4 ms·

That isn't an argument for removing options or a "simpler" UI (which is usually a euphemism for "inflexible", "fewer features/capabilities"). Yes, non-technical

by pdkl95 9y ago

That isn't an argument for removing options or a "simpler" UI (which is usually a euphemism for "inflexible", "fewer features/capabilities"). Yes, non-technical people are often reluctant to experiment due to fears about breaking something. The solution to this problem is to have very clear boundaries around anything that actually does cause irreversible changes (or other "important" actions) while designing the rest of the UI in a way that emphasizes - explicitly, if necessary - that everything is ephemeral. Having a very clear boundary between "safe for experimentation" and anything permanent/important is the most important part. People will learn to experiment if you explain that nothing will be saved until they press the visually distinct "Save Changes") button. When relevant, explain they can use the clearly marked "reload"/"reset" button to return to the original ("fixed") version, so they have a reason to feal safe experimenting. "Magic"/"DWIM" interfaces and functionally overloaded UI features undermine confidence that experimenting is "safe", because they are hard to predict.

vertex-four 9y ago
The problem is that for some significant amount of users, they don't have the mental model to differentiate between running stuff in an Administrator prompt and playing about with their Word settings - one of them being dangerous and one of them not. We'd have to go right back to OS design principles in the first place to teach people that computers are not terrifying behemoths that are about to fall over at any given second, and then maybe that would follow through into our apps - but as it stands, they come with the default expectation that anything they do might result in needing to call IT. Funnily enough, ChromeOS gets that more-or-less right. There's barely anything you can do to a ChromeOS machine that makes it unusable, and nearly everything is ephemeral. Then you have the always-revertible settings in Google's web apps, and people love it.
- jpindar 9y ago
  So hide the advanced options, like Firefox and its about:config. Even ask the user to solve some technical puzzle (hex math, perhaps) to prove they are worthy.

by pdkl95 9y ago

vertex-four 9y ago

The problem is that for some significant amount of users, they don't have the mental model to differentiate between running stuff in an Administrator prompt and playing about with their Word settings - one of them being dangerous and one of them not. We'd have to go right back to OS design principles in the first place to teach people that computers are not terrifying behemoths that are about to fall over at any given second, and then maybe that would follow through into our apps - but as it stands, they come with the default expectation that anything they do might result in needing to call IT. Funnily enough, ChromeOS gets that more-or-less right. There's barely anything you can do to a ChromeOS machine that makes it unusable, and nearly everything is ephemeral. Then you have the always-revertible settings in Google's web apps, and people love it.

jpindar 9y ago
So hide the advanced options, like Firefox and its about:config. Even ask the user to solve some technical puzzle (hex math, perhaps) to prove they are worthy.