18 ms·

> User research shows that for many users, the way they create a new file is to find an existing file of the same type, copy it, then open the copy and delete e

> User research shows that for many users, the way they create a new file is to find an existing file of the same type, copy it, then open the copy and delete everything in it. > For people with a document-centric view of the world, programs aren’t really things that you think about. What you really work on are documents. Okay, but I don't think people create new paper documents by photocopying an existing document and covering everything with correction fluid. The user interface of those physical document-authoring tools (typewriters, paper and pen, etc.) seem to make it quite clear how to start a new blank document. The fact that people can't discover any other way of creating a new document on their computer is obviously a legitimate problem, but I can't see how the New menu is a particularly good solution because it doesn't seem any more discoverable than the list of document-authoring programs in the Start menu. I'm of course in agreement that user research is vital and that not everyone is aware of what you might consider the "obvious" or "best" way to create a document on a computer. I would like to see more details about how and why the New menu came to be (apparently) the primary solution to this UI problem.

dylan604 5y ago
Wow, I would never have thought of doing that to get to a new state. I can't think of the number of times that I have opened an existing document to make alt versions of, but forget to Save As before making those changes so my alt is the version. Hopefully undo buffer allows me to go back to start, Save As, redo back to where I was. Too many times. I love/hate when I hear about the covoluted ways that users use a computer in the most illogical way that apparently makes perfect logical sense to them. It's like the Stupid Criminals bit on the Tonight Show. All you can think at first hearing is surely nobody is that dumb, but yet, here we are looking at someone being that dumb. One co-worker was often heard saying "I can't fix stupid"
falcolas 5y ago
Real world comparisons don’t help you here - creating a new digital document from an existing document is a very simple four step process. Duplicate, open, select all, delete. If it were that easy in the real world, perhaps we would. Especially for things like letterhead or forms. Who wants to go to a room filled with thousands of different forms, if they could just get a fresh and clean one with four simple gestures?
- tshaddox 5y ago
  It seemed to me that the author was claiming that people copy existing documents on computers only because it's the only (or easiest) way they know of to create a new document of a given type, not because it is actually the easiest way to create a new document of a given type. It seemed to me that the author was decrying the fact that so many people copy existing documents and delete all the contents, and was providing that as justification for why the New menu exists.
maxander 5y ago
> I can't see how the New menu is a particularly good solution because it doesn't seem any more discoverable than the list of document-authoring programs in the Start menu. I think you’ve missed the key point of this article, which is that a lot of people use computers without a clear idea what programs are. They know they can double-click a spreadsheet file and have a window open that lets them do things with that spreadsheet; but to them, I guess, that’s just “what a spreadsheet file is like” and there is no notion of this thing called Excel which is mediating their experience of the file. To a person like this, “discovering the program in the Start menu” is not something that can happen within the bounds of how their ontology of computers works. It’s a credit to the designers of Windows that they design to accommodate users like this, though it also goes a long way to explaining why Windows is so annoying to many professional computer users.
- boondaburrah 5y ago
  This is actually an interesting assessment for me, since smartphones are pretty much the exact opposite (can't even see the filesystem on some of them): There's only apps, and the apps have stuff in them. Sure there's ways of exchanging data between apps, but documents/files aren't really a thing. Conceptually, that means I feel like I'm using services/tools to interact with this abstract 'data.' By keeping 'data' abstract, it feels less solid who owns it, who's responsible for it, and where it is. Now I'm interested in the opposite system where the 'documents' are the core concept of the device, and programs are just "things your computer/smartphone can do with this document." Really make the data feel like it's /there/ you know?
  - frabcus 5y ago
    Yes, exactly this! Jef Raskin's Humane Interface is like that: "An end to stand-alone applications - every software package should be structured as a set of tools available to users on any document." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Humane_Interface https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Humane_Interface I'd love to see a popular device that was done that way round.
- tshaddox 5y ago
thinkingemote 5y ago
Actually in the past people really did re-use paper (and papyrus, vellum, slate etc) documents that way! They would scrape off or erase or whitewash what was on there previously and write on top. People wouldn't create a new file if they could just reuse an existing one.

dylan604 5y ago

Wow, I would never have thought of doing that to get to a new state. I can't think of the number of times that I have opened an existing document to make alt versions of, but forget to Save As before making those changes so my alt is the version. Hopefully undo buffer allows me to go back to start, Save As, redo back to where I was. Too many times. I love/hate when I hear about the covoluted ways that users use a computer in the most illogical way that apparently makes perfect logical sense to them. It's like the Stupid Criminals bit on the Tonight Show. All you can think at first hearing is surely nobody is that dumb, but yet, here we are looking at someone being that dumb. One co-worker was often heard saying "I can't fix stupid"

falcolas 5y ago

Real world comparisons don’t help you here - creating a new digital document from an existing document is a very simple four step process. Duplicate, open, select all, delete. If it were that easy in the real world, perhaps we would. Especially for things like letterhead or forms. Who wants to go to a room filled with thousands of different forms, if they could just get a fresh and clean one with four simple gestures?

tshaddox 5y ago
It seemed to me that the author was claiming that people copy existing documents on computers only because it's the only (or easiest) way they know of to create a new document of a given type, not because it is actually the easiest way to create a new document of a given type. It seemed to me that the author was decrying the fact that so many people copy existing documents and delete all the contents, and was providing that as justification for why the New menu exists.

maxander 5y ago

> I can't see how the New menu is a particularly good solution because it doesn't seem any more discoverable than the list of document-authoring programs in the Start menu. I think you’ve missed the key point of this article, which is that a lot of people use computers without a clear idea what programs are. They know they can double-click a spreadsheet file and have a window open that lets them do things with that spreadsheet; but to them, I guess, that’s just “what a spreadsheet file is like” and there is no notion of this thing called Excel which is mediating their experience of the file. To a person like this, “discovering the program in the Start menu” is not something that can happen within the bounds of how their ontology of computers works. It’s a credit to the designers of Windows that they design to accommodate users like this, though it also goes a long way to explaining why Windows is so annoying to many professional computer users.

boondaburrah 5y ago
This is actually an interesting assessment for me, since smartphones are pretty much the exact opposite (can't even see the filesystem on some of them): There's only apps, and the apps have stuff in them. Sure there's ways of exchanging data between apps, but documents/files aren't really a thing. Conceptually, that means I feel like I'm using services/tools to interact with this abstract 'data.' By keeping 'data' abstract, it feels less solid who owns it, who's responsible for it, and where it is. Now I'm interested in the opposite system where the 'documents' are the core concept of the device, and programs are just "things your computer/smartphone can do with this document." Really make the data feel like it's /there/ you know?
- frabcus 5y ago
  Yes, exactly this! Jef Raskin's Humane Interface is like that: "An end to stand-alone applications - every software package should be structured as a set of tools available to users on any document." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Humane_Interface https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Humane_Interface I'd love to see a popular device that was done that way round.
tshaddox 5y ago

thinkingemote 5y ago

Actually in the past people really did re-use paper (and papyrus, vellum, slate etc) documents that way! They would scrape off or erase or whitewash what was on there previously and write on top. People wouldn't create a new file if they could just reuse an existing one.