3 ms·

The problem is most people do not try to put any effort into understanding what they are doing by the computer. When you ask your wife to fetch you from work a

The problem is most people do not try to put any effort into understanding what they are doing by the computer. When you ask your wife to fetch you from work at 5 you don't have to explain: * That she needs to take a car, * That there must be enough fuel in it, * That she has to plan some time for the drive and add extra if traffic is expected on the way, * That she needs to let you know if there are unforeseen circumstances which will likely mean she won't make it. And yet for some reason, whenever the topic of doing anything at the computer comes up between us, I feel like I have to start from scratch. "The printer does not work again. Can you help?" "Is the printer on?" "Can you check it, you are better at it" Checking the printer... of course somebody turned it off. I think there is a combination of laziness and probably something else which makes some people treat computers as not their problem. For the most part the companies making hardware and software cater to these people making stuff they care about as intuitive as possible. They are fantastic when it comes to activities that make ads pop in front of your eyes. The trouble is with everything else.

jdblair 4y ago
Your examples aren't equivalent. "Would your print out my boarding pass?" is equivalent to "would you pick me up from work?" Whereas "the car won't start" is equivalent to "the printer isn't working." Many people know how to diagnose and resolve simple car issues, like a dead battery, just as many people know how to fix a printer that isn't working.
- soraminazuki 4y ago
  The example the GP mentioned is checking if the printer is on. That should be no more harder than checking if the light is on in your room.
pessimizer 4y ago
Non-specialists passively build detailed mental models through experience and associations, and when there's no consistency between implementations, there's no way for that to happen. The reason specialists understand computer usage is because they understand how computers function at a low level, and are trained to expect certain necessary features whether or not there are any indications of those features in the interface. It's not because we're more thorough or have a better attention to detail. The physical existence of a car gives a lot of indications of the function of a car. People deal with computers through arbitrary idiosyncratic curated interfaces that for business purposes often plot against their users.
- brightlancer 4y ago
  > Non-specialists passively build detailed mental models through experience and associations, and when there's no consistency between implementations, there's no way for that to happen. That implies we're discussing situations where there is no consistency; IME, there is usually consistency but the individual is not _looking for consistency_, so they fail to see it. > The reason specialists understand computer usage is because they understand how computers function at a low level, In most situations, specialists look for consistency among unrelated tools, so an unknown tool or an unknown error prompts the individual to go to a known position to understand the unknown parts, e.g. clicking the "Help" menu or appending "--help" to a command, or looking for a log file or a configuration file, etc. > The physical existence of a car gives a lot of indications of the function of a car. Which function? Ignition? Acceleration? Gear shifting? Braking? Charging the battery? Refueling? Sure, folks know that a car is used to travel from place to place, but you're flattening a lot into that -- most folks have near zero idea on maintenance, repair or troubleshooting, even though their car likely has a manual in the glove box and the internet is always on their phone. > People deal with computers through arbitrary idiosyncratic curated interfaces that for business purposes often plot against their users. Most functions of a car are hidden and the UI is inconsistent not just across manufacturers but across models and years. Whatever we're discussing, there are folks with experience and specialized knowledge. There are also folks who lack that experience or specialized knowledge but do understand there is usually consistency across various systems and look for a known point to understand the unknown points. There are also folks, most folks IME, who won't look for consistency, won't read a manual, won't try to learn what they're missing, and instead will throw their hands up and say "it won't work".
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

jdblair 4y ago

Your examples aren't equivalent. "Would your print out my boarding pass?" is equivalent to "would you pick me up from work?" Whereas "the car won't start" is equivalent to "the printer isn't working." Many people know how to diagnose and resolve simple car issues, like a dead battery, just as many people know how to fix a printer that isn't working.

soraminazuki 4y ago
The example the GP mentioned is checking if the printer is on. That should be no more harder than checking if the light is on in your room.

pessimizer 4y ago

Non-specialists passively build detailed mental models through experience and associations, and when there's no consistency between implementations, there's no way for that to happen. The reason specialists understand computer usage is because they understand how computers function at a low level, and are trained to expect certain necessary features whether or not there are any indications of those features in the interface. It's not because we're more thorough or have a better attention to detail. The physical existence of a car gives a lot of indications of the function of a car. People deal with computers through arbitrary idiosyncratic curated interfaces that for business purposes often plot against their users.

brightlancer 4y ago
> Non-specialists passively build detailed mental models through experience and associations, and when there's no consistency between implementations, there's no way for that to happen. That implies we're discussing situations where there is no consistency; IME, there is usually consistency but the individual is not _looking for consistency_, so they fail to see it. > The reason specialists understand computer usage is because they understand how computers function at a low level, In most situations, specialists look for consistency among unrelated tools, so an unknown tool or an unknown error prompts the individual to go to a known position to understand the unknown parts, e.g. clicking the "Help" menu or appending "--help" to a command, or looking for a log file or a configuration file, etc. > The physical existence of a car gives a lot of indications of the function of a car. Which function? Ignition? Acceleration? Gear shifting? Braking? Charging the battery? Refueling? Sure, folks know that a car is used to travel from place to place, but you're flattening a lot into that -- most folks have near zero idea on maintenance, repair or troubleshooting, even though their car likely has a manual in the glove box and the internet is always on their phone. > People deal with computers through arbitrary idiosyncratic curated interfaces that for business purposes often plot against their users. Most functions of a car are hidden and the UI is inconsistent not just across manufacturers but across models and years. Whatever we're discussing, there are folks with experience and specialized knowledge. There are also folks who lack that experience or specialized knowledge but do understand there is usually consistency across various systems and look for a known point to understand the unknown points. There are also folks, most folks IME, who won't look for consistency, won't read a manual, won't try to learn what they're missing, and instead will throw their hands up and say "it won't work".
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]