4 ms·

You're right to some extent, but there is definitely a tension between the two things. This is true with all tools. If a tool enables doing something very com

by decode 16y ago

You're right to some extent, but there is definitely a tension between the two things. This is true with all tools. If a tool enables doing something very complicated, it is almost always hard for beginners to use. Think of musical instruments. A kazoo is beginner-friendly, but you can only make fairly simple sounds with it. On the other hand, a piano keyboard is barely usable at all to a beginner, but is incredibly powerful in the hands of an expert.

Qz 16y ago
You can do very complex things with a hammer, but learning how to use a hammer is very simple. The key is that a hammer does exactly the same things as it has always done, and the nails don't get fussy if your hammer doesn't have the latest driver update.
- decode 16y ago
  I'm not sure you can do very complex things with a hammer. You can really only hit things and pry things. Those are very simple tasks. Of course, combining those simple tasks in complex ways will give you complex results. But then you've moved all of the complexity out of the tool and into your head, and beginners cannot do these things. To go back to my instrument analogy, you can play a 2-hour song with 10,000 notes on a kazoo. But, you're only playing one note at a time. On a piano, you can play many notes at once, playing some simultaneously and others with partial overlaps, changing the sustain and timbre of the notes as you go. The kazoo, while it creates a song that is a complicated whole, does not perform tasks as complicated as the piano. This is what I'm getting at with my statement about software interfaces.
  - Qz 16y ago
    I don't want to get too off track on analogies, but on a piano you only play one note at a time. A piano is just a set of kazoos that match octaves, set in a row, and you press a key instead of blowing into the kazoo. But the interface for the piano is dead simple -- every key can be pressed the same way, and there's levers at the bottom which I never really understood :). So yes, the complication of a piano comes from what you can do with the multiple simple interfaces, not from the complexity of the interface -- see where I'm going? On a computer however, there's complexity in whatever the task is, and that's inherent. You can't fight that. But you can fight the complexity in the interface itself. There's been plenty of articles on HN about interface inconsistencies. The windows 'system tray' is particularly notorious, where basically every single icon does entirely different things depending on whether you left click, right click, middle click, double click, etc. Imagine a piano, where the notes hit by the keys are in a random order on every piano. And it's not a windows only problem -- interfaces are consistently inconsistent on every platform.
- sprout 16y ago
  >learning how to use a hammer is very simple How so? What are you learning how to do with the hammer? Pry up nails? Hammer nails? What thickness of nail should you use to go through a given board? How should the way you hold the nail differ depending on size of nail, size of board, working area? A hammer is not at all simple; it takes just as long to get the hang of than your average desktop app, if not longer.
stcredzero 16y ago
If one looks at the interfaces that really are intuitive, one often finds that the bandwidth -- amount of data presented to the user -- is limited. Creating contexts that are limited to a particular specific task is very powerful and helps avoid confusion. If a task is complex, it takes a good amount of insight to be able to divide it into such specific contexts without unduly getting in the way of the user.
- Qz 16y ago
  I think the issue is that bandwidth of data presented to the user at a single time is limited in intuitive interfaces, but if you organize the interface (or allow it to self-organize) properly, you can present high bandwidth data over time in chunks of low bandwidth intuitive interfaces. Real life, despite being mind-numbingly complex in its entirety, can be easily interacted with because we break it down into a number of simple intuitive interfaces and then switch in and out of which interfaces we're focusing on very rapidly. If we can emulate the same thing with software, then learning to use computers will be no harder to do than learning to use anything else in life.
simplify 16y ago
I don't think your analogy holds. In fact, the piano has an incredibly intuitive interface. Push buttons farther to the right, and they get higher in pitch. Push buttons farther to the left, and they get lower in pitch. I would argue that the playing of music itself is unintuitive, which is why a beginner would not know what to do with a piano. I do agree that making the ui for complex tools easy to use is very difficult, but I wouldn't label complexity and ease of use a trade off. There are an infinite number of ways to display a user interface, and I believe there's always a way to make something easier to use.
simplify 16y ago
I don't think your analogy holds. In fact, the piano has an incredibly intuitive interface. Push buttons farther to the right, and they get higher in pitch. Push buttons farther to the left, and they get lower in pitch. I would argue that the playing of music itself is unintuitive, which is why a beginner would not know what to do with a piano. I do agree that making the ui for complex tools easy to use is very difficult, but I wouldn't label complexity and ease of use a trade off. There are an infinite number of ways to display a user interface, and I believe there's always a way to make something easier to use.
- decode 16y ago
  "the piano has an incredibly intuitive interface" I prefer not to use the word "intuitive" exactly because it has no definition and leads to such miscommunications. You're saying the layout of a piano keyboard is arranged by a system that is easy for beginners to understand. I'm saying it's not easy for beginners to use. These are two very different things and the piano is an interesting example of how one does not necessarily imply the other. "the playing of music itself is unintuitive" Most of the children I have met are able to use their voices and percussive instruments to play music. I don't think producing some form of live music is inherently difficult.

by decode 16y ago

Qz 16y ago

You can do very complex things with a hammer, but learning how to use a hammer is very simple. The key is that a hammer does exactly the same things as it has always done, and the nails don't get fussy if your hammer doesn't have the latest driver update.

decode 16y ago
I'm not sure you can do very complex things with a hammer. You can really only hit things and pry things. Those are very simple tasks. Of course, combining those simple tasks in complex ways will give you complex results. But then you've moved all of the complexity out of the tool and into your head, and beginners cannot do these things. To go back to my instrument analogy, you can play a 2-hour song with 10,000 notes on a kazoo. But, you're only playing one note at a time. On a piano, you can play many notes at once, playing some simultaneously and others with partial overlaps, changing the sustain and timbre of the notes as you go. The kazoo, while it creates a song that is a complicated whole, does not perform tasks as complicated as the piano. This is what I'm getting at with my statement about software interfaces.
- Qz 16y ago
  I don't want to get too off track on analogies, but on a piano you only play one note at a time. A piano is just a set of kazoos that match octaves, set in a row, and you press a key instead of blowing into the kazoo. But the interface for the piano is dead simple -- every key can be pressed the same way, and there's levers at the bottom which I never really understood :). So yes, the complication of a piano comes from what you can do with the multiple simple interfaces, not from the complexity of the interface -- see where I'm going? On a computer however, there's complexity in whatever the task is, and that's inherent. You can't fight that. But you can fight the complexity in the interface itself. There's been plenty of articles on HN about interface inconsistencies. The windows 'system tray' is particularly notorious, where basically every single icon does entirely different things depending on whether you left click, right click, middle click, double click, etc. Imagine a piano, where the notes hit by the keys are in a random order on every piano. And it's not a windows only problem -- interfaces are consistently inconsistent on every platform.
sprout 16y ago
>learning how to use a hammer is very simple How so? What are you learning how to do with the hammer? Pry up nails? Hammer nails? What thickness of nail should you use to go through a given board? How should the way you hold the nail differ depending on size of nail, size of board, working area? A hammer is not at all simple; it takes just as long to get the hang of than your average desktop app, if not longer.

stcredzero 16y ago

If one looks at the interfaces that really are intuitive, one often finds that the bandwidth -- amount of data presented to the user -- is limited. Creating contexts that are limited to a particular specific task is very powerful and helps avoid confusion. If a task is complex, it takes a good amount of insight to be able to divide it into such specific contexts without unduly getting in the way of the user.

Qz 16y ago
I think the issue is that bandwidth of data presented to the user at a single time is limited in intuitive interfaces, but if you organize the interface (or allow it to self-organize) properly, you can present high bandwidth data over time in chunks of low bandwidth intuitive interfaces. Real life, despite being mind-numbingly complex in its entirety, can be easily interacted with because we break it down into a number of simple intuitive interfaces and then switch in and out of which interfaces we're focusing on very rapidly. If we can emulate the same thing with software, then learning to use computers will be no harder to do than learning to use anything else in life.

simplify 16y ago

I don't think your analogy holds. In fact, the piano has an incredibly intuitive interface. Push buttons farther to the right, and they get higher in pitch. Push buttons farther to the left, and they get lower in pitch. I would argue that the playing of music itself is unintuitive, which is why a beginner would not know what to do with a piano. I do agree that making the ui for complex tools easy to use is very difficult, but I wouldn't label complexity and ease of use a trade off. There are an infinite number of ways to display a user interface, and I believe there's always a way to make something easier to use.

simplify 16y ago

decode 16y ago
"the piano has an incredibly intuitive interface" I prefer not to use the word "intuitive" exactly because it has no definition and leads to such miscommunications. You're saying the layout of a piano keyboard is arranged by a system that is easy for beginners to understand. I'm saying it's not easy for beginners to use. These are two very different things and the piano is an interesting example of how one does not necessarily imply the other. "the playing of music itself is unintuitive" Most of the children I have met are able to use their voices and percussive instruments to play music. I don't think producing some form of live music is inherently difficult.