4 ms·
The easiest way to achieve that is simply to remove functionality until only the bare essentials are left. I'd argue this (the UI change, not identifying what c
by l0b0 9y ago
The easiest way to achieve that is simply to remove functionality until only the bare essentials are left. I'd argue this (the UI change, not identifying what can be removed) is always going to be simpler than making the existing UI understandable.
A solution which is often asked for by advanced users is a toggle between simple and advanced UI, but this has fundamental problems (The following is inspired by the VLC preferences UI). First, It will be triggered by accident by users who definitely don't want it (or by advanced users sharing the account). How do you ensure they can get back to the simple UI? By definition they are now in a mode which is harder to navigate for a normal user. Second, how do advanced users without extensive knowledge of the internals of the software (non-developers, essentially) locate the controls they were used to from the simple UI? The advanced UI will look fundamentally different from the simple one, because cramming all the advanced features in between the simple ones would just look weird and hacky. Things might even be named differently in the advanced UI because there are technical terms for them which will be more familiar to advanced users. And how do advanced users know if there is even a 1-to-1 mapping (a simple "Dolby Surround" boolean setting vs an advanced "Force Detection of Dolby Surround" boolean setting and "Stereo audio output mode" which can be set to "Dolby Surround")? Third, given finite resources one of the interfaces is going to have more effort applied to it than the other one. How do you ensure that they both stay usable when most users will only ever use one of them?
- kps 9y ago> The easiest way to achieve that is simply to remove functionality The easiest way, yes. I am reminded again of the point made by Dave Smith, one of the Xerox Star human factors designers, at the ‘Final Demo’¹: “Star had many fewer commands than today's systems, and it didn't do it by having fewer functions — it just had fewer commands.” PARC weren't trying to make things easy on themselves. Genericity is hard. Orthogonality is hard. Design is hard. (It's unfortunate that Steve Jobs either didn't understand what he saw, or didn't care, and popularized a Potemkin village imitation.) ¹ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OwG_rQ_Hqw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OwG_rQ_Hqw (The particular session starts around 54:30.)
- digi_owl 9y agoI'll go with "didn't understand".
- mark-r 9y agoYou forgot one drawback to the advanced mode: users are bad at self-selecting into the proper group. Some will select it and get totally lost, while others who would benefit will avoid it. Also it ends up being twice as much UI to support.