7 ms·

I think its interesting to see real-world customers and how they use software. Being in university, I get to see a whole range of people. You realize that peop

by nxc18 10y ago

I think its interesting to see real-world customers and how they use software. Being in university, I get to see a whole range of people. You realize that people don't really have a robust mental model of how their computer works or how the software they use is structured. Then we 'computer people' wonder why they struggle with our software. There are so many times I'll watch someone go through a laborious process to find a google doc, despite having seen a link to it on their screen at least 4 or 5 times. Or I'll see them go to the search bar, type in google, then start their search. Or go to the file menu rather than use shortcuts (every. single. time.). Or use tabs to manually center things rather than use the center button. Even relatively advanced users will completely miss the existence of styles in Docs & Office. And all of these are just the basics. We really do need to make software easier/more intuitive.

Klathmon 10y ago
I'm running out of people to do it with, but I love taking someone in the company who has never used, read about, or even seen a program and setting aside some time and just handing it to them and saying "do x". It's such a massive help in finding what can be confusing, what requires industry knowledge, what is easy for a developer vs a user, etc... It's so often that we as developers take some knowledge for granted, and helping the user either get that knowledge, or not need it is monumentally helpful. Sadly, I've found that once they do that, they are "tainted" and can't really do it again as well with that product, so it's something I try to do as late in the process as possible. But it has been what prompted me to throw out an entire redesign for a screen and start over very late in the process, and to good effect. I'm seriously afraid our usability will suffer when we run out of people to do this with.
- InitialLastName 10y ago
  Interns are a great solution to the "running out of new, untainted eyes" problem.
- lb1lf 10y ago
  -I do this from time to time to test one-off service/support docs prior to shipping them off to my customers. (I work in the marine industry; when a customer has a problem, he's often way out on the high seas, outside of even helicopter range - so, effectively, if whatever issue he's facing cannot be solved with what he's already got on board and some detailed instructions, he's SOL.) After breaking down the solution (hopefully, we're able to isolate the problem!), I bring all the required hardware, software, scripts and my first draft for the solution document to someone Not Into Automation & Control(tm) - say, the cafeteria or cleaning staff and ask them to work their way through it. It never ceases to amaze me how many things we just take for granted after working in a field for a few years. ("Oh, but surely it is self-evident that..." "F--k no, it isn't!") Result: Someone not at all involved in the day-to-day management of our products feel a much stronger attachment to the company and what we do to stay in existence; a customer gets a procedure which is so detailed, they can have anyone do it; I get to sleep well as I know the tasks sent offshore are as detailed and correct as I can possibly make them - and everybody is better off. At least I like to think so.
tomc1985 10y ago
How come 'we need to make this easier' is always the answer? Why can't society shoulder some of this burden. We should be teaching people to understand computers and difficult software; the 'make it easier' answer leaves everyone worse off because software is everywhere
- mark_edward 10y ago
  Why? We make products for end users, most of which are relatively trivial and not very dangerous. It's unlikely you'd ever see some kind of government mandated or built into edu education on usage like we get with cars. And that's just about the only common product I can think of where users are forced into being trained in its usage. Cars and, depending on the state, certain guns. If we make a product for untrained users that is hard for them to actually use isn't it on us?
  - tomc1985 10y ago
    No, we make products to do stuff. The problem with simplifying is that you take power out of the hands of those who know how to use it, by reducing the combinatoric explosion of paths through your program down to just a few easy-to-understand use-cases. In the end you get software that looks and feels like it was built for children, but is instead targeted at adults, and if that adult wants to do anything outside of the easy-to-use program's very narrow and opinionated understanding of the world, that adult is shit-out-of-luck. In a model of software consumption where users aspire to better themselves, yes the beginner is stymied but the possibility is still there for completing the task. That's not possible in our current model -- either the program works and you use it the way the designer intended, or you're fucked.
    - wutbrodo 10y ago
      I know it's an unpopular opinion, but I agree with your general point. The trend in the last ~10 years of simplifying UIs did a lot of good; as low an opinion as I have of Apple, they deserve a lof of credit for spearheading and popularizing this trend. But for whatever reason, people are unable to understand the concept of trade-offs and flipped from "all power, no usability" to systematically ignoring the value of "ability to do custom things with your computing devices". The mantra seems to have become: every design decision should be made in favor of the user being a perpetual neophyte, no matter what the costs to the value and capability of the system. Systems that allow for gently increasing competence create the most value for the user, but we're stuck in a shitty low-utility equilibrium where it's easier to market systems where you can do ~100% right off the bat. The rub is that this was achieved by lowering the value of 100%, not making it easier to achieve. There's an alternative which satisfies both constraints: simplify UIs for the most common use cases while still allowing access to arbitrary amounts of capability for those who want it. There's a reason that every personal computer in my family runs on some flavor of Ubuntu: the default GNOME setup is 50x easier to use than any Windows computer[1] for people like my dad, who's a non-savvy enough user that he still struggles with copy and paste. Yet, it still allows the motivated to Google around and do things like change a single file in a theme's assets folder to make your panel transparent, something I actually did back in college when I cared more about things like themes. [1] Note that I'm talking purely about the OS itself as an illustrative example of my point: having to be careful and buy a computer without hardware compatibility issues is a separate issue and is an actual pain in the ass that very reasonably prevents many people from following my example and switching their family to Linux. I just did it because installing Linux once every few years was a hell of a lot less work for me than debugging Windows over the phone once a week.
TeMPOraL 10y ago
> Or use tabs to manually center things rather than use the center button. (...) We really do need to make software easier/more intuitive. First thought: what if the software could guess that you're trying to use tabs to center text, and offer a hint to use the "center" button instead? Then I realized that Microsoft Office already went this way once, and we all know the result. It's a tough thing, making people use your software well, especially if the target audience is not to be expected to actually want to learn anything. Makes me wonder though, where does the difference between Word and e.g. Photoshop come from? Both are professional tools, but with the latter, you don't get people stuck at the most basic level and utterly clueless. They all know this is a tool and they need to learn to use it.
- khedoros1 10y ago
  Word processors are professional tools, but they're also student tools, amateur tools, etc. They (and MS Word in particular) come pre-loaded on computers, given out by schools, etc. You've got a larger population with a larger range of goals trying to use them. And when someone transitions from student to professional, they're likely to continue making do with however they were using Word before. Photoshop is a tool that you have to specifically seek out, whether that means buying it or "acquiring through other means". It's got a smaller population of professionals and hobbyists who are used to thinking of it as a tool. I think that's where the difference comes in.

by nxc18 10y ago

Klathmon 10y ago

I'm running out of people to do it with, but I love taking someone in the company who has never used, read about, or even seen a program and setting aside some time and just handing it to them and saying "do x". It's such a massive help in finding what can be confusing, what requires industry knowledge, what is easy for a developer vs a user, etc... It's so often that we as developers take some knowledge for granted, and helping the user either get that knowledge, or not need it is monumentally helpful. Sadly, I've found that once they do that, they are "tainted" and can't really do it again as well with that product, so it's something I try to do as late in the process as possible. But it has been what prompted me to throw out an entire redesign for a screen and start over very late in the process, and to good effect. I'm seriously afraid our usability will suffer when we run out of people to do this with.

InitialLastName 10y ago
Interns are a great solution to the "running out of new, untainted eyes" problem.
lb1lf 10y ago
-I do this from time to time to test one-off service/support docs prior to shipping them off to my customers. (I work in the marine industry; when a customer has a problem, he's often way out on the high seas, outside of even helicopter range - so, effectively, if whatever issue he's facing cannot be solved with what he's already got on board and some detailed instructions, he's SOL.) After breaking down the solution (hopefully, we're able to isolate the problem!), I bring all the required hardware, software, scripts and my first draft for the solution document to someone Not Into Automation & Control(tm) - say, the cafeteria or cleaning staff and ask them to work their way through it. It never ceases to amaze me how many things we just take for granted after working in a field for a few years. ("Oh, but surely it is self-evident that..." "F--k no, it isn't!") Result: Someone not at all involved in the day-to-day management of our products feel a much stronger attachment to the company and what we do to stay in existence; a customer gets a procedure which is so detailed, they can have anyone do it; I get to sleep well as I know the tasks sent offshore are as detailed and correct as I can possibly make them - and everybody is better off. At least I like to think so.

tomc1985 10y ago

How come 'we need to make this easier' is always the answer? Why can't society shoulder some of this burden. We should be teaching people to understand computers and difficult software; the 'make it easier' answer leaves everyone worse off because software is everywhere

mark_edward 10y ago
Why? We make products for end users, most of which are relatively trivial and not very dangerous. It's unlikely you'd ever see some kind of government mandated or built into edu education on usage like we get with cars. And that's just about the only common product I can think of where users are forced into being trained in its usage. Cars and, depending on the state, certain guns. If we make a product for untrained users that is hard for them to actually use isn't it on us?
- tomc1985 10y ago
  No, we make products to do stuff. The problem with simplifying is that you take power out of the hands of those who know how to use it, by reducing the combinatoric explosion of paths through your program down to just a few easy-to-understand use-cases. In the end you get software that looks and feels like it was built for children, but is instead targeted at adults, and if that adult wants to do anything outside of the easy-to-use program's very narrow and opinionated understanding of the world, that adult is shit-out-of-luck. In a model of software consumption where users aspire to better themselves, yes the beginner is stymied but the possibility is still there for completing the task. That's not possible in our current model -- either the program works and you use it the way the designer intended, or you're fucked.
  - wutbrodo 10y ago
    I know it's an unpopular opinion, but I agree with your general point. The trend in the last ~10 years of simplifying UIs did a lot of good; as low an opinion as I have of Apple, they deserve a lof of credit for spearheading and popularizing this trend. But for whatever reason, people are unable to understand the concept of trade-offs and flipped from "all power, no usability" to systematically ignoring the value of "ability to do custom things with your computing devices". The mantra seems to have become: every design decision should be made in favor of the user being a perpetual neophyte, no matter what the costs to the value and capability of the system. Systems that allow for gently increasing competence create the most value for the user, but we're stuck in a shitty low-utility equilibrium where it's easier to market systems where you can do ~100% right off the bat. The rub is that this was achieved by lowering the value of 100%, not making it easier to achieve. There's an alternative which satisfies both constraints: simplify UIs for the most common use cases while still allowing access to arbitrary amounts of capability for those who want it. There's a reason that every personal computer in my family runs on some flavor of Ubuntu: the default GNOME setup is 50x easier to use than any Windows computer[1] for people like my dad, who's a non-savvy enough user that he still struggles with copy and paste. Yet, it still allows the motivated to Google around and do things like change a single file in a theme's assets folder to make your panel transparent, something I actually did back in college when I cared more about things like themes. [1] Note that I'm talking purely about the OS itself as an illustrative example of my point: having to be careful and buy a computer without hardware compatibility issues is a separate issue and is an actual pain in the ass that very reasonably prevents many people from following my example and switching their family to Linux. I just did it because installing Linux once every few years was a hell of a lot less work for me than debugging Windows over the phone once a week.

TeMPOraL 10y ago

> Or use tabs to manually center things rather than use the center button. (...) We really do need to make software easier/more intuitive. First thought: what if the software could guess that you're trying to use tabs to center text, and offer a hint to use the "center" button instead? Then I realized that Microsoft Office already went this way once, and we all know the result. It's a tough thing, making people use your software well, especially if the target audience is not to be expected to actually want to learn anything. Makes me wonder though, where does the difference between Word and e.g. Photoshop come from? Both are professional tools, but with the latter, you don't get people stuck at the most basic level and utterly clueless. They all know this is a tool and they need to learn to use it.

khedoros1 10y ago
Word processors are professional tools, but they're also student tools, amateur tools, etc. They (and MS Word in particular) come pre-loaded on computers, given out by schools, etc. You've got a larger population with a larger range of goals trying to use them. And when someone transitions from student to professional, they're likely to continue making do with however they were using Word before. Photoshop is a tool that you have to specifically seek out, whether that means buying it or "acquiring through other means". It's got a smaller population of professionals and hobbyists who are used to thinking of it as a tool. I think that's where the difference comes in.