I find modern applications (especially mobile ones) much harder to discover and use. If you're a teen, you have plenty of time to experiment, but as an adult, I just want to get the work done.
Yeah, you could say that I don't want to learn.. but I just want to learn bare minimum to get the job done. The application itself doesn't have to be minimalistic.
Look at the original scroll bars, they do quadruple duty: they tell you how long the document is, where you are in the document, let you jump to the area of the document you want, and let you scroll slowly. Modern scrollbars are a tiny strip that you have to keep poking at to make them visible; how is anyone going to learn to use that unless they already know about them?
So many products have a short lifespan now, apps and websites, that it's not worth the time making them amazing. Anything good required someone to improve it over and over. I save links of cool projects I see on Hacker News and half of them stop working after a year. Almost none of them have their full original functionality after 5 years, and are full of broken links, crashing backends, and incompatibilities.
It would certainly lessen the incentive to switch apps if it was difficult to learn the one you know.
It's recognition over recollection.
It is well known that recognition is easier, and that's why consistency help so much.
But used everywhere, as if it was the only available tool, it makes discoverability less safe, hence it reduces it.
If street signs are well positioned I don't need to know the route, if there are no signs and I don't recognize the place, I'm doomed.
If an app does one thing, it's easy to remember how to do that one thing.
But if another app does the same thing in a different way, now I have to remember two things and recall from memory which one uses which way.
I used to think that UX inertia was a quality for old people not comfortable with computers. I thought that a younger generation which grew up using computers would be more comfortable and not show the same monkey-see-monkey-do habits. I was wrong. I watched a teenager consistently prefer to delete by right-clicking and selecting "Cut" instead of pressing the delete key, even though he knew it was the same thing and would occasionally use the keyboard. But because the "Cut" command was the first thing he learned that made an item disappear that's what he does. This application has different actions if you drag with left-click or right-click; he frequently confuses them. He didn't know that you can select multiple items by holding down the shift key. This is an honors student who has been using computers his whole life.
Other than students pursuing a computer career, this is the typical teenage computer user. It's not that the UI is too difficult or opaque. They simply don't care to learn more than a surface level understanding.
The objective isn't to create a world of gurus. It's to improve quality of life for everyone. I'd certainly appreciate a computer that allows me to geek out to my hearts content, but I am not the target audience. And the thing about a well designed simplified interface is it's simpler and more efficient for everyone, including the gurus. The catch is a lot of simplified interfaces aren't so well designed.
A lot of what he says resonates with me. Except the bit about computers needing to be difficult to encourage learning. That's the adversity-builds-character mindset that I disagree with. The computer I learned to hack on was a Macintosh IIsi. It wasn't bare metal like a 8-bit computer that booted into BASIC. Nor finicky with lots of arcane configurations like a Windows 3.1 machine (and I've used both of those as well). It had all the it just works plug-and-play that he laments in Windows 7 but as a curious kid with a hacker mentality it served me just fine. Enough that by the time I graduated from it I was modifying the System with hooks written in 680x0 assembly.
But the author really goes wrong, I believe, in his conclusion that the cause of digital literacy is served by forcing users to be gurus. This is entirely wrong and is the crux of the observation I made above. There is a myth in UX development that programmers are targeting a conceptual user that exists somewhere on a continuous slope between novice and power user. The article ends with suggesting that computers be taught by setting people onto this theoretical path. (And to be honest I think he's mistaken that this isn't what we've already been doing and shown to not be effective.) But what if that path doesn't exist? Then trying to teach anyone that way will be fruitless.
My thought is that there is no gradual progression. Most people are not going to be able to learn computers the way that you and I have. So they need different ways of using computers than what we are used to. And that will mean a lot of disruptive ideas, which we may be suspicious of and call it "dumbing down". But what we should be more skeptical of is our own assumptions.
So if average people want to learn computers differently than nerds do, what we certainly don't want is to cut off the paths of discovery that lead to the next generation of super users, hackers, and developers. Both ways need to be preserved and encouraged to allow average users to get the most benefit of technology, while encouraging the more in-depth learning by those who want to be more deeply involved.
Running on my desktop this very second; Postman. "Help" has no about. It has a "Check for Updates", but that doesn't tell me my current version. Only what new version is available. My response; a genuine feeling of frustration and anger.
The idiotic full screen save menu that forces you to click a few more times to save on the computer instead of a cloud service (I'm sure that's some sort of dark pattern...) is even worse, however.
Edit: here's a good rant about that latter one: https://what.thedailywtf.com/topic/11058/save-me-from-shit-u...
Everything coming out of MS the last 5 years has been thoroughly underwhelming, but the UI development and user infantilization takes the cake.
Just image everyone in your company saves any document they opened automatically. How would these even look like after 1-2 weeks?
The decision processes at Microsoft cannot be explained by cocaine alone anymore...
Sorry for the rant, let's just say I understand your frustration...
> Just image everyone in your company saves any document they opened automatically. How would these even look like after 1-2 weeks?
The essence of using autosave is separating storing from sharing the information. In an office suite, autosave should save your changes locally, so that a power outage won't wipe your edits.
This doesn't mean that other people will see those changes as soon as they're made; that's why you also create a "share" or "publish" command that will make them available. Developers got it and enjoy it in their version control systems, so why is it so difficult for them to understand that end users would benefit from the same safeguards? The first commandment of UI design is "treat all user input as sacred", yet so few developers respect it.
[1] http://quoteitup.com/quote/beUH/jef-raskin-the-system-should...
For example, we have a traveling expense document that is exported as pdf after people made their input. Since quite some time people can see what the last employee has been up to. Don't get me wrong, that can get quite funny. Possibly ad breach of confidential information, but meh...
We have no backend to publish to for these documents. It is just the boring file server.
There are certainly weaknesses in this particular workflow, but I would argue that it is quite common.
A shared folder in a server doesn't separate saving from sharing, but that's a fault of shared folders, not autosave. The popular storage models for end users are utterly broken, but developers don't care because they don't need to endure it, they've got their superior tools that they keep to themselves.
A file has a name and a path, analogous to conventional storage systems. Putting it in a proprietary system like SharePoint or a Teams channel, to stay in the MS world, has other disadvantages.
I am giving them the benefit of the doubt, but sometimes I think the main goal for these "improvements" is vendor lock in, especially if the topic is around blurring file locations or URLs.
Access rights and relevancy of files is indeed something most alternatives organize better, but content tagging doesn't really work in my experience, because users just don't do it. So the only information about a files content remains the filename and the path.
Since those are fundamental concepts for data organization in most computer systems, it is advantageous to convey these ideas to the user and from my experience this is not that much of a hurdle.
Sure, a network share has disadvantages and without a competent clean up crew it quickly gets convoluted. But that is a problem all other systems have as well. So to improve the current situation, solutions should build upon file systems.
And asking the user if he really wants to save the file is probably just a good idea. If he ignores the message and throws away some work, he has learned a valuable lesson. Users on every knowledge level go through that experience at some point anyway. I think users suffer far more from most proprietary solutions for data exchange that is distinct from copying some files from A to B.
I agree proprietary lock-in is a pain and a huge risk, but I'm talking about fundamental storage models here, not particular implementations (where the problem is lack of interoperability, not the storage model; a proprietary file system doesn't create lock-in, because there are open standards to get your data out of it).
The best content storage model for end users I've seen is the wiki, where you get content versioning for free, although it doesn't separate storage from publication. A wiki where you could keep local separate branches of content would be ideal, but a.f.a.i.k. the only wiki system using that model (shareable local copies) is the Smallest Federated Wiki[1], and it hasn't gained much tracktion.
[1] https://github.com/WardCunningham/Smallest-Federated-Wiki
> And asking the user if he really wants to save the file is probably just a good idea. If he ignores the message and throws away some work, he has learned a valuable lesson
See, that's the kind of comment explaining why users secretly (or openly!) hate computers and think they go after them. Too many developers creating their software are actively disrespecting user's work and their time, even decades after human-computer interaction specialists found the best practices for caring about the user and making their life easier.
We computer people invented the concept of saving as an abstraction over the fact that unless what is in RAM gets written to disk, it is at risk of being lost once the computer is turned off or the program closes. The end user should never, ever have to worry about what is in RAM or on disk. The end user should expect computer documents to behave the way physical documents behave. Physical documents, and the changes people make to them, persist even after you stop working with them. We should go one better than the real world and autosave not just the document, but a complete undo history for that document.
It's not infantilizing to make your program conform to the expectations of real-world logic. It's bewildering to the user when your program does not.
I should also mention that there isn't even a Help menu anymore, because nobody would have a need for help with anything in Microsoft Office, right? You can still get help if you know about F1 though.
Although maybe it's fixed now.
The first one has a JSON flat file to store settings and you have to dig the documentation or compare the original file to change something (this level of discoverability is akin to reading the source code but it's an electron map, not dwm). Later on they bolted some kind of semi-automatic UI on top of it but it doesn't help me figuring out shortcuts and whatever settings I want to change/find.
The Windows Terminal Preview config opens another flat JSON file in notepad. At least in VS I can used the editor to navigate the file :D.
I thought the preferences menu under the edit menu vs under the tools menu in linux/windows was ridiculous but those two examples are worse.
Configuration is not like building things. Unless I'm truly tinkering for fun, I usually have a goal in mind. Like, sure, I have to mess around with program code and structured data formats all the time. I'm pretty good at it. But when I want to [re]configure something about my IDE or terminal, I want to be in and out as fast as possible and basically not have to think about it; configuration is a brief diversion not an end in itself.
I'd be less entitled and ranty if these were CLI/unix internal tools we're talking about. The convention with that ecosystem is config files and manpages to learn how to use them. Given that convention and the resources of the OSS community it would be silly to insist on GUIs there (though some do exist!). But Windows Terminal and VS are graphical programs that are made by a GUI-first software company with basically unlimited resources. Come on.
Also, re: backup and restore, "export" or "store configuration at so-and-so path" are far better options--see iTerm2's config export/sync-via-dropbox-or-whatever option; coupled with that terminal's excellent preference UI, it makes config management a breeze, and that software was mostly developed by one person!
/rant
I love iTerm and use it daily, but I would never call their checkbox soup "excellent".
But more importantly, educating users is not the job of app developers, and any attempt to make it so will fail miserably. If you want to make an app that people will use, then you need to make one that suits your customers needs. The real ones, who already exist. You can’t make an app that tries to transform customers into something you that want them to be, and expect it to succeed.
Some users just don't want to learn. It's the reason why I always get a phone call when [Thing I've tried to sit down and teach to grandma] needs to be done.
You're on to something when talking about consistency and following design language. Building a good UI takes skill and thought into making the design intuitive enough that if it comes to it, anyone can figure it out.
I think you can have a UI that is both usable for both sides of the bell curve, it just takes skill and testing.
100% agree. It took my grandma about two weeks with a tablet to figure out by herself how to look up oil prices in the web browser. It was the first device she ever used that was more powerful than an old Nokia mobile phone and her first contact with the internet. We never taught her what a web browser was or how to use it.
Meanwhile my mother used a laptop and smartphone for years with everything that goes with it, and uses these devices mainly to complain about how they don't do exactly what she wants. It just has to work the first try or the computer is broken, there's no inbetween for her.
Grandma usually trades oil contracts by phone? Or Grandma heats with oil and needs a refill? Or Grandma has a salad dressing factory? Or...
I switched to lilypond for typesetting music, I guess it may not be the right option for those who actually compose (I mostly typeset classical pieces to add fingering and obtain a better quality than the cheaply layouted scores that are published today have, unfortunately guitar sheet music is way behind the standards that are set in classical piano music, and just retyping things in lilypond improves the quality by A LOT).
In some cases I have worked with the same people for years, guiding them (IT-wise), being friends with them, watching them do domain-specific things that require good mental abilities... but also watching them misuse or fail to use software despite my repeated efforts to train them.
If you want to reach the greatest audience and also reduce support time/cost, then we _should_ be catering to the most ignorant users. But as I say elsewhere, we should have two interfaces - one for normal/advanced users, and one for the really low performing users.
It’s easy to watch a lesson or demonstration and think you get it only to discover some time later that you didn’t really understand what was being shown. A much better approach is to walk people through performing the task themselves rather than passively watch it being done. They will be much more likely understand the task and to remember how to carry out the task – and retain that knowledge for a longer time.
In that context, I think your assessment that 'old GUIs' were more user-friendly is very rose-tinted. Back in the early 90s when those GUIs were everywhere, personal computers came with documentation, usually still on paper, because the devices weren't even user friendly enough that a typical purchaser could power on the computer and view documentation without help. And even then, these purchasers were a tiny subset of the population, typically with high educational achievement.
This was a time when public opinion hadn't even yet tilted in the direction of considering computer literacy to be a skill useful outside of an office building. Computer skills were definitely (and even to some degree still is) something people would list on a resume.
Consider the introduction of iOS. Windows Mobile had more features, more applications, was available on cheaper phones, and was entrenched in the business market at the time. It even followed traditional Windows design patterns, and applications often had a menu bar, as to your preference. They had plenty of documentation, and a link for 'Help' was always just a click away inside the Start Menu.
So, why was iOS so successful? It wasn't because power-users like you and I switched over. Many power-users mocked the device. It wasn't successful for including user documentation, it didn't and still doesn't. iOS was successful because it could be used by people who were unable or unwilling to read and follow documentation before using such a device.
Computer literacy is certainly a good academic initiative, but it won't help you make successful software for the mass market. The vast majority of casual computer users won't pursue educational endeavors to use your application. Most will opt for an alternative that doesn't require it, or they won't use it at all.
You should always consider the intended audience for your application. In our information bubble we sometimes lose an accurate perspective of the skills of the general public. This is of little consequence for many applications, but if your application is truly intended for the general public, like a government website, it's something that might need to be highly prioritized.
Educating users costs money as well. From business perspective, no one is going to spend that money.
Mistake #1: Windows != GUI
Apple has/had another design language. But Apple got it more right. Ironically Steve Jobs fulfilled Bill Gates mission (~a computer in household) with the iPhone.
Mistake #2: "If one knows the GUI language they can use almost any application for many solutions at a basic level."
No and no. It becomes clearer that this is exactly the hard part: figuring how to provide value to users without telling them they are too stupid to use our software and we need to educate them first. If you build the iPhone it really would be just another Windows device. ;)
> Which also means that when something goes wrong you have no control over fixing it -- you're simply fucked
You are not. In the end, all a user tries to do is changing a value in a database.
An iPhone or an iPad is just a device for consumption. It completely hides, if not locks you out of, the underlying workings of the device, meaning that you learn nothing and you create nothing.
Absurd. There are a huge number of tasks for which, if I'm only allowed one device to accomplish it, I'd definitely take an iPad over a laptop. Practically anything involving photography or recording video or audio, for instance. Many sorts of art. Music, depending on the task. If allowed an external keyboard it's better than a laptop for writing in some environments—the decoupled device & keyboard allow for more flexibility in arranging print outs, books, and any other stuff you need.
For some of it an iPhone, even, is better than a laptop or desktop. And it fits in my pocket. A laptop doesn't.
Slab-of-glass type computers are worse at some things than traditional desktops and laptops but wildly better than "normal" computer at a ton of others, especially given space or budget constraints. The statement that tablets and phones are consumption devices to a greater degree than other computers is very wrong and I can't believe it keeps popping up so often, after all this time.
[EDIT] I also object to dividing consumption and creation so neatly. Consumption is part of all sorts of creation tasks. Maybe most. When you look something up on SO has a switch flipped and now you're "consuming" rather than "creating"? If I'm reading a recipe on my tablet is that consumption? What if I'm cooking at the same time? Scanning back through a video on some home improvement project to check my work while I'm working? For that matter, add "basically anything that involves doing things in the real world" to the list of creative activities for which I'd take a phone or tablet to assist me, both as a relevant-media display device and as a tool itself, over a laptop. I use my iPhone a ton just about any time I do actual doing-real-world-stuff work.
When I was younger I thought it would be cool to DJ with a three-iPad setup-- two ipads acting like a turntable/CDJ and a third acting as a mixer. Nowadays, putting on my performer hat, I would hate that setup as I feel like I would be fighting with the touch interface. I'll take real buttons and knobs on dedicated hardware any day of the week.
I find the iPad great for drawing (with Pencil) and anywhere from pretty good to great for all kinds of other creative work, especially compared to a PC/laptop with either having only its out-of-the-box equipment (no big add-ons), which is to say it's excellent for hobbyists, small-timers or newbies to a whole bunch of creative fields. But of course I can also watch Netflix on it, and it's nearly useless for dev work except as a terminal device, so... that makes it consumption-focused while PCs are creation focused I guess? I mean I've been using PCs since the DOS days so I'm not some touchscreen native, but the assertion just doesn't make any sense to me, yet it keeps coming up in developer circles. I don't see them (primarily-touchscreen portables) in my life and the way I see them used by others as any more consumption-focused than PCs, really, they're just good at a bunch of stuff PCs aren't so great at, and bad at some stuff PCs are good at. I do not understand the source of that claim, a single bit, unless "consumption" is "anything that's not computer programming".
On a PC, just by being bored you can learn quite a bit about how the OS works; you can access devtools from a browser; you can learn tons and tons by trying to get some old/obscure game to work; you can google "how to make a game" which would probably lead you to a download page for python, which you could install and start writing some scripts; you could easily stumble upon Blender and some tutorials and start 3D modelling.
Or if you want Python https://apps.apple.com/gb/app/pythonista-3/id1085978097
GUIs of old had a specific design language. Like: File, Edit, Window, Help in the menubar -- always consistent, always in the same order, and always containing the same thing. Min/max/close buttons in the upper-right. And so on. If one knows the GUI language they can use almost any application for many solutions at a basic level. This knowledge is getting forgotten as "designers" take creative steps to eliminate seemingly all thought that goes along with software usage. Nowadays "user-friendly" software has 100 different ideas about how to accomplish a task and it almost always involves hiding scary things from stupid users. Which also means that when something goes wrong you have no control over fixing it -- you're simply fucked. Unlike the past when there was usually an option checkbox buried in a comprehensive Preferences window, and you could disable/modify the unwanted behavior.
Ironically seemingly every app has to insult me with oftentimes unskippable tutorials and announcements just to reveal features that should have been easy to discover, but aren't, because the design language and UI standards have been forgotten and/or ignored.
Extensability and control should be WAY more important than catering to the most ignorant users.