3 ms·

> While we should always take care of novice users first, we shouldn’t ignore proficient users. I believe that the relation should be reversed: Make the best s

by teddyh 3y ago

> While we should always take care of novice users first, we shouldn’t ignore proficient users. I believe that the relation should be reversed: Make the best system possible, usable by well-trained users, and only then add easy modes, tutorials, child safe modes, etc. with paths for improvement at every level. But when using modern systems, I often feel like I’m reduced to using Fisher-Price toys with one (inoperative) button.

gochi 3y ago
You've made the experience more tedious to create now. If we adhere to the article's advice, you work from the novice upwards. You create more and more freedom as you go up, you also have an easier time catching problems between levels this way. In your proposal, we're expected to start from the top magically creating the best experience, and then jumping back down to novice users, and then scaling up back towards expert level to cover the gaps. It sounds quite jarring, and in practice it winds up leading to lackluster tutorials made by experts who overestimate everyone else's levels (see: "How to draw an owl: draw a circle, now draw the rest of the owl").
- teddyh 3y ago
  Creating a good system for advanced users is not magic. In practice, what tends to happen (when things go well, that is) is that people follow the same course as Douglas Engelbart’s development of the NLS system, which he called “bootstrapping”, and which we today might call “agile” or possibly “devops”. I.e. the initial users are using the system from day 1, and developers are constantly giving users more options and features to aid the users, and since the developers are either in close cooperation with the users, or the groups simply overlap, the finished system (that is, when it starts to change more slowly) is one in which the system is quite complex, but all users are also advanced users who can use it at high speed to tremendous advantage. This is the point at which you should go back and add intermediate levels, tutorials, easy modes, child proofing, etc.

by teddyh 3y ago

gochi 3y ago

You've made the experience more tedious to create now. If we adhere to the article's advice, you work from the novice upwards. You create more and more freedom as you go up, you also have an easier time catching problems between levels this way. In your proposal, we're expected to start from the top magically creating the best experience, and then jumping back down to novice users, and then scaling up back towards expert level to cover the gaps. It sounds quite jarring, and in practice it winds up leading to lackluster tutorials made by experts who overestimate everyone else's levels (see: "How to draw an owl: draw a circle, now draw the rest of the owl").

teddyh 3y ago
Creating a good system for advanced users is not magic. In practice, what tends to happen (when things go well, that is) is that people follow the same course as Douglas Engelbart’s development of the NLS system, which he called “bootstrapping”, and which we today might call “agile” or possibly “devops”. I.e. the initial users are using the system from day 1, and developers are constantly giving users more options and features to aid the users, and since the developers are either in close cooperation with the users, or the groups simply overlap, the finished system (that is, when it starts to change more slowly) is one in which the system is quite complex, but all users are also advanced users who can use it at high speed to tremendous advantage. This is the point at which you should go back and add intermediate levels, tutorials, easy modes, child proofing, etc.