Slashdot Mirror
Version Fatigue
An anonymous reader writes "An article in TechCentralStation introduces a useful new term: "version fatigue," which describes what happens when you get tired of learning new ways to do the same old thing with each release of software. This is something that tech designers seem insensitive to, but that drives users crazy. Maybe it's because tech designers are more anxious to be creative than to produce things that users like?"
Maybe it's because tech designers are more anxious to be creative than to produce things that users like?"
No, every user wants something else in the new release, and whatever subset of wishes you choose to implement, the other users are going to be disappointed.
Be wary of any facts that confirm your opinion.
I sometimes wonder what goes through the mind of the developers when they change a perfectly good working peice of software, and make it one that is harder to use.
Xaotik Designs
In fact, there's a name for this phenomenon: "churning". It's a well-known term in some parts of the commercial worls. Ask any real-estate agent or stockbroker if they know the term.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
*** Rant On ***
As a programmer I can speak to the software end of this conundrum involving "version fatigue." In the companies I've worked for, the programmers are the lifeblood of the enterprise, but often treated as little more than throwaways (albeit usually relatively well-paid). And, software projects/products rarely have a clear definition - so their development is a moving target. So programmers cannot define what they should build - because they lack any control (other than to drive from the backseat) - and no one else can definitively tell them.
What does this have to do with versions you say? Well, for software that actually gets out the door (the minority of projects to be honest), it's almost never *right*; in addition, it has a bevy of unnecessary features, which made it in due to an unclear vision of what the result should be. Therefore another version is needed to "get it right", of course the unclear vision remains so some improvement is made, maybe features are cut (a rarity), and some new unnecessary features are added, and others changed (but not for the better and sometimes for the worse).
A good book on this topic is Alan Cooper's "The Inmates are Running the Asylum" Amazon. It focuses on User Interface Design, which at the end of the day really means developing the disciplines and indentifying the user(s) to actually define what should be done before it's done!
*** Rant Off ***
Ever project I've been on that ignored the users ended up crashing and burning and eating up a lot of cash and time. In many cases a programmer doesn't know what a user needs because they have different experiences. I've seen year-plus-long projects go under because users simply refused to use a new system that was forced on them.
Of course its NOT easy to figure out what users want, and it requires some savvy to figure it out and get sign-off. That's part of the programming lifestyle.
I can sympathize with version fatigue, though. I'm tired of companies (read M$) deciding how I think.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
That's the best peice of software design advice I've ever received. It came up during a discussion of windows 95, back when that was new, when we noticed that you can still click on the upper left corner of a windows app and get the window menu, or double-click there and close a window, just like you've been able to since windows 3. Really - try it!
Unfortunately, that's about the only prominent example of MS following that advice. After years of working on windows NT 4, for instance, I finally convinced myself to leap to win2k because the amount of supported hardware was just so much better. And I had NO idea how to administrate my machine! Just trying to partition my drives was a huge hassle; I used to be able to open up the disk management node in the control panel and now... well, I found it; it's in "administrative tools -> computer management."
Which is fine, but it was somewhere else for so LONG. Would it REALLY have hurt to leave a link to that program from its old place? And the sad thing is, MS isn't really the worst offender. I'm thoroughly confused every time I get a new version of KDE; in some ways, I'd be just peachy on using KDE 1 just because I remember how to configure it so well (and I would, except that the mail client sucks prior to version 2.2).
In all, I think there needs to be a good deal more attention paid to interface design before the FIRST release. Because, for better or worse, the first interface you give someone is the one they're going to expect from your product. If it sucks, you're just going to be pressured to maintain a sucky interface, or frustrate your customers when you discard what they're familiar with.