Is There Such a Thing as "Too User Friendly"? 680
rtphokie asks: "The story about the TiVo get-together along with some recent trials and tribulations rolling out a knowledge base along with the time I've spent recently helping my 80 year old grandfather with this VCR and TV has gotten me thinking about user interfaces and the elusive "user-friendly" label. When someone who thinks of themselves as 'non computer savvy' works with a gadget like TiVo and compains that it's 'too complicated', how should we react? Why are users immediately forgiven for not even taking the least amount of effort to look for a solution to their confusion in the manual. The tendency has always been to blame the interface and ultimately the engineers who designed it but isn't there a point where users have got to share some of the blame?
Why do today's software and consumer electronics users expect to be able to fire up their new toy and magically have a complete understanding of how to use it?"
Learning curve (Score:2, Insightful)
This usually takes the form of a division into 'simple' and 'advanced' modes of operation. This is probably too niave an approach though.
It's an underrated approach (Score:4, Insightful)
On the contrary; I think it's a powerful and much under-rated approach. The biggest hurdle for most people learning a new tool is (arguably) coming to understand the fundamental way it works. After that, the rest is often just details.
For example, if I'm using a new word processor, maybe I learn that its formatting is broken down according to characters, paragraphs, etc. and where to find the dialog for each. Then it's not a big jump to work out how to make something italic (a simple task) or to set up the kerning (a more advanced one). In this case, it would be useful to have a simple UI with common options (open and save files, change the font, run the spelling checker, etc) and a full UI with the whole lot (revision marks, change the number of columns, configure the grammar checker, perform a mail merge).
Personally, I used to like systems that worked that way. You could start simple and learn the big picture, and once you'd got the hang of it, switch everything on and see all the details. Then you knew everything was there and you could see where you stood. These days, everything seems to come with seventeen different ways to do the simple things and an options dialog with 100 different settings, most of which show or hide some feature if the menus aren't already adjusting under your feet before you start anyway (but luckily there are seven different ways to get help). Is this really easier to learn and more user-friendly, or just making a simple tool like a word processor seem far more complicated than it is? (There's an obvious commercial/upgrade angle here, but it's not really relevant to the issue at hand, so I'll gloss over it.)
Re:It's an underrated approach (Score:3, Insightful)
It's like splitting the learning curve up into two steps, when lots of smaller steps would perhaps be easier.
Basically what I'm saying is that when the gap between 'simple' and 'advanced' is too wide, you need something else to bridge it.
Re:It's an underrated approach (Score:2)
I certainly agree with that. I'm simply suggesting that the gap isn't too wide far more often than people give credit for these days, and that having too many steps is as counterproductive as having none at all.
Re:It's an underrated approach (Score:5, Interesting)
These people are not going to be helped by simplification. These people are not going to be helped by hand-holding.
There needs to be some sort of "mind building" curriculum for people who are afraid of electronics. I believe that people who are told a 3-step process (such as copy-paste) 200 times and STILL cannot remember are mentally defective and in need of rehabilitive therapy.
Think about it. If someone is told even 10 times that "If you push the doorbell a bell will ring" and cannot remember it, you'll assume they are brain damaged and treat them as such.
That's how I've come to treat my mother when she asks me how to copy and paste. Finally I took her to the local drugstore and made her copy a piece of paper. I brought her home and had her paste it onto another piece of paper. I then had her describe the steps she had to take to me by writing them down. If she skipped something like "Put the money into the machine" or "select number of copies" then I'd get confused and make her go back to the beginning. Afterwards I brought her over to the computer and said "There are no settings. There is nothing to remember. You drag the mouse to highlight the text you want to copy. You press the right mouse button and choose "copy". You move to the new document and right-click and choose "paste" HOW is that more complex than what you just did with the copier over at the drugstore? HOW is that more complex than tying your shoes?"
She agreed, and then 10 minutes later called me over because she couldn't figure out how to copy/paste. She didn't even try.
-Sara
Re:It's an underrated approach (Score:4, Insightful)
Further to your post is that people form paradigms, and these paradigms allow them to "short-cut" their thinking.
A common example is found in our cars: because they have been standardized, we expect certain things to remain constant: gas on the right, brake to the left of the gas, clutch (if there is one) to the far left. Because this archetype is so well-established, we can hop into any car (in America) and drive.
But not everyone can pop the hood and make sense of what's under there. Their world knowledge, while it does cover the driver's controls, doesn't include engine mechanics. The rest of us, who know a sparkplug from an oil filter, can pop the hood on almost any car and begin to make sense of it... and not because the engines are all laid out the same, but because the *ideas* are the same.
Recently, my understanding of car engines was used in measuring the valve clearance on my motorcycle. I'd never do such a job on my car -- too complex -- but just knowing how my car engine works, I was able to do the motorcycle job. Heck, now I've done the motorcycle, maybe I should do the car!
Anyway, to bring this back to computers, the paradigms for computer use aren't any more obvious than those for car engines: one only learns them by getting one's hands dirty.
If you gain skill with one wordprocessor, you can probably use most any wordprocessor without needing help. But to learn that first wordprocessor could be a hurdle: it's not much like anything in our physical world!
And just as most people these days don't bother to get their hands dirty with their car engines, and hence couldn't begin to conceive of changing their oil, let alone reboring a cylinder, many people don't care to get their hands dirty learning the power-user aspects of Word, programming their VCR, or even using the full capabilities of their microwave.
And who can blame them? These are all just tools: tools for transportation, for communication, for entertainment, for cooking. Learning the minimum needed in order to get by makes very good sense: it frees your time up for doing actual, important things. Like having a life.
Re:It's an underrated approach (Score:3)
Instead of trying to convince users that computers are easy to use do the opposite. Tell them that computers are a pain in the ass (the truth). Tell users that the user interface was "designed" by a bunch stupid punk assed condesending arrogant new hires whacked out on caffine (possibly true). Now when the user manages to remember the basics they will fell a sense of superiority and acomplishment. I am only half kidding.
Regardless of the true complexity I often start off a mini training session with "I don't know why they had to make this so complicated..." It works for some people. Others are really stupid.
[1] Setting up a computer for my grandfather is what started me thinking about how poor computer user interfaces really are. My grandfather has lost much of his vision, but can still read if the text is magnified to atleast 3cm/inch high letters. A typewrite has a small font. There is not much you can do about it. In theory a computer should be able to display any sized text even if there is only one letter per screen. Too bad theory dosen't work out. For many reasons it is much easier for him to use a simple magnifying lens then to try to fight with the OS and display big fonts. How peverted is that?
Re:It's an underrated approach (Score:3, Funny)
The world is divided into two categories. Those who "get it" and those who do not. Those who "get it" understand that everything has a pattern and all they have to do is play with the gadget and read the manual/documentation and understanding will come. Those who do not get it are akin to those who call us over to set the time on their VCR without even checking to see if they could do it themselves. Those who ask us 200 times how to copy/paste and cannot remember simply because their mindset is that computers are scary complex things that do not make sense.
These people are not going to be helped by simplification. These people are not going to be helped by hand-holding.
These people are gonna be helped by Darwin!
They'll starve to death when there are no more bank tellers and they can't pay for their food because they can't figure out how to withdraw money!
They'll freeze when the gas company cuts off their power for not paying their bill online!
They'll run their cars into bridge columns because they're distracted trying to figure out how to turn off a rental car's air conditioning!
They won't be able to find a mate because they'll never leave the house for fear of missing a TV show that they can't videotape because the VCR is so horribly complicated!
Logically Sound (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at Windows. A great deal of the garbage we hate in Bill's operating system was stuffed down our throats under the guise of being "user friendly." For example, changing the name directory to "folders" because directory has unfriendly latin roots. The actual result of this great "user friendly" move was Microsoft now stuffs the end user's data in a bunch of folders that you cannot find...making back ups harder. The goal of an OS should be to concentrate on creating a logically sound, secure foundation on which you can build other applications. But we compromise the foundation for an undefinable user friendliness.
It is so funny. I see it time and again. People love the "user friendliness" of MS word when they log on the first time. A few years later they are pulling out hairs as they find their systems clogged with gigabytes of files, odd templates, virii and other mysterious things that happen with word documents as systems age.
That really crappy registry thing we have to deal with came out with a great deal of hype about a "user friendly" registry replacing unfriendly ini files. Instead of coming up with a logically sound and versatile and extensible mechanism for recording intialization parameters...we have this supposedly user friendly monster that bites our tails when things go wrong. The only way we can deal with problems in the registry is to hope that some programmer somewhere was good enough that their 5 year old win 98 program will fix the registry problem with XP when you reinstall.
The parent of this thread was "Learning Curve." The result of the user friendly movement has been to add a bunch of garbage to programs to get the public to a feel good level, but the garbage ends up blocking them from complete mastery, since you know have a garbage user friendly layer in the way.
Instead of "user friendly", if you aimed at the goal of logically sound...you would find yourself with products that have only a slightly higher initial learning curve, but that people can master and build on. Take the threads about driving. The configuration of the driver seat has a nice logically sound foundation. It is driven by the logic of the vehicle and it works better.
When you really have a sound logical foundation, the actual workings of the product is all but driven from that foundation. A phone is totally un understandable until you know the logical premise that you have to hold it to your ear, and that different phones have numbers that you must dial before calling.
Imagine a car designed by the "user friendly" gurus of MS. A six year old could get it out of the driveway, but it would take a certified MCD (Microsoft Certified Driver) to get it back in.
I've heard (Score:5, Funny)
RTFM (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously tho, the answer is yes. Yes, the more complex something is, and thats where everything is going (wait till we can tinker on the nuclear generator powering our house from some closet), we need to learn more and more to be saavy with the stuff.
Re:RTFM (Score:4, Funny)
as a technology gets more commonplace, it all gets easier. The first guy who used the Internet- eh, ok it was the Internet until he found the second smartest guy on earth and hacked his computer. From then on, it's been easier and easier to get online. Now my grandma gets online and snipes other grandmas on eBay. "I 0wned that l1mp b1zcuit, d33ry!" "Ok grandma, just dont get me flood pinged again" "Oh I wont, I'm sp00fing. 3h, wh3r3 4r3 my d3ntur35!!" Ok, maybe that last example is a little overboard. But my point is that as tech moves forward, it gets easier to use. There's examples in the other direction, but the people who can use it get smaller and smaller, and that doesnt seem like the "way that it normally is". You know, like ubergeeks that have electron microscopes and the original handicams that can see underwear.
Manuals are sometimes the problem (Score:2)
On the other hand, some manuals are written so poorly that even techies have a hard time understanding it. Mostly it is not bad translation but bad penmanship, and most manuals are simply too long and complicated. Isn't it sad that the manual for using a particular baby carriage is three times as long as the manual that comes with an Uzi? Manuals need to be short, mostly, and they can be. The manual that came with my washing machine was just a double sided page with installation instructions, and another page on how to use it. Simple and succinct, even if a single separate page looks a bit... well.. amateurish.
Oh on the matter of translations: a good example is the thing that came with my VCR. Sure it is nice to receive a manual in 10 languages, but at 250 pages the thing scares most people off by its sheer volume alone. The thing just screams "don't read me!"
Re:RTFM (Score:2, Interesting)
I developed a FAQ, then it grew over 3 months to a manual covering every task they were expected to do. They never read it. It just sat on the desks.
The moral of the story is that people will never read a manual unless they absolutely have to. Speaking of which I have a Perl in 24 hours book that I bought last summer that I need to finish....
Re:RTFM (Score:2)
On the subject of usability, placing the controls for various devices (like one's nuclear reactor and or fuse box) in small, cramped, hard to reach places has got to be one of the stupidest ideas of the milenium. One day my nuclear reactor is going to be on the verge of meltdown. Meanwhile, I'll be standing half in the dark closet, flashlight in hand, shoving coats and baseball bats out of the way as I try to find the (explicitive deleted) unlabelled switch that lowers the cadmium rods in the reactor.
Re:RTFM (Score:2)
Re:RTFM (Score:3, Insightful)
There are situations where a manual is necessary, nobody's questioning that. However, 'RTFM' should never be the solution when somebody uses a product in an intuitive way but it doesn't behave intuitively.
I'll give you an example: Door handles. Ever walk into a place and push on the door, only to see a 'pull' sign there? The reason you probably pushed was because the handle was similar to another door that you pushed instead of pulled. Wouldn't you get annoyed if somebody behind you said 'read the f'in sign, tard.'?
Is it possible to be 'too user friendly'? It's possible to be 'too' anything. On one hand, you don't want a product making too many decisions for you. On the other, the default operation of a product should be intuitive. That's why your watch shows the time, rather than having to push a button to read the time.
Not in the literal sense (Score:2)
The user friendliness game is really a comparitive one. How easy is it for the user to accomplish X compared to another system. As such, the forefront of user friendliness is always changing. Still, it is sad that most systems can't even outperform having a geek standing beside you who answers questions like, "how do I do this?"
Re:Not in the literal sense (Score:2)
Hear hear!
A primary example of this is backing up mail from Outlook Express to transfer to another machine. My clients cannot understand why this functionality is not provided on the File->Export menu. I have to tell them to long way of finding the Store Folder through Maintenance, bringing it up in Explorer.. copying that, then reinstating it via Store Folder again when they reinstall. What a PITA that is.
How user friendly is a car? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:How user friendly is a car? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:How user friendly is a car? (Score:2)
The difference between cars and electronics? Most people have been around cars long enough to know that what they want to do is usually on some button or knob *somewhere* within a fixed area of the driver. I've seen some truly bizarre layouts (even of where, exactly the ignition key goes) in cars. Electronics are only different in that most people aren't familiar enough with the standard conventions (I can program practically any VCR after a few minutes of playing with the controls) to know where to experiment.
Am I different from the average user? Probably. But that's because I'm willing to experiment, learn new terminology, and try to figure out "If I were the designer, what would I do?"
You seem hostile... (Score:2, Interesting)
Seriously though, I can't say I blame you...we are too lazy to read a manual...or possibly just to prideful. At the same time, I remember a Slashdot article a few weeks ago about manuals in other countries and how users there actually read them...
So while I understand your point, I think a truly good interface needs no manual. At the same time, I also believe that the possibility exists that such a thing isn't possible.
People designing the interface just have to face facts that they can't please everyone...and I think we'd all be better off if people would stop buying devices they have no intention of taking the time to learn...I mean, it's great that we live in a country where you can buy anything you want...just don't bitch when you're too lazy to learn how to use it properly...
"Is There Such a Thing as "Too User Friendly"?" (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't confuse simple to use with basic - just because something is easy to operate it doesn't mean that it's incapable of doing some complicated things.
Many examples spring to mind but the telephone is top of my list. With my phone I can call half way around the world in just a few seconds - heck, even my two year-old nephew can.
Re:"Is There Such a Thing as "Too User Friendly"?" (Score:5, Funny)
First you have to sign up for a local carier, then you have to sign up for a long distance carrier. Then you get called four times a day as various phone companies try to get you to switch or sign up for extra features.
Then you have to remember all these strange and bizarrely complicated numbers. 10-10-811-Charlie-Tango-Niner, 1-800-Collect, dialing 1 for long distance, dialing 8 to get an outside line, etc. When I think of my good friend Ben, the first thing to pop to mind isn't an arbitrary ten digit number. Using numbers for phones is no better than listing your website by ip address sans domain.
And all that's without getting into the kinds of things people are starting to use phones for... instant messaging, checking email, listening to mp3s, things the device's interface is piss poor at dealing with.
Read? Why the hell should I read? (Score:2, Troll)
But on to the point of my post. Difficulty of use of any piece of equipment is related to two design qualities. First, how many options is a user supplied with? Compare the Macintosh keyboard with the PC keyboard, a mechanical microwave timer with an electronic microwave timer, or a modern PBX station with a Bell System twelve-button POTS phone from the 1970s. A device that offers lots of possibilities right there on the front panel intimidates the inexperienced user and can disorient even the most seasoned. It is possible to offer functionality without disturbing the perception of simplicity by hiding it beneath a trapdoor, as some televisions and VCR's (and TiVo) do.
Many Americans being functionally illiterate, the second quality governing the perceived complexity of the user experience is the amount of reading a user must do to operate the device. Products with thick manuals firmly between the user and the functionality they want are an obvious target, but a more subtle yet influential problem is that some prompts, menu items, dialog boxes, etc. are too hard to (quickly) read. Products that talk too much tend to be perceived as complicated by the uninitiated and annoying by the initiated. Menu items should ideally be no more than one short, ideally monosyllabic, easily recognized word or phrase. Good examples are "Empty Trash", "Clean up", "Quit", "Back". Bad examples are "Empty Recycle Bin" (not so easily recognized, polysyllabic), "Open Web location..." (long, unclear, not so easily recognized: compare to "Go to..."). Menus should place more frequently used options in shallower places. RPN-style "Noun->Verb->Adverb" structures are good, as usually the user knows what they want to manipulate before they know how they want to manipulate it, but consistency is more important than the particular structure.
I am not a trained user experience professional, so take this advice with a salt shaker or two and all your wits.
-jhp
Re:Read? Why the hell should I read? (Score:3, Funny)
No shit. My sister in law asked if we had a phone where she could make a 'private' phone call last week; I directed her to the back bedroom where we still have a rotary phone. 3 minutes later she was back asking "so how do I use this thing?"
She's 23. I feel old.
Einstein said it best (Score:3, Insightful)
"Things should be made as simple as possible--but no simpler." Put another way (by Larry Wall), it should be easy to do easy things and possible to do hard things.
It's funny that you should mention the telephone. A receptionist transferred a customer to me by mistake. After fiddling with the "forward" button for a minute, I was forced to ask the customer to hang up and call again. I later discovered that my phone was an old model that lacked the "transfer" button. It required a "*" code to perform that function.
Too User Friendly? (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:Too User Friendly? (Score:2)
this line intentionally left blank to confound the lameness filter
Re:Too User Friendly? (Score:2)
User Friendly? Ugh... (Score:3, Funny)
http://www.somethingawful.com/jeffk/dr-episode1/pa ge-04.htm a ge-05.htm a ge-06.htm
http://www.somethingawful.com/jeffk/dr-episode1/p
http://www.somethingawful.com/jeffk/dr-episode1/p
The Windows way... (Score:4, Insightful)
RTFM (Score:3, Insightful)
Honestly, if I don't figure it out by meddeling with the interface I just love to get the full-featured manual and read it and follow instructions. For me it has worked with numerous VCR's and other appliances. Unfortunately, *reading* is something even 80 year old grandfathers don't do anymore because technology is supposed to be intuitive. :-(
Call me oldschool...I'm sorry...
Re:RTFM (Score:2)
A common complaint I hear from non-tech folks, especially when it comes to cellphones or other relatively new technology, is that there is so much information in these manuals that they cannot find what they want, and they are confused by all the terminology. "But I don't want to know about base station controllers, attenuation, control channels or IMSI's! I just want to know how to make a damn call from my new cellphone!".
Re:RTFM (Score:2)
A good example is the little booklets that most GSM operators give out with the phones (or at least used to; I haven't bought a phone in ages). These are perhaps 15-20 pages, and cover everything: making a call, roaming, SMS, accessing voice mail from abroad, battery care, it's all there. No technical details are provided, it's all in layman's terms.
There is a reason the providers went through the trouble of making such a booklet; they realised that most phone manuals are too confi\using for non-techies. If you want technical details, buy a book on GSM.
Re:RTFM (Score:2)
Citizens would want to know about their long-lasting products. Consumers don't give a shit. Corporations prefer consumers.
cause it's filling a demand. (Score:2)
I need to be able to look where it should be and find the answer. If I haven't read the manual I should still be able to navigate the menus and submenus to find the function that I want.
All good products are intuitively easy to use.
User friendly is not having three shortcuts to do the same thing, but having one really obvious and intuitively placed shortcut. Menu structure, and Icon placement and pictures are key to easy use.
Intuitive interfaces (Score:5, Funny)
Bruce Ediger, in comp.os.linux.misc, on X interfaces
Re:Intuitive interfaces (Score:2)
I have 2 young kids. After seeing what my wife went through in getting a newborn to nurse for the first time I have little sympathy for engineers complaining about end users. Yea, some baby/mother combos just fall together and all is well but often it's a complex struggle. Babies aren't born knowing how to nurse. They are born with some reflexes that in a perfect world fire in sequence and produce the proper result. Sometimes it doesn't work that way.
It starts with a rooting reflex. When the baby's cheek is touched it causes him to open his mouth and turn his head. Then there's a reflex to open further when the lower lip is brushed. Finally sucking is initiated by touching the tongue. Timing is important and failure causes frustration. Whole careers are based on helping new mothers with this. Luckily babies learn quickly and bypass the reflex approach within a few days.
Re:Intuitive interfaces (Score:4, Informative)
You didn't get it.
First:
If intuition means knowledge without reasoning, then that knowledge must vary from person to person. Without clear logical steps there is no way to duplicate the intuition of one person in another person. All one can hope for is that the results might be the same, due to environment. How much shared environment is there between all peoples? Ediger thought it was breast-feeding, but even that's not so (admittedly it was in a humorous vein). Therefore, how useful is such a term as "intuitive" in describing interfaces? Absolutely useless. It is a buzzword, at best.
Example: You are presented with a box and a plastic tube sticking out of it. What do you do?
Next, try recursively following your examples and you will see why Ediger said what he said (and another poster pointed out that even the nipple wasn't intuitive!):
First, you must abandon all your preconceptions. Make like Descartes.
In fact, the only conclusion I've been able to draw about the meaning of the adjective "intuitive" is that it applies to just about nothing but instinctive (ie. born with/genetic) reactions. Everything else you learned at some point. (Note, the noun "intuition" still has meaning: "knowledge without known reasoning", but you can't say a piece of knowledge is "intuitive" because there exists some person who doesn't think so--guarenteed) When most people speak of "intuitive" interfaces, they really mean "reminiscent" interfaces. Interfaces that remind them of ones that they've already learned. The question of designing a good interface is of designing one that can rely on prior experience, can introduce new concepts in a tolerable fashion, that communicates with the user well, and is efficient to use.
Possibilities for box and plastic tube:
- Suck on it
- Blow into it
- Bend it
- Pull it
- Push it
- Cut it
- Chew it
- Step on it
- Kick it
- Pour something into it
- etc...
So which one is "intuitive"?Not that Unix/Linux people couldn't go a long way to designing better interfaces. But demanding "intuitive" is probably one of the reasons why it's taking so long. No one can code "intuitive" interfaces, if they can't even figure out what "intuitive" means! (Unfortunately, it looks like "intuitive" is coming to mean the ugly Windows interface more and more. It's now the most "reminiscent" for most people. So sad really, considering the advances that happened many years ago and were mostly forgotten.)
users (Score:5, Informative)
This idea is discussed in Donald Norman's Design of Everyday Things [amazon.com], which is a great book for UI people.
Also, I have never seen the Tivo's UI, so it could be poorly designed...
Good UI quote... (Score:3, Funny)
"ARRGH, do what I'm THINKING, not what I'm telling you!!!"
UI is not that hard (Score:4, Interesting)
Now go build your system so that someone can use it without knowing anything. Also, make it so that an advanced user can get to the functions she wants without going through some idiotic "wizard."
UI tests with actual users? What a interesting thought!!! Maybe someone should try that, too!
Re:UI is not that hard (Score:3, Insightful)
I hear the "users don't read manuals" line frequently. It's an oft-repeated user interface design maxim, whose only fault seems to be that it's wrong.
I used to use a word processor called Nota Bene, that's still being made (yes, it's possible to compete with Microsoft Word). I bought it in the DOS days. NB 4.5 came with a "quick start" booklet, a 900-page reference manual (!), and supplemental manuals for the bibliography manager and Orbis (basically a database query system that uses NB and text files as its databases). And a reference card, of course.
Starting with NB 5, it became a Windows program, and the manual became a Windows help file. Take a wild guess what the main complaint about the new system was. Yep--no printed manuals.
Nota Bene is an unusual program, but you hear this a lot if you actually listen to users of any program that has any level of complexity. A good UI means that a user can get going on basic tasks immediately, but it won't lead people to the more advanced features that require a certain level of education to use. How many Microsoft Word users know about its ability to place anchored text frames, or its inline equation commands (TeX-like, rather than using the graphic equation editor)? How many Microsoft Excel users know what a Pivot Table is? Or to put it another way, most of the non-programming computer books published these days are there to be the manuals the programs should have to start with. (One popular series is even called "The Missing Manual.")
When you write "make it so that an advanced user can get to the functions she wants without going throgh some idiotic 'wizard,'" I certainly agree. But the advanced user has to have some kind of reference work available to become an advanced user. A good UI keeps out of the user's way--but that's not a replacement for user knowledge.
Think VCRs... Think Ozzy... (Score:5, Insightful)
When something as simple as setting a start and end time plus a channel is beyond a large proportion of the population, it's going to be impossible to design an interface for TIVO that *anyone* can use. At some point you have to give up...
on willful ignorance (and pride therein) (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you've hit on an interesting social phenomenon. It's culturally acceptable -- perhaps even desirable in some circles -- to profess ignorance about certain things. I can't count the number of times, for instance, that I've heard people proclaim "Well, I don't really understand math", not with shame but with something approaching pride. (In case math-savant slashdot readers have a hard time relating to this particular example, try replacing it with something more personally salient like "I really don't understand women". In my experience, such a statement is often used as an incentive to bond with other people who feel similarly, not as a shameful admission.)
Then again, there are things that it's not socially acceptable to admit lameness in. Openly admitting lack of knowledge of computers would probably be fatal in a forum like this one. Openly admitting a lack of knowledge about the mechanics of sex (once you're beyond a certain age / experience level) is probably something few people would do. (Though there is a Sex for Dummies book, so who knows -- I figure that's something you buy only as a gag gift, and you make sure that you get it gift-wrapped at the checkout counter!) Or ignorance of how to operate a motor vehicle (unless you're a lifelong Manhattanite, in which case it could be a perverse source of pride)...
Re:on willful ignorance (and pride therein) (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you've hit on an interesting social phenomenon. It's culturally acceptable -- perhaps even desirable in some circles -- to profess ignorance about certain things.
People have beliefs about things. The belief stops them from doing the things that other people do to get good at something.
To be good at something you usually spend a lot of time and effort on it, practicing, learning with an open mind, and having fun. It's those actions (be it trying recipies, playing an instrument, or writing code) that make you good. But if you believe "I'm no good at it", then you'll just avoid opportunities to practice, learn, and play.
So yeah, if people believe they "don't understand VCR's" then they are actually instructing themselves that the manual is written in Greek. Think hypnosis: "I don't understand, I don't understand, I don't understand..." That's how strong beliefs are.
Now we all have beliefs, be they positive or negative ones, so it's not about calling some people "stupid". And the beliefs are very strong, and there can be a lot of fear associated with trying to break a belief. People will do all sorts of things to avoid having their beliefs invalidated, because there's a lot of security in "knowing" how the world works (how I belive it to be).
(Living without beliefs is very freeing, but who wants to be free anyway?)
So yeah, the interface and the user manual can go a long way towards being clear, simple and informative, but beyond that, if the user has a blocking belief, I dunno what you can do about it.
Re:My god, that's pathetic... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the part you apparently don't understand. The TIVO uses a big, fast hard drive (a small corner of which is conveniently used for holding the schedule) and a cheap, fast modem. Ten years ago, these things weren't available. Everything to do with computers was about a hundred times more expensive, and that goes for all the gear at the other end of the wire, too. You'd have to sell an awful lot of these expensive things to pay for the schedule system. Remember that people had less disposable income ten years ago, too.
Even today, the TV schedule thing doesn't and couldn't work everywhere, and it would be very expensive. The TIVO gives you all sorts of other functionality, and its main purpose is time-shifting TV shows, while a VCR's main purpose is playing rented video tapes (just as it was 10 years ago). A good programming interface is really not very important, and not going to sell a lot more VCRs.
Adding a clock and timer to a VCR is cheap, simple, works everywhere, and easy to isolate in the device itself. It's not the main point of the VCR, but it's so cheap that it's worth putting in every VCR just in case someone won't buy one without it.
Basically, the kind of technology that allows the more advanced interface also makes VCRs obsolete. If you're going to go to the trouble of making a fancy programming interface, with the on-board computer, and modem, and storage that requires, you're going to make more money going that extra step and selling a TIVO-type device. If you want a TIVO, get a TIVO, don't complain that your old VCR is not a TIVO.
Another ten years from now you likely will be able to watch any TV show at any time. It's not hard to imagine a system that would make it possible, it's just too expensive right now, and too much infrastructure would need to be built.
The customer is always right. (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no such thing as "too user-friendly". If someone buys a surround sound stereo system it's because they want good sound while they watch movies. They really shouldn't be asked to learn the intracacies of stereo system design.
In the end, it should just work. If you don't make a product that's easy to use, somebody else will.
It's called... (Score:3, Funny)
Biggest two problems: (Score:3, Interesting)
Problem 2: Easy-to-use is obviously subjective. I prefer a heavily hierarchical organization in everything. On windows machines, I'll typically have only 4 categories under "programs", each with sub-categories and sometimes sub-sub-categories, ie. Entertainment->Games->FPS->Q3. It makes sense to me and allows me to launch programs more quickly. It frustrates the hell out of my girlfriend, who prefers the "Giant alphabetical order list" of programs. Of course, her method is far more suitable on my iBook.
So, to summarize: Ease of use still requires a little bit of education/effort in learning. What's easy to use for you or the interface designer may not be easy to use for Grandpa or my girlfriend or me. Allow a good degree of customization and configuring, but make those options obvious and easy to locate.
Re:Biggest two problems: (Score:2)
An alternative interpretation is that they simply aren't as interested in computers as you are. They don't expect to have to read a manual to use a typewriter, and to them a computer is basically a glorified typewriter.
Nine times out of ten, a customer would rather complain that something is too difficult than take the extra five minutes to simply read a short section from a manual.
It's perfectly reasonable for them to expect to be able to assemble their computer without spending five minutes reading the manual. I'm serious. If you go to a car dealership to test-drive a car, do you expect to have to spend five minutes reading the manual in order to figure out where the ignition is, and how to operate the seatbelts?
Not only that, but if it takes you five minutes to find the relevant information in the manual, read it, understand it, and do it, then it probably takes them half an hour or an hour. Yes, I'm still completely serious. I teach physics for a living, and one thing I see when I work with students one-on-one is that what seems simple to me is complicated to them. To me, it might be, "OK, just solve V=IR for I=V/R and plug in the numbers." Well for them, it's a 1000-page textbook with hundreds of equations in it. First they have to make sure that V=IR is relevant and correct for the problem. (What if it's a diode and not a resistor?) Oh yeah, and the current is given in milliamps, so they have to convert to amps. And although I know instantly that the letter "I" stands for current, they haven't internalized the notation yet.
The consumers have the right attitude (Score:2, Insightful)
It's utterly embarasing, I find, that some people know so much, of what is ultimately trivia, about interracting with a big, complicated, proceedure and not even paid for it. It doubly spooky to think that at the same time, that linux and it's supporting structure are about the extent of these people's knowlege. Getting all snoby about how no one bothers to learn some here-today gone tomorrow technological gaget seems a bit.. miss-guided to say the least. If anything, spending 5 years or so obsessing about some gizmo and not getting paid for it is the truely disturbing thing. My personal opinion is that if the specialist (aka programmer or engineer) did not spend the time to make his program or gaget as easy and intuative to use as possibly he is wasting my time - forcing me to understand some irrelevent minuta of his domain. As a result he is an ass hole, just like the sales clerks that keeps me waiting in line for 5 minutes for nothing, just like the jerk in traffic that sits in the middle of the intersection on red. To hell with him and his program.
Different Interfaces for Different Skill Levels (Score:4, Interesting)
That last part's a bit broad, so I'll clear things up. With a normal PC, you've got CPU cycles to spare, and the computer has time to tell if you move deliberately for a menu choice, or if you're hunting for it, or if you keep choosing something, and cancelling out of the choice.
For a VCR, the default interface should be as simple as the buttons on the front. If you read the manual a bit, it will tell you how to turn on the intermediate features. If you read a lot, you can turn on the advanced features. If you read waaay too much, you get to turn on the command-line interface that uses reverse-Polish notation, in Aramaic, but displayed approximately by using Turkish for vowels, and Cantonese for consonants.
Everyone's not as comfortable with it as folks like us are, and because computers can do sooo bloody much, we should stop boring them, and give the computers more to do, such as providing different interfaces for different skill levels. We use short command interfaces with our kids and our pets ("Sit! Quiet!"), and much longer command interfaces with our peers ("Dude, nice frag!"). It's a very natural thing to do, and we ought to start allowing computers to do the same.
As the BOFH would say... (Score:2)
Wouldn't that be ALL of the time? Delete their files, erase their account, and lock them in the tape safe.
"Bastard Operator from Hell [ntk.net]" articles here... Enjoy.
You are asking the wrong question (Score:2)
That's the wrong question: they don't expect that.
What they expect is that they will be able to fire up their new toy" and have it be usable. That's a *lot* different then expecting to "have a complete understanding of how to use it".
And the answer to the real question is "because they paid good money for the thing, it should do what it says it does without me having to wave a dead chicken over it".
-- Terry
User Friendly is a myth (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny, we were just talking about this as it related to another post I just made [slashdot.org]. The thing is, there is no such thing as user friendly, at least the conventional meaning of the phrase. It all boils down to two factors:
The phrase "user friendly" comes about by confusing the two: somehow assuming that by being easy to sit down and learn with no work, something is easier to use. Then it's "user friendly."
Unfortunately, this isn't how it works in the real world, at least usually. A tool can be built that is easy to use---powerful, flexible, suited toward the job; or it can be easy to learn---no training required. Usually the tradeoff for the latter is that functionality is limited, so the user isn't overwhelmed. A balance of sorts must be achieved. Most of the best tools lean toward easy to use, and rightly so: you're only a newbie for a very short time. You may be using the tool for the rest of your life.
However, these aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, either. It is possible, in theory, to build an interface that is both easy to use and easy to learn, as long as one does not equate the two, or think that one somehow implies the other. Doing this is rather tricky though. A good example of such interfaces are those for simple tools which can be applied to a wide variety of uses (a hammer, /bin/ls, etc.). Another example is that some games tend to use: the dynamic interface, which starts with a few key options, and gradually adds more.
Thus, "user friendly" doesn't really exist in the conventional sense, which equates this sense of immediate ease of learning with continued ease of use. Rather, ease-of-learning and ease-of-use must be balanced, and attaining something truly user friendly requires a lot more than having icons and a mouse, or fewer menu entries.
User friendlyness isn't always good. (Score:3, Insightful)
Cars are probably the most user friendly device on the market. Just think about the potential reduction in deaths due to drunk drivers if cars were LESS user friendly.
Now, let's go to the computer side of things. Grade school children are able to find images online and print them out because of the current state of user friendlyness. I've heard of "computer class" where this is taught and encouraged, while at the same time, children who use paper, scisors and glue instead are somewhat shunned. (I think Clifford Stoll makes reference to this in "High-Tech Heretic".)
To a very high degree, user friendlyness removes control from the user and uses "logic" to try to make assumptions about what the user really wants. Just look at MS-Word and "auto-correct" which changes "Teh" to "The". (I had a classmate in university with the last name "Teh"... in the end I used vi.)
Am I big on user friendlyness? No. I use console Slackware. I use vi. I drive a stick. Perhaps I like to know that I control the output, and nothing will happen except what I tell it to do.
Is there anyone else out there that feels the same way?
Beware TPB
Re:User friendlyness isn't always good. (Score:3, Funny)
I personally drive a stick. I hate cruise control. People who can only drive automatics should be shipped off to Greenland.
Re:User friendlyness isn't always good. (Score:3, Insightful)
The last version of Word I heard of that wouldn't let you add an exception for "Teh" (capitalized, even) was 6.
I've used on an extensive basis (it's my primary job function) 97, 2000, and XP. 97 & 2k (and possibly 95) allow you to just hit the backspace, or "undo", to remove an autocorrect. XP's "smark tags" show up after *every* autocorrect, and you can, right there in that menu, tell it to never autocorrect "Teh" again.
"User Friendly" does not mean "The user has no control." It means "The user doesn't have to wrestle with the computer," either through obscure commands that you need a manual to know, or options that you can't touch even with the manual.
Different Types of Users (Score:5, Insightful)
1. 90+% of users are incapable and/or unwilling to think. Regardless of how obvious the UI is, they need to be sat down and trained like monkeys to repeat a series of steps to accomplish whatever they're trying to do. They cannot, or will not, stop, look at the screen, and make an intelligent choice on how to proceed. No matter how plain and simple the UI is, it's like they had a part of their brain removed.
2. About 5% of users can make decisions based on the UI to accomplish their goals.
3. The remaining few percent, which we would call Power Users, have a decent understanding of how computers work, how files work, where they're located, how to find them. They know that if they're trying to open a file, they can usually do this by clicking File, and maneuvering down the menu. They can figure out that if their X: drive isn't opening, it's probably because they aren't logged in to the network. They can take a tip, and make a logical conclusion, like "Oh yeah, okay, then I can do this and this. Thanks." These users are very few and far between.
Windows is great for the few who understand that there are common elements of (most) every application. Still though, it's that 90+% that will suck the life out of you every time.
tautology? (Score:2)
This doesn't mean that designers are faced with a black hole until after they build a product. It just means that design principles should be induced from what previous experience tells you usually works with users, rather than dictated by what designers think people should be able to deal with.
the perfect question to ask (Score:2)
Video games do pretty well considering no one ever reads their manuals. Maybe you should try ripping off the UI from some popular console games or something!
Advertising (Score:2)
What is their tagline? Something like "easy to own, Easy to use, Easy as Dell", with some other stuff thrown in. What makes a Dell running XP any simpler than an HP running XP or a whitebox running XP? Dell's cases are certainly easy and convenient to work in, but anyone who's heavily interested in the "easy to use/own" aspect probably isn't poking around inside.
Maybe they're referring to the buying process. Again, a lot of novice users (the ones who create the biggest tech support issues) are probably intimidated by the online/phone buying process. Hell, I run into people all the time who think that the local Best Buy or CompUSA must be the place to start looking for Dell.
If I were my mother (computer knowledge-wise), I wouldn't know what the hell to make of Dell's site. Desktop-wise, I have three tiers of systems, each of which is configurable. What benefit does this RDRAM have over that DDR-SDRAM? Do I need a 64MB video card? Why is this 7200RPM drive better, and what is the standard speed? I heard those Celerons were "bad"... and so forth.
Computers really need to be advertised less as electronic hubs or personal empowwerment devices and more as tools. I can't call craftsman when I'm having trouble building my deck, so why should Dell concern themselves with my solitaire playing issues. Don't scream "price" because if I'm talking about a quality set of power tools that I'd need to build a deck, I can dump just as much as I could on a mid-range home PC.
It makes me shudder when I see computers advertised as e-mailing home vides. How many home users have enough mastery to understand that they'll need to import DV, edit it down, then compress it to a size halfway workable enough for e-mail, when in reality the file SHOULD be uploaded to a website/FTP server and a link e-mailed?
In the industry's push to portray PCs as "must-have", heavily important "educational", "information devices" they have created a legion of consumers that seem to expect highly-trained "support specialists" to assist them when they can't get their picture to print out in the insane manner they seem to think it should. On the flipside, Craftsman has created a legion of users who have faith in the fact that this 150-year-old company can make a solid power-tool, and if you have questions about how to begin cutting the 2x4s, you should've hired a contractor. In reality, the two pieces of equipment are very, very similar, it's merely the perception that makes a customer feel one way about one and another about the other.
Re:Advertising (Score:2)
I've taught people who don't know how to install software how to publish a movie to their website and notify thier freinds using iMovie and iDisk; I mean the machine comes with a firewire cable, it opens iMovie in import mode when you plug in the camcorder, it has a preset for a web movie, and after HomePage makes the frame page for the movie it offers to send iCards to your friends.
Complexity (Score:2)
I'm always wary of doing things with a click of a button. How much fundamental complexity was weeded out, in order to bring such a simple system? Usually it is this sort of system that has less options instead of more. This brings out easier to learn, harder to use. The fact that there is such market demand for these design principles is disappointing. Goods do not often live up to their true potential.
Cars are a very good example. (Score:2, Interesting)
I feel that consumer electronics fall into the same category. To be able to use consumer electronics "out of the box", you have have some familiarity with consumer electronics. It doesn't take years of use. It takes just enough use for the customer to grasp the basic concepts. Then off they go with TVs, stereos, DVDs, and consoles. Just as soon as they RTFM!
Usefulness vs effort (Score:2)
Those are the two questions people ask. Take a complex machine - a car. Takes a lot of effort to learn how to operate one, however it provides a large use.
Take another complex machine, a combine harvester. Lots of learning needed to operate it, and for most people the use is minimal, so they dont learn.
A VCR is very useful, it lets people record stuff. Its easy to use too (put tape in, press record). The timer is more effort, and less use to a lot of people. Hence people that learn how to use the timer (or even set the time) are those that live busy lifestyles, namely the under 40's. Pensioners are (typically) at home all day and use the VCR less (mainly when they want to watch 2 things at once).
All the wonderful features of a tivo arent perceived to be of any interest to most people, so they dont take time out to learn it.
Re:Usefulness vs effort (Score:2)
- How useful is the device?
More issues along the same lines:Programming a Tivo or a VCR fails all three tests for me. It's not useful (because I hardly ever watch TV), it's only one of a ridiculously large number of programmable devices I could spend time messing with, and it's guaranteed to be obsolete in 3-5 years.
Computers are actually pretty good compared to consumer electronics, because you get feedback, and the feedback is text. With a cell phone, say, there's basically no feedback, except for maybe a beep or a flashing Egyptian hieroglyph. Computers are also good because you can recycle the same skills, e.g., using cut and paste in many different apps.
I'm perfectly happy programming computers, but I have no intention of ever learning how to program a VCR or use a cell phone. It's a waste of precious brain cells.
Re:Usefulness vs effort (Score:2)
Once you start using calanders, different caller groups, wildfire (voice recognition on commonly dialed numbers), wap, games etc. And even sms to some extent, you are into the point of diminishing returns.
Who really uses call waiting? Not many (my girlfriend does though, I feel ashamed, i dont know how to use it)
Some things are simply new. (Score:2)
But until the machine is smart enough to understand you, you will have to be smart enough to understand the machine.
The fundamental problem here is not... (Score:2, Interesting)
fundamental concepts and being able to apply them in the learning feedback
loop so to enable second nature integration of the users mindset.
But as things are done in teh computer industry and competition and
anti-competition, it's hard for a user to make second nature anything
because the industry keeps changing things.
I.E. should a user have to learn how to use a word processor that they
would otherwise not, due to using something else, so to be able to read
a
But the problem is even worse than that as the whole nature of a computers
and programming is simply the act of automating complexity that is made up
of simple things. A process of automation that consist of some very basic
and small set of actions/functionality. And this level of simplicity of
applying concepts or actions/functionality is being kept from users in
general.
And it even gets worse, as the DRM is going to make it difficult to learn
how to do it the difficult way, should the user so chose to do outside or
four years of full time colledge and certification and license buying
etc...
So I guess what it all amounts to is the effort to not allow the user to
actually do things for themselves enough to actually learn something that
would help the user to make their use of computer more second nature.
You cannot make something user friendly and not allow user to use it. And
apparently blaming the users for the failure of the industry to what they
need to is the best excuse the industry can come up with. Hell they seem
to get everything else from the users, from ides to feedback to money to
I suspect this will be modded down but then that is apparently to be
expected.
Re:The fundamental problem here is not... (Score:2)
anti-competition, it's hard for a user to make second nature anything
because the industry keeps changing things.
I agree with this completely. when TVs came out they worked just likd radios, there was a dial you turned to select a station and then you sat and were entertained. Of course TVs were just liek radios and we have so many other devices that work unlike anything else we have had before. What I am not sure about is whether this difference is a result of innovation or of simply trying to actively differentiate yourself to show how "new" the thing you have just designed is.
You're a luser too (Score:5, Interesting)
But why don't we look at some fields that perhaps are not part of our aptitude. How much time and effort have you spent learning about,
- a recipe?
- fashion and clothing?
- fine art?
- your elected representatives (quick, name the ones in the State capital
- giving your girl/boyfriend a mind-blowing orgasm?
Now, you may say, 'but these things aren't important to me; I don't have time for them.' And then you'll understand why all the 'lusers' don't RTFM.
You're missing the point. (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't about disgust with people who say, "I don't want to program my VCR." it's about those who say, "The VCR is too hard to program, I can't learn it." Usually, this can be translated as, "I am too lazy/frightened to bother trying."
In my experience, if you have authority over these people, you can easily make them figure it out. Without authority over them, they'll make weak excuses why they shouldn't bother trying. If they have authority over you they'll get you to do it over and over again, regardless how much of both your time and theirs this wastes. 90% of what computer class teachers do is say, "You have to try."
It's a truly pathetic phenomenon. I could throw theories at you about why it is, but I'm not sure why most people's minds work that way, they just do.
Re:You're missing the point. (Score:4, Interesting)
I think of it as a simple micro-economic question: Programming the VCR is worth 50 to them (50 of what, I don't know). Asking me to do it costs them 10 (and costs me 10). Doing it themselves costs them 100, so it's not worth it for them to do it themselves. If they learned it, their cost would decrease, but you can't learn everything -- and their cost of learning a new technology is much higher than yours.
Which leads to another micro-economic concept: Specialization. They spend their time and effort learning about (e.g.) cooking and doing it; I spend mine on technology. We help each other out. It's much better than me cooking mediocre food and them struggling with their VCR. Also, they learn *new* recipes much faster and I learn new tech much faster.
if you have authority over these people, you can easily make them figure it out.
If only I had more authority
Re:You're a luser too (Score:5, Funny)
Masturbation doesn't count, pal.
Of course things are too user friendly (Score:2, Funny)
We need to make things harder to use, and eventually as a result the stupid portion of the world population will be culled out of the gene pool.
Of course, for this to work we'll need to graft lethal devices onto simple household appliances, but i'm sure there are enough bitter sociopathic techies out there to make this a nightmarish reality.
interface (Score:2, Funny)
Why do today's software and consumer electronics users expect to be able to fire up their new toy and magically have a complete understanding of how to use it
Haven't you ever watched Star Trek? Whenever the crew is finds itself on the bridge of an alien ship, it usually takes them about 5 seconds to figure out how to download the entire database, transport the stranded crew member and turn off the self destruct sequence. And meanwhile I'm still looking for a powerful IDE with a decent interface :(
Thoughts on 'user friendly' (Score:2, Insightful)
1) Software that I understand what it is supposed to do
2) Software that I have no clue what it is supposed to do.
For example: I have NO understanding of accounting. None, nil. A mystical and dark art done by pencil pushers.
I don't think it is POSSIBLE to write an accounting package that I will find user friendly because I don't understand the basic premise of what should happen.
Similar things can be said for 3D modeling packages and FPS. I rue the day that Quake came out.
On the other hand, I undertand how Word Processors should work. I know the basic functions that should be there and I can pretty easily switch from one to the other without slowing down keystrokes.
---
That, I think, is the major issue of "User Friendly." In the day and age of Star Trek and the computers of TV, the people just want to say "TiVo, record me a good show on TV tonight" and it will be done.
Users will NEVER master basic software until they understand what the software does. Aunt Tillie will never be good with her word processor until she unlearns her typewriter. (She will never unlearn her typewriter because the text field of her mail program works like a typewriter _sigh_)
You can't tell users not to open an attachment, because they have no clue what an attachment is. The concept, if they have any at all, will bring about an image of a photograph paper clipped to the letter or a small flyer tossed in the envelope. You don't "open" attachments, you just make sure they are there.
Aunt Tillie will never understand clearing out her browsers cache because she has no clue about a cache. She will never understand installing a new video codex because those things are outside her realm of experience.
Computers don't follow physical rules and so all of their worlds knowledge and understanding will fail to prepare them for the world of computers.
Tools are not ends, but means (Score:2, Insightful)
How the VCR Illustrates the Geek Gap (Score:5, Informative)
Now, every once in a while I get asked this question: how is it that a VCR can record a TV show when the TV isn't turned on? Yeah, I can hear the snickers. But I get this from a lot of basically intelligent people. And the frustrating thing is, I've never found an explanation that makes sense to the asker. To me it's obvious, "You see, there's two tuners, the TV has one, the VCR has one...." But the eyes just glaze over.
So the whole idea of Making Systems User Friendly is just plain bogus. It assumes that people can come to terms with any system if you just find the right methaphro for them to use. Doesn't work.
In the real world, there are three solutions to this problem:
- You do a better job of explaining the basic concepts of the system to your users. But only a few really brilliant teachers seem to have much luck with this approach.
- You build systems that do a good job of hiding the unfamiliar paradigm with a simpler paradigm ordinary people can wrap their minds around. But again, this takes a certain brilliance on the part of the designer, who has to be at home with both paradigms.
- You take the Kuhnsian approach [emory.edu]. That is, instead of trying to bridge the nerd-mundane gap, you wait for both sides to die off, to be replaced by big-thumbed [nctimes.net] folks who've grown up with the technolgy and have no trouble coming to terms with it.
Now, you might think that solution number 3 is basically a cop-out. And I'd agree. But I think it's the solution that will be implemented -- by default.reminds me of "how does a radar detector work" (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyway, the point of this is that it can be kind of funny what can happen when people's mental models of a technology device are mistaken. There are some interesting comments about this effect, if I remember correctly, in the book The Logic of Failure (author: Dietrich Dorner). It's amusing (and also hugely informative) to see how people get stumped by relatively simple technology such as a thermostat because they have a fundamentally incorrect mental model for how a thermostat works. It's a similar thing with VCRs, I suspect: Some people probably think that the TV "picture" (having no concept of signal that's coming in over the cable or the airwaves) is only there when the TV itself is on...
Of all the places you could post this question.... (Score:5, Insightful)
A quick example... about three years ago, I commented that you should always use a UPS on a Linux box, because the ext2 filesystem was fragile. (there was much more to this, but in the interest of brevity I'll omit it.)
So what did I get in reply? "You're a moron, you should be manually editing your filesystem when it's corrupted and using backups of the superblock." And other posters appeared to agree with him. I don't think I got even a single reply in support of my stance... that I shouldn't have to, that a properly designed fileystem wouldn't have these problems. I'll not repeat the whole argument. Either you will understand why this was a ridiculous thing to say or you won't. But the blame-the-user mindset was firmly in place... it was MY fault because I didn't know enough, not the fault of the designer(s).
Read the book "The Design of Everyday Things". It is a great set of examples of how badly real-life things can be designed... and how a properly designed real-life thing should automatically guide the user into using it correctly. A door that pushes, for example, should NOT have a handle, it should have a push plate... and maybe a handle for the other side, because it pulls on that side.
According to research, there are two basic ways that humans organize data and navigate through the world: "knowledge in the head" and "knowledge in the world". People who use the former are Slashdotters... they use their memory as their primary navigation device. They tend to trust their own memories over things like street signs and maps.
The other type of thinker uses the world around him/herself to keep them organized. WHERE the piece of paper is tells them WHAT it is. They'll trust a street sign over their memory every time. They don't try to store the entire world in their head, and (this is the crucial part) they get confused when input isn't consistently mappable to output.
A car is easy to drive for everyone because inputs translate to outputs in a simple, direct way. There are only a few states and only about five main inputs. Anyone tall enough to see over the dashboard can successfully move a car with an automatic transmission.
For 'in the world' thinkers, however, a computer is a deep mystery. Inputs don't translate into outputs. In a car, if you push the accelerator, the engine revs up, and the car usually goes faster. On a computer, if you click the mouse, a zillion different things could happen, depending on where the pointer was, what mouse button you pressed, what program was running, or what the time of day was, or what have you. This means computers are HARD for 'in the world' types.
That is part of what was so successful about the Macintosh. One button. Short menus. It's still complex, but the inputs map more closely to the outputs, and the onscreen cues make it easier for externally-organized people. The internal states of the machine are more clearly reflected on screen.
Just because something is complex on the inside doesn't mean it has to be complex on the outside, too. A modern car is an exceedingly complex device, and it takes a lot of training to be able to repair one if it breaks... but pretty much any idiot can drive. (and, judging from what I see on the freeway every day, every idiot does. :-) )
Computers can be this way without sacrificing their power. But it's easy to blame the user and ignore the problem when the solution isn't easy. Look at my ext2 experience. Back then, it was my fault. Now that we have journaling filesystems, it's obvious that a well-designed filesystem doesn't need manual editing of the superblock after a power failure.
Likewise, we'll someday look back and realize that gadgets didn't have to be hard, we just made them that way. And it's nobody's fault but ours.
'in the world' versus 'in the head' - not so (Score:3, Informative)
Your description of in the head thinkers being somehow better able to deal with computers than in the world thinkers is nonsense. I'm working for a husband and wife couple as a technical advisor. The husband is what you describe as an 'in the head' thinker while the wife is an 'in the world' thinker. The wife without exception has an easier time dealing with computer-related issues.
A typical exchange between her and I would be something like her asking me how to do something in Word. She would start Word, go through the steps necessary to get her to the problem, and then with the info on the screen she would describe what she wants to do and what she tried to do that didn't work. If I ask her to describe something in the abstract, without it being on the screen in front of her, she will always insist that she show me on screen. She frequently makes comments like 'I'll remember what the problem was when I see it again' (meaning the document she was working with). The 'solution' that she wants from me is always how to navigate the interface to do what she wants, rather than an abstract explanation.
In contrast, the husband when asking for help does so without looking at the monitor, trying to explain the problem in the abstract. I have to insist that he bring up the problem on the screen so I can show the solution because the abstractions I give him wouldn't have a referent in his mind otherwise. A typical example of the contrast is that when the wife wants to find a file, she immediately goes to her documents folder (this is on a Macintosh) and looks visually for the file she wants, with some broad parameters as a guide to narrow her search. When the husband wants to find a file, he asks himself what sort of file it is, and where in his directory structure would he most likely have saved it. He frequently decides that the file is in (say) 'artwork,' is unable to find it, and then thinks about it more and decides that it must be in 'images,' etc.
The husband distrusts 'in the world' knowledge and insists on having everything in his head, while the wife distrusts 'in the head' knowledge and insists on dealing directly with the world. Neither is computer-savvy, but I've frequently had times when I spent several hours plodding along with the husband through simple problems, then spending a few minutes with the wife and having her understand much more complicated situations easier.
So there's nothing about 'in the head' thinking that is necessarily better suited for technical problems. The intelligence of the person in question (i.e., their ability to effectively use whatever type of thinking they have), is the key factor. What you're describing above is an 'in the world' thinker whose resolution is much coarser than a 'in the head' thinker. There's no reason why an 'in the world' thinker would necessarily be unable to differentiate between a mouse click in one context and a mouse click in another. And there's no reason why an 'in the head' thinker would necessarily be able to.
Re:Of all the places you could post this question. (Score:4, Informative)
The Interface Hall of Shame [iarchitect.com], most likely.
Issues with the elderly, Psychology of aging. (Score:5, Interesting)
To design something for someone of that age, you have to draw upon their Crystallized Intelligence(the store of knowledge or information that a given society has accumulated over time). You might (if you're *really* a geek) be able to do something like rig up an analog alarm clock to the TiVO and expoit the grandfather's 30 years of experience setting alarm clocks to get him to successfully set the TiVO. Yes, he'll probably still need a TV Guide to look up the time so he can set it in the alarm clock, but the point is that the show will be recorded. It sounds crazy, but older adults often exploit their crystallized intelligence to create strategies that work around deficiencies in fluid intelligence.
If people hack network interface cards into their TiVO's, why not hack Grandpa interface alarm clocks into them as well?
Bottom up vs. top down (Score:3, Insightful)
A user with no knowledge about the system workings feels he or she is constantly pushing a stick into a jar of what seems to be unchangeable jelly. Is it strange a user feels difficult to learn something like this?
And to put this into the 'current situation': Windows has a more intuitive UI because many users have seen it 'grow'. They or their neighbors have worked with DOS or Windows 3.1 and have seen the 'system'. UNIX boxen and Linux has only been used by a select group of individuals and the rest has not seen it grow to what it is right now. That is why people feel that Linux or UNIX is less 'intuitive' than Windows is.
View from the other side of the fence (Score:4, Informative)
uberworld.org [uberworld.org]
That was it. In short, it's a like a MUD, except it's full of people who sit around (mainly students and sysadmins) and chat about whatever they want all day. It's proper name is a "talker" and it used "telnet".
Now this is where the problem lies. I consider the interface to be obvious. You have a bunch of commands and help files called with "help" and it's all very easy.
But the people logging in from Slashdot, just didn't have a clue. And by that, I mean they had no idea what to do. These are people who use UNIX all day long and yet they were lost.
So I looked at the mistakes they made and I added handholding, better information, cleaned up the help files and stuff but STILL and this is the clincher: even then, people just didn't bother reading the information on the screen.
Even when you first log in, there are a couple of pages of information that tell you what to expect. When you actually "arrive" in the main room, you get told of the useful help file to read. Before you register if you type a command wrong, it again points you to that help file!
Most never even found the "say" command. They would log on, scrabble with a few commands, ignore the friendly points on the screen and the automated robot that pointed them to help files and in the end give up.
In the end, I now ask people who want to link, to actually point to a website (see my sig) in an effort to stop people logging on and being rather clueless.
So what am I saying here? Nothing can ever be too user friendly. But it's amazing (and sometimes amusing) to see that even those people who assume that they are cream of the crop when it comes to IT issues get totally and utterly lost using something that we have both 18 and 40 year olds using with little to no IT experience at all.
The problem comes about when there isn't enough testing. We learnt a lot from the confusion of slashdot people, but unfortunately you get to a point where you just cannot do any more but hope that users think for themselves.
(As an aside, if you can read and can handle telnet and some basic commands - you only need 20 odd to get started - then feel free to drop by and chat, website is here [uberworld.org])
Re:First Post (Score:2, Interesting)
User friendliness is a bit too subjective a term - it varies so much between users. One of the problems with a lot of modern technology is that people want so many features that extra buttons have to be added in, and extra steps - a large percentage of people never use these. I only use 4 buttons of around 30 on my DVD remote. If we took these off then we'd only have "Play", "Pause", "Stop", "scan" and "FW/ Rewind" (although I had to use "subtitle" for Crouching Tiger...), and then the techies would complain. A lot of it's about having something for everyone, and showing off all their "cool" features, but for the less tech-savvy this extra level of complexity just makes things unusable.
This coupled with the fact that a lot of the manuals are in poorly translated Korean (No joke) can make things intimidating for people - but most users are now more tech savvy. Home computers, VCRs (DVDs) et al have only been around for the last 20-30 years or so - is it any surprise that those outside the generation that grew up with them find them a little daunting?
The user-friendliness will change with the same controls / appliances over the next 50 years as the 'older generation' changes to the relatively 'tech-savvy'
Re:First Post (Score:2)
Yeah. If the common controls were arranged sensibly on the remote in a cursor arrangement, you could have something like: up=play, left=rewind, right=forward[*], center=select, down=pause, menu. Then any "extra" functionality could be provided through on-screen menus.
Of course, there are always going to be people who want extra features, like a shuttle control, but there aren't many controls that need instant access rather than a menu. There's always the option of providing a choice of controllers on purchase.
[*] Out of interest: notice how right=forward, left=rewind shows the L-R reading bias we have... Is this accepted in UIs worldwide, or are these swapped for R-L locales?
Re:Mute topic QWZX (Score:2, Insightful)
AAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
The word is MOOT you fucking idiot. MOOT MOOT MOOT MOOT
A "mute topic" is a topic that doesn't speak.
I had a partner that used to say that ALL THE FUCKING TIME "well, that's a mute point". I would especially cringe when he would say it to a customer.
Sheesh, are people that fucking ignorant and retarded???
Re:This is my favorite complaint (Score:2)
Winamp, WMP, Real, and Quicktime - you can sum up everything wrong with computer UIs with those four programs alone.
Re:My theory (Score:2)
Re:My theory (Score:2)
Further, there is absolutely no reason not to make technology as user friendly as possible. It seems a lot of geeks actually want technology to be massively complicated because it's an ego boost for them when they get something to work.
Re:Customers are stupid (Score:2)
LOL! Actually, I don't think all of them are stupid (some are, don't get me wrong) - but most are what I'd like to call "Aggressively Ignorant".
They don't want to know how to do something - they don't want to learn how to do it - but yet, they still want to do it. They will go to great lengths to avoid learning how to do it. Even when presented with a simple sequence of steps that will accomplish what they want to do, they complain that "It shouldn't be hard", when it's not hard, it just takes time to learn.
These same people will buy into whatever marketing literature is put in front of them -- AOL is "the easiest", XP is "easy to use", Laundry detergent A is better than laundry detergent X. They do this because they don't want to think for themselves.
See, thinking takes effort, and they've been conditioned that effort is bad. It's sooo much better to pay a monthly fee to have something done for you, than to take a few minutes a week and do it yourself. It's better to let AOL handle your security and personal information, than to take matters into your own hands, and care about your own security. It's better to hate those dang Arab terrorists, then to take a critical view of your government, which is getting out of control. Thinking is bad. That's what these people believe - and they will fight for that belief to the death.
Re:Why shouldn't we st[r]ive for better UI (Score:2)
I have speech recognition on the car phone. It works OK for that application but the limits are pretty obvious. First you have to explain to passengers not to talk over the commands. I was giving a lift to someone who was in the voice directory and was calling his wife to tell her we would be home soon. So each time I say Roger he says 'what?' which spoiled the recognizer.
I don't think that speech actually helps at all for most applications. In the first place the command set becomes pretty cumbersome. In most applications voice is used it is actually limited to recalling one of a small number of pre-set programs. The ambiguity in human speech is huge and machines often have no context to resolve it in.
Good UI design for me is something that allows me to build up a coherent mental model of how the device is working. That is why a lot of folk like UNIX, the commands may be bizarely arcane but the model is usually exposed (in flat text files). Macs on the other hand are not designed as tools, they are designed as assistants. You have a problem, it tries to help you. If your problem is not the one the designers thought of, well tough luck buddy.
The principal problem with the notorious VCR programming task is frequently user anticipation. Instead of doing something consistently the machine tries to be helpful and fails.
Another problem with VCRs is that the 'easy to use' interface software can have bugs. Before I got my PVR I had a Magnavox VCR. After failing to tape the F1 Grand Prix twice in a row I said "I have a degree in Nuclear Physics, I was elected to be a fellow of the British Computer Society, why do I keep assuming the problem is me?" So the next time I took photos of the settings on the VCR with my coolpix, turns out that if you set the device under certain circumstances the damn thing will set itself to record a year later than programmed.
My pet peeve in user interfaces is that manufacturers try to make devices look simple and uncluttered by making one button do six things. I know that there is also a cost issue, but when I buy a $1,000 digital camera, or even a $300 one I think that I am owed a few extra buttons. The Coolpix would be a heck of a lot easier to use if there was a single slider that controlled the flash, allowing it to be turned off completely, on, on with red eye correction. Instead the mode button that controls it also cycles the autofocus modes, and is context sensitive to boot. But it is the same for the 35mm film world. Come to think of it, the only gadgets I have that I have not managed to fully master every switch on are my N90s and its flash gun...
Re:Consumers are stupid (Score:2)
Today's television sets are likely to be much more complicated. Knobs and switches cost money, so the penny-pinching engineers remove as many of them as possible. You can't do much of anything without the remote control, and then you have to figure out the user interface for your particular model of television set.
WRONG (Score:2)
Rubbish. You're confusing "User Friendly" with various user interface issues. And while it is occasionally true that a user-friendly interface can slow down a process, the intention should be the opposite.
User Friendliness, properly executed, increases efficiency by leveraging the user's intuition in order to get a task done. For example: I could certainly copy a file from one folder to another using the command line, but intuition tells me that dragging the visual representation of that file from one (visual representation of a) folder to another will have the same effect. Since I can move a mouse faster than I can type, I think I'll go with the more user-friendly option and get the job done quicker.
Using my own tools I can fix my car. But if I take it to the mechanic, and pay him to fix it, it will take much longer. I have to wait for him to get around to it. He is getting paid by the hour, so he is in little to no rush to get it done.
Not only is this apples-to-oranges, it's just plain wrong. My mechanic can rebuild my transmission in far less time than I'll be able to. But since your point is so glaringly off-topic, I'll leave it alone.
Key combos are often faster, and much more efficient than a mouse
Yes they are, which is why most interface designers will tell you that key-combos can make for a user-friendlier system.