Just another Reuters post on programmers...

[bascule]

Re: Just another Reuters post on programmers...

To illustrate his point, he notes that computer programmers tend to prefer manual transmissions. But not even 15 percent of the cars sold in the United States last year had that feature.

And Europe has... 90% of people with manual transmission?

Maybe the problem is Americans are stupid

[r3coiL]

Re: Just another Reuters post on programmers...

This article is crap. Yes things need to be angled towards users and "consumers", but the technology world doesnt evolve around grandma cathy who cant use a mouse. If you have trouble reading the box that asks you if you want to save your work, then you don't have any business breathing.

Write software that a middle aged man, that can check his e-mail and has a blackberry, can use. Because that makes up the majority of consumers ANYWAYS

[arashi_kage]

Re: Just another Reuters post on programmers...

How do you define "smart" and how far back do you want to go? Some of the programs were not remotely intuitive, but they usually came with some complicated key overlay, so you could remember which key did what...
Although I agree there has been a "dumbing down," I also think we have somewhat higher standards now for both computers and their users.

You are absolutely right, Commodor 64 wasn't hard to use. A computer today isn't hard to use. But when you had that Commodor 64 you learned how to do a hell of a lot on it didn't you? Like most people here, we took the time to learn the machine and the software. Regardless of where we got the software I see a lot of people today who know how to email, play solitaire and hearts and not much else. I guess what I was trying to get at is more like what Nikita is saying.

...It amazes me that people with 6 figure salaries and sometimes a PHD, can't read instructions, can't seem to read period, and sometimes can't figure out basic tasks like check this box or sign your name here...

The average user doesn't take the time to read anything about there system or software. That's why I get service calls to go and double click an icon then click "ok" because someone, who has had a computer for years, still doesn't know how to install software, no matter how many times you explain it. It goes back to the idea that "common sense" isn't very common anymore. Maybe it is just my personal nature but I try to reason why something didn't print as opposed to pressing print 12 times hoping that it will eventually work. I agree with you mfreeck, about a higher standard but I think that comes from a higher professional demand. Not from average users. I just want to see people try to help themselves first. Instead we have a workforce of co-dependants. People who call for help at the slightest sign of trouble.
The article talks about how bad the "do you want to save" window is. Doesn't he realize that probably came about because a lot of people were forgetting to save before they closed their document.
I apologize if this just turned into some bizarre rant. In my head this all makes sense right now.

[bascule]

Re: Just another Reuters post on programmers...

Yes, who wants confirmation dialogs. Real life doesn't have those.

I mean, it'd be so annoying if real life had you confirm if you really wanted to run your fingers under a radial arm saw. You'd never get any sawing done!

Confirming destructive operations rather than performing them immediately is STUPID and negatively impacts usability.

YOU.ARE.NOT.A.NORMAL.PERSON. You are a mutant never intended for mass production. Too weird to live and too rare to die.

[Rance]

Re: Just another Reuters post on programmers...

I have a question. Where does stupidity end and lazyness begin?

[Nikita]

Re: Just another Reuters post on programmers...

I have a question. Where does stupidity end and lazyness begin?

here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Hilton

[Voltage Spike]

Re: Just another Reuters post on programmers...

You are absolutely right, Commodor 64 wasn't hard to use.

By today's standards of usability, it certainly was.

Your reasoning seems to be that, say, plastic surgery is "not hard" because you merely need to spend a significant portion of your life learning a skill that, at the time, would not have been seen as a significant benefit. I can't agree with that.

The average user doesn't take the time to read anything about there system or software.

This behavior is partly because they don't want to learn skills not directly related to the task at hand but primarily due to fear. Most people aren't aware that computers have advanced in ease-of-use and stability in the last decade and are worried that they will turn their expensive tool into a paperweight. The portrayal of computers in popular culture certainly doesn't help this image. Then there's the fact that it's almost cool to be computer illiterate within certain crowds.

Children that grow up with a computer in the home, on the other hand, don't seem to have this fear. They started using computers when they were too ignorant to be afraid, and they proceed to learn enough skills to advance beyond the conception of a computer as a mysterious box.

The article talks about how bad the "do you want to save" window is. Doesn't he realize that probably came about because a lot of people were forgetting to save before they closed their document.

I think you missed his point. Most people rarely, if ever, click the "Don't Save" button. Undoing a mistake by closing the application is not a good usability feature.

Did you confirm your post to this forum when you hit "Submit Reply"? Do you consider that a usability shortcoming of the forum software?

I apologize if this just turned into some bizarre rant. In my head this all makes sense right now.

Eh, it allowed me to enter the discussion, and I seriously would like to hear your thoughts on my opinions.

[0x58]

Re: Just another Reuters post on programmers...

There is a difference between 'dumbed down' and good design- As much as I love GIMP and what it represents, the button layout in PS is far superior-

So where do you draw the line in dumbing down vs. good design? I have my own thoughts on this, am curious what the DC crowd thinks...

LosT

I totally agree with this, however PS is still not a program that a novice user could pick up and run with. The buttons might be more logically laid out, the concepts and the power it has will never be used by novice users. I personally like The GIMP for certain items, however PS is used in the work place, and by end users since it provides what they need, and hides the rest.

Applications need to have two sides. I personally use Mac OS X, an OS that both can be suited towards the power user (UNIX Shell underneath, Apple Scripting of most programs, and much much more), and yet, can also be picked up easily by someone who is not as computer savvy, just because the design and interface is intuitive.

There is a fine line between satisfying both groups, just satisfying one group, by dumbing it down like the article suggests, is definitely not the way to go.

[arashi_kage]

Re: Just another Reuters post on programmers...

By today's standards of usability, it certainly was.
Your reasoning seems to be that, say, plastic surgery is "not hard" because you merely need to spend a significant portion of your life learning a skill that, at the time, would not have been seen as a significant benefit. I can't agree with that.

I see that what I wrote makes it sound like that. I truely believe there should be a higher baseline for computer knowledge. More basic, common facts about OS's and software that people should know. Things like, if you have an attachment that ends in .AVI=?*, you have to remove the extra characters. Or that Word doesn't open .wks or .wps files. I do understand, due to OS's like Microsoft that "makes things easier" for users they hide such things as file extensions by default. So now most people have no clue about file extensions. When most of us here got a computer we learned that .exe were the executable file that ran a program, that .txt was a text file, etc, etc. How many typical users today know this. I will admit that my scope of customers are limit to those in academia. So a lot of the people I deal with are limited outside their field of study.

This behavior is partly because they don't want to learn skills not directly related to the task at hand but primarily due to fear...

I understand and agree with this. But I see the same issues reoccuring with the same people. Usually simple things that I feel most people should know. I do what I can to lessen their fear. But after 3 years of having the same computer or after using a computer for 15 years shouldn't these fears dissipate?

I think you missed his point. Most people rarely, if ever, click the "Don't Save" button. Undoing a mistake by closing the application is not a good usability feature.
Did you confirm your post to this forum when you hit "Submit Reply"? Do you consider that a usability shortcoming of the forum software?

I was trying to argue his statement about programmers writing for the user. I'm not saying that the confirmation boxes aren't a pain in the ass. I too get annoyed with them. I'm saying that the programmers did write for the users and that's why the box is there. Having the option to turn off that feature would be nice. But the needs of the many outway the wants of the few. So, the normal user, average American workforce that uses Word on a daily basis, likes/needs this box because they don't have the common sense to save then close, the confirmation box won't be going away. And no I didn't confirm the post. but i sure as hell previewed it before putting it up. Which is a very friendly usability.

Eh, it allowed me to enter the discussion, and I seriously would like to hear your thoughts on my opinions.

At least my nonsensical ravings have started a very enjoyable discussion.

[Voltage Spike]

Re: Just another Reuters post on programmers...

Things like, if you have an attachment that ends in .AVI=?*, you have to remove the extra characters. Or that Word doesn't open .wks or .wps files. I do understand, due to OS's like Microsoft that "makes things easier" for users they hide such things as file extensions by default. So now most people have no clue about file extensions.

There are better ways, though, like magic numbers and meta-data. I always liked how the old Mac OS had a file type (so all applications that could open the file were available as a list), the last application to open that file (so I that I don't always have to pull up the list), and the application that created the file (which was sometimes helpful for compatibility problems).

But that's neither here nor there....

I understand that some level of knowledge will always be required to interact with computers. That's just life, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't move forward. I much prefer that I can double-click (or use the "open" command in Mac OS X) a document and have the appropriate application launch. Do users really need to know the gory details? Do you know where the extension->application mapping in your OS is located (and I don't mean the interface to program it? If so, how does it make you a more productive user?

I understand and agree with this. But I see the same issues reoccuring with the same people. Usually simple things that I feel most people should know. I do what I can to lessen their fear. But after 3 years of having the same computer or after using a computer for 15 years shouldn't these fears dissipate?

Ideally, yes. In the real world, though, it is often difficult to change people's perceptions (especially when computer systems are fragile in some areas but not others). I find that helping by asking questions works well: "what do you think you should do?", "why would it ask you that?", "does that feel good?" ... I rarely touch a user's system when helping them with usability issues.

I'm saying that the programmers did write for the users and that's why the box is there. Having the option to turn off that feature would be nice. But the needs of the many outway the wants of the few. So, the normal user, average American workforce that uses Word on a daily basis, likes/needs this box because they don't have the common sense to save then close, the confirmation box won't be going away.

You are still missing the point (which isn't surprising because you are fixed in the mindset that the system works in a specific way). Closing the application is a sign that the user is done and the document should just save; no confirmation box and no lost changes.

In fact, I'd take it a step further and suggest that the application resume next time with the same document open at the same location so that the user can quickly resume where they left off. The Opera web browser does exactly this, and it is an awesome feature (and one, by the way, that can be disabled easily). The Palm OS also does this when you "close" an application (primarily due to its limited threading capabilities and resources).

Computers require learning new skills, but that doesn't mean that we, as developers, shouldn't decrease the learning curve as far as is feasible. The earlier example of a user not reading the simple information (i.e., a date) in a dialog box is an issue that cannot be fixed through better design, but neither have we reached the apex of computer interfaces. It would be great if every user could know everything about every device they use but there is simply too much information. Abstracting information is a good thing because it allows more people to get more done in less time.

Looking back, I see that there are two entirely different conversations in this thread, and they are easy to confuse. One is that computers should be easier to use. The other is that users should be more willing to learn. Both are valid points. What the engineers get wrong, and the idea behind the article, is that the users should be blamed for difficult-to-use interfaces. That isn't to say all interfaces can be simplified, but many should and it would go a long way towards increasing acceptance.

[arashi_kage]

Re: Just another Reuters post on programmers...

I much prefer that I can double-click (or use the "open" command in Mac OS X) a document and have the appropriate application launch. Do users really need to know the gory details? Do you know where the extension->application mapping in your OS is located (and I don't mean the interface to program it? If so, how does it make you a more productive user?

I'm not trying to say I know that much or that, that much knowledge will make you more productive. But I know what extensions my software will/will not open. (for the most part. I can't tell you everyone for every program) I'm trying to say that a little more of this type of knowledge would help, like when something goes wrong.

You are still missing the point (which isn't surprising because you are fixed in the mindset that the system works in a specific way). Closing the application is a sign that the user is done and the document should just save; no confirmation box and no lost changes.

After a critical re-read of the article I find I apparently I missed the second half of the article in my first reading. I was also ignoring the idea of just autosave. I completely see your point. Now that I have been brought from darkness into the light I see where my arguments were ill based.

Computers require learning new skills, but that doesn't mean that we, as developers, shouldn't decrease the learning curve as far as is feasible...It would be great if every user could know everything about every device they use but there is simply too much information. Abstracting information is a good thing because it allows more people to get more done in less time.

I agree. I am not saying that they need to know everything. But knowing more would help. I understand how abstracting info is beneficial. That's why computers can be used by the masses now.

Looking back, I see that there are two entirely different conversations in this thread, and they are easy to confuse.

I'll take the blame for this. As I too look back, I realize I veered off with my first argument and jumped the gun on a different rant.