2 ms·

I identify with you to a great degree: I have to work to imagine how mousing could be hard. Nevertheless: none of our bafflement changes in the slightest way t

I identify with you to a great degree: I have to work to imagine how mousing could be hard. Nevertheless: none of our bafflement changes in the slightest way the fact that there are people who are, indeed, so baffled. It delights them to use something that doesn't baffle them. And that delights me.

dkarl 16y ago
I don't disagree at all, and I'm mystified why everybody assumes that just because I show a little frustration on a message board with other techies, I must be bent on haranguing users into compliance. I feel a little vindicated by the fact that people have suggested several different explanations here, none of which seem to be universally accepted. Is the mouse unnatural? Are abstractly-minded (with respect to computers) people different from concretely-minded people? Is it a matter of being exposed at a young age? I think there are credible objects to each of these arguments. For instance, the first suggestion, that the mouse is simply unnatural, doesn't account for variation among users, and it's only a constructive criticism to the extent that it stimulates development of superior alternatives. The second suggestion is circular, because "abstract-mindedness" in this context doesn't seem to correlate with any other measure of abstract-mindedness. Are mathematicians or physicists naturally better at right-clicking than salesmen or physical therapists? That doesn't seem to be true, at least among folks who are middle-aged and older. The third suggestion implies that usability problems with well-designed WIMPy interfaces are a historical blip that will naturally disappear unless there's sustained radical innovation in interaction technologies and UI paradigms. I could believe that, but some people strongly believe otherwise. If a single one of these is responsible for the bulk of the difference between me and my mom, then conclusions can be drawn about the future of user interfaces. If the mouse is unnatural, problems will persist until someone invents a superior replacement. If abstractly-minded people are different from concretely-minded people, a way will have to be devised to cater to both. If it's a matter of early exposure, then there are usability generations washing slowly through dimensions of class, culture, age, and geography, and different usability guidelines apply to different generations. It's an interesting question to think about, especially since new form factors have created more room for innovation. Right now, less complexity seems to be the wave of the future. It will be interesting if a new form factor emerges to prove that people can comfortably handle more complexity than current technology allows them to.

dkarl 16y ago

I don't disagree at all, and I'm mystified why everybody assumes that just because I show a little frustration on a message board with other techies, I must be bent on haranguing users into compliance. I feel a little vindicated by the fact that people have suggested several different explanations here, none of which seem to be universally accepted. Is the mouse unnatural? Are abstractly-minded (with respect to computers) people different from concretely-minded people? Is it a matter of being exposed at a young age? I think there are credible objects to each of these arguments. For instance, the first suggestion, that the mouse is simply unnatural, doesn't account for variation among users, and it's only a constructive criticism to the extent that it stimulates development of superior alternatives. The second suggestion is circular, because "abstract-mindedness" in this context doesn't seem to correlate with any other measure of abstract-mindedness. Are mathematicians or physicists naturally better at right-clicking than salesmen or physical therapists? That doesn't seem to be true, at least among folks who are middle-aged and older. The third suggestion implies that usability problems with well-designed WIMPy interfaces are a historical blip that will naturally disappear unless there's sustained radical innovation in interaction technologies and UI paradigms. I could believe that, but some people strongly believe otherwise. If a single one of these is responsible for the bulk of the difference between me and my mom, then conclusions can be drawn about the future of user interfaces. If the mouse is unnatural, problems will persist until someone invents a superior replacement. If abstractly-minded people are different from concretely-minded people, a way will have to be devised to cater to both. If it's a matter of early exposure, then there are usability generations washing slowly through dimensions of class, culture, age, and geography, and different usability guidelines apply to different generations. It's an interesting question to think about, especially since new form factors have created more room for innovation. Right now, less complexity seems to be the wave of the future. It will be interesting if a new form factor emerges to prove that people can comfortably handle more complexity than current technology allows them to.