right. Don't want to mess around with settings? Great. It works right out of the box.
I've installed FireFox for about a dozen people now. So far only two have even bothered to open the Options dialog. They don't care how the options are set, as long as they can browse. The two who have opened the Options dialog think the customizability is great but those two are not the majority of users.
I've got an even better advice ... (Score:3, Funny)
There is no try (Score:3, Insightful)
Can and will are two different things. Given the common OSS attitude of "you haven't read the docs, fuck you", I can't see ease of use being a priority very soon, except in certain niches.
I think a hierarchial approach should be used.. (Score:3, Insightful)
At the next level, allow the remaining 10% to perform more complex tasks.
Maybe have one more super-tech level where the elite 1 or 2% can delve in and tweak.
Example 1
Web browser app like Firefox
level 1 : It installs itself, all plugins and figures out how to handle almost any mime type.
level 2 : Extensions & more
level 3 : about:config, etc
Example 2
Web Design Software like Quanta Plus
level 1 : WYSIWYG interface that produces nice clean W3C compliant code and maybe buttons called "text effects" for stuff like mouse-overs that allows the user to see what will happen to the text.
level 2 : Code View, CSS Editor, etc
Level 3 : Javascript debugger, PHP debugger, MySQL queries, etc..
Basically, you should never be forced to descend to levels 2 or 3 to be able to accomplish a basic task.
Not Microsoft (Score:3, Insightful)
Ken Hendrickson says "I don't believe he uses Free Software; that means that Microsoft is not satisfying their customers, and Free Software can perform better than Microsoft even in the ease of use area!"
After reading to the article I noticed that Thomas refers to "computer programs", not "Operating systems, office applications, e-mail, or web browsers." The only particular type of program that he specifically mentions are a "dictionary, an atlas, and an encyclopedia". There are a number of manufacturers of these types software. Crap like this is usually found in the $5 bin and comes with a beautiful VB installer, and accompanying VB application used to browse the content on 100 cd roms of uncompressed video (in the case of a multimedia encyclopedia). Though given all of Thomas information on what is rubbing him the wrong way, there is no way to deduce which particular products Thomas has been using given the words in the article.
I'm not going to jump to any conclusions as to what he uses, becuase I can't. The point regarding usability is well taken, and should always followed when building an application.
Although, with people with Ken's superior power of reasoning and logic, it's a wonder more products don't turn out better.
Asinine (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's take a step back here. What's the difference between a computer and a hammer (from an interface perspective)?
They're both tools, used by people, to accomplish various tasks. Why can't a computer be as easy to use as a hammer (or any other elegant physical tool)?
Because we can't touch them.
It's that simple. In the hardware world we have hammers, to cars, to ipods, to... let your imagination go wild. It's entirely easier to make a hardware interface user friendly because a hardware interface designer can use their own intuition, and the intuition of others to make it easy.
Anyone ever ask themselves why hammers have a handle and a head? Anyone ever ask themselves why a walkman's volume is controlled by a dial? Do you commonly wonder why turning the steering wheel on your car turns your car?
Physical things can be made an order of magnitude easier than programs merely because they are physical things. The human mind easily pierces most facets of a physical object within seconds of its observation. The option to handle it makes it even easier.
Computers have a very serious handicap. We can't interact directly with our computer! Under most circumstances we have a keyboard and monitor as standard input and output. So we have our hardware interface. But this interface doesn't directly control the computer. We have to use this hardware interface to work with a software interface.
It's this simple little factor that trips people up: Interfacing with an interface.
To get a real life analogy of operating a program, use a hammer (and only a hammer, no hands) to operate your vehicle. No hands, no feet, use the hammer to accelerate and steer. Hell, I'll make it easy, you can use a hammer in each hand.
This being said, we've still got SO MUCH left to do in the graphical interface world. There's so much experimenting left to do, so many advances we've yet to make. Expecting the relatively young computer industry to produce interfaces that are as easy as interfaces that have been around since the stone-age is insane!
Can't agree more. (Score:3, Funny)
mkisofs -C `cdrecord -dev=0,0,0 -msinfo` -M -dev=0,0,0 -J -r -o image.iso
So exceptionally intuitive...
In Defense of the Complex Machine (Score:4, Insightful)
Computers and Operating Systems have no such luck. They must act as their own human-machine interpreters to an infinite number of possibile inputs and commands. Some of these commands are simple and can be optimized for -- eg, run program. Most, however, have their own set of additional complexities -- functions such as printing a document, manipulating data, and searching for files all have so many possible outcomes that more specific instructions than one-button "Do This" interfaces are required.
Not to mention that every user will have their own opinion about how their interface should optimized. The "complex" interface is a good thing because it gives the users complete freedom over their interactions with the system.
But what about users who don't want that freedom? They want machines with a big "Do this" button -- cameras have one, cars have one, toasters have one. Computers, by their very nature, can *not* have one -- the set of all correct answers to "Do this" is infinite. How? Where?
The bottom line is that the computer cannot read your mind. It cannot perfectly and accurately translate simplistic commands into complex functions. The best it can do is try to predict what you mean and give feeble human-to-machine translation function to the rest.
Re:In Defense of the Complex Machine (Score:3, Informative)
homo logicus, Allan Cooper author of Inmates running the Asylum [cooper.com] and creator of Visual Basic calls this. Software developers, coders call them what you like actually are very different to ordinary garden variety software users. Garden variety users run software to achieve goals. Coop
This principle should also apply to APIs. (Score:3, Insightful)
Free Software can out-ease-of-use Microsoft? (Score:5, Interesting)
Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
What? You don't think they're talking about free software, so it must be anti-Microsoft, so it must be pro-free-software? I think what's being said is that software as a whole is sometimes not laid out with usability in mind. It's not saying Free Software is better. It's not saying it's worse.
Am I completely misinterpreting what was said? Or is this the most ridiculous comment ever made?
I've just started Microsoft Word... (Score:3, Insightful)
I cut immediately start typing text.
And I can do the most important tasks by pressing easy to find buttons. From my experiences with beginners: they all could that within 1 minute. Learning how to move around with the mouse usually took more time.
Now try explaing a novice how to use LaTeX.
PS: "that means that Microsoft is not satisfying their customers," - The Scrabble mentioned was probably not produced by Microsoft!
PPS: I would never use anything but LaTeX for a text with more than one formula.
Photocopiers (Score:3, Insightful)
My university library replaced all the photocopiers with some fancy shrink/enlarge/collate/digitize/duplex models. In my mind, the one feature a photocopier should present is the ability to lay down a page, press a button, and get a copy. But no, these machines required you to enter the paper size, number of copies, and cropping options first. And then, once you copied one page, you had to do it all again for the next. I'm sure these machines are very efficient for a person who has some complex copy jobs and is trained properly, but they are inappropriate in a library where most people have simple tasks and will never use the same machine again.
In programming, I try to follow the theme of keeping simple things simple. In my C++ class [umich.edu] for a random number generator, you can initialize and seed the generator with no parameters. The code gets a seed from /dev/urandom or time() on its own, since that's what most people would do anyways. If someone wants to be more careful, they can do the seeding themselves, but software should always allow simple tasks to be performed easily.
AlpineR
Not quite. (Score:3, Insightful)
Why does Excel have such easy to use list-making functionality when it is supposed to be a spreadsheet? Microsoft did a lot of user testing and found that an awful lot of customers just used it to make lists. So they made it really easy to do so. That's just one example.
In short, the view that you should make the common tasks easy is completely on target. The idea that Microsoft is unaware of this and doesn't follow these ideas themselves is completely wrong and has no basis in reality.
read Sowell's other articles too! (Score:4, Interesting)
about usability (Score:3, Insightful)
Think of it this way. If I don't know what the
Really, it's really confusing to lump so many things under "ease of use." There are three distinct levels of UI, really:
1) The wizard. This means a user wants to have the computer hold his hand through the whole thing.
2) The GUI. If you've moved off the wizard, you've progressed to the point where you know what you're looking for when you see it. The problem with the GUI is that most of the time it gets abused, turning into a "go find it yourself" mentality. A good GUI should
3) The Command-line. At this point, you know what you want, and you just need a simple, fast way to tell the computer that. If this is the case, nothing beats a command line. Can you imagine how insanely fast you could get using microsoft word if you could print at different qualities, load files off the web, etc without ever resorting to any kind of gui?
Really, in order to be truly "easy to use" a program has to allow all of these different modes of input. Furthermore, the wizards have to be bulletproof and co-incide exactly with what the user needs to do. GUI's have to be reasonably helpful, but try to avoid the complexities associated with the command line. Command lines need to have good documentation so the user can start to figure out the commands if they want to.
IMO, there's no way to create a successful interface that suits everyone. If you don't give your varying users all of the interfaces, they're going to just look somewhere else.
How simple (Score:3, Insightful)
Now all we need is someone who can both see into the future and read our user's minds to tell us which features will be the most popular.
Maybe we can ask the jackass who wrote this article to figure this out for us. Or maybe he's only smart enough to whine about the software after it's already done.
hit a nerve (Score:3, Insightful)
I suggest before you sound off about writing software you try it - it's harder than you think. The users usually don't know what they want, they just know how to complain about what they don't like. And if you don't already have a user community then it's even harder. You have to guess which features will be the most popular and design your GUI around that.
Maybe you were thinking of ancient software domains like email, word p
Making stuff easy to do works *for* you (Score:3, Interesting)
If you think that all cases are edge (tough) cases then you haven't done enough analysis or you don't understand who you are targeting your app to. A common case made easy for iPhoto won't be the same common case for a Photoshop or power Gimp-user. Let the computer do the simple shit for you so that you can focus your brain power on the tougher cases.
No, it isn't easy to build simplicity into an app to make the common cases easy. It requires the ruthlessness of someone willing to toss out good code/interfaces that almost, but doesn't quite work. It also requires placing your end-user (of whatever skill level you've targeted) ahead of your own desires for the app. Tough to do, but well worth it in the end.
You just have to ask yourself do you really want to take 27 steps (hypothetically) to configure a printer *every* time? Wouldn't you prefer to just have to do 3 steps 98% of the time and save the brain power for that difficult 2%?
geoworks? (Score:3, Insightful)
i don't know about you, but I don't want any LESS options, just cuz some newbie can't find his way around. let's make the software easier for dumb people without making the software dumb, ok?
Re:oh dear god. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Waaaaahh (Score:3, Insightful)
This is exactly the attitude that perpetuates (and widens) the gap between the geek community and their "clientelle". There are many highly intelligent people out there who don't know "our" language, and don't care to -- they just want to do work that was promised to be easier and faster by using a computer -- a promise rarely delivered.
It sounds to me like what Thomas Sowell really needs to do is learn how to use the VOL and MUTE buttons on his laptop. If he's unlucky, it requires some FN-key combinatio
Re:Bill Gates = George Eastman (Score:3, Informative)
I'm going to assume that you're talking about Apple BASIC here... only a fool or a Microserf would give Gates and Windows the credit for making computers usable by regular people.