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?"
It seems that the UI of most Unix software (the shell, Emacs, even X) has changed much less over the last 20 years than DOS/Windows, and is still changing more slowly now. Is this an explanation for why Unix users typically learn more of the intricate features of their software? Or does the causation run the other way round - because all the obscure Emacs keybindings are so well known by its users (and developers), they can't be changed?
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Except for Open Source Software, versions don't get upgraded so often. But since hardly anyone (1%) are using OSS, it doesn't really make a difference now, does it?
hahaha. *sigh*
Meanwhile, I'm still looking for hardware to load Debian 2.2 onto.
I have been pwned because my
look at what MS has done over the past 5 years with database access libraries.
We have had ODBC, Jet (various versions), SqlLib, RDO (various versions), ADO (many many versions). ODBCDirect, and now ADO.NET.
All do the same thing...Open the database, Get The data, close the database, and move on.
It is ridiculous.
I'm still working on a clever footer.
This isn't a very useful new term - it's not even a new idea. Fact is that there is a central paradox in the world of commercial software - truly successful stuff doesn't sell. Or rather, it sells once, fixes all the user's problems, and you can't sell him anything else.
Without trying to be too cynical, this is a very obvious reason for the re-release of old apps with very minor changes to the previous version. How many NEW features of your latest word processor/IDE (delete as appropriate) do you really use? Chances are very few.
The re-release cycle is a real problem for consumer oriented companies. In a technical/business backend server market (like telecomms or banking) the problem is even worse - shift an app, which will run for ten years trouble free and provide full functionality, once and you may have destroyed your job! Who needs you once that ships?
Nah. Market forces dictate that broken or incomplete software will be much more dominant in the commercial marketplace.
Designers always are under the impression that "bleeding edge" is the most enticing way to go, and assume that is what the consumer desires. Usually, however this is not the case, people want a stable, easy to use interface.
It's time we let this little tidbit be known. Quit fixing things that aren't broken!
I am the evil aardvark!
...why good operating systems have strong user interface guidelines. Apple is a notable example, its what makes them so easy to use. every joe blow windows programmer thinks he can revolutionize the UI, which makes running windows so god damn frustrating.
I want 2D games back.
I know much of the time any changes in GUI design is driven by either complaints or changes in tools available. New GUI widgets are being developed at a phenominal rate. To the developer it's almost irresistable to not use somthing that seems to simplify a task.
On the other hand, between my wife and my mom I've had plenty of experience with the frustation users feel at radical changes. For instance the new option in MS Office Apps that default hides infrequently used Menu options and toolbar icons. It took me almost an hour to tell my mom over the phone how to get her right-justify button back.
There is hope though, if Adobe keeps patenting obvious GUI interface concepts we'll all be back to command line programs and the point will be moot.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
> This is something that tech designers seem insensitive to, but that drives users crazy.
...
This doesn't sound like the techies I know. I've worked in the computer biz for three decades, and as long as I can remember, there has been a standard excuse for not upgrading to the latest release: "I've learned to use the old one. It's working fine for me. I've got work to do, and I don't want to waste time learning to use the latest version. Maybe when I find I need some of the new features, I'll consider upgrading."
This has always been a fact of life in the "tech" sector, to the frustration of the Customer Support people who are always dealing with people who are 30 revs behind. You don't hear about it much because techies don't make a fuss over it. We just quietly listen to the hype for the latest versions, and we ignore it, unless we hear something that we think will be useful enough to justify the time lost in an upgrade.
There are some linux systems that have been running continuously for around a decade now, without any upgrades at all
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Except we're not talking about bug fixes in a daemon; we're talking about learning a new user interface and way of working with every release of the software.
The reason we're seeing the version fatigue is that user interfaces haven't developed enough standards that new features can be added in non-bewildering ways. It's just like the early days of the automobile - as new electrical components were grafted onto them, the interfaces to them were complex and varied by auto maker. But by now there are pretty much standard ways to operate the radio, the headlights, the turn signals, etc.
User interface version fatigue is a sign that software user interface design is an immature field.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
On the other hand, I still know of people who would still be on Windows 3.1 and word 5.0 if they were not forced to "upgrade" for one reason or another.
heck, even look at webpages. With the new privacy statement implemetations in IE 6.0 people coding in basic HTML will tend to be locked out because the browser will generate an ominous error message about a lack of a privacy policy. The Current implementations of P3P are a legal minefield, so much so that at least one person has advocated dis-avowing p3p altogether, just for your corporate safety.
Version fatigue comes in when the new bells and whistles do not obviously justify the changes needed in work habits, and do not expand the core functionality in a useful and meaningful way.
there are only so many ways to re-invent the wheel.
Microsoft, for example, has got itself on a treadmill, because it has to come out with a new version, regardless of worth, every several years. This has irritated me so much that I hope they trip on the treadmill, fall, and do serious damage to themselves.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
I see Apache 2.0 as an achievement in this regard. When I was researching the new 2.0 branch I was expecting a new mind-bending config that'll destroy most of the work I had done over the years in standardizing my Apache builds; not so.
I can't say the same for every other software package out there, including almost every new major release of RedHat.
Luck favors the prepared, darling.
Ignore the users and you'll have software without users.
Obviously, you can't just let the users submit a list of things they want and then build that software, however good software should always take its users into account. I mean, you are building the software for users. I am no professional UI designer, but I can tell you that a good UI designer will take a look at how a tool is currently being used and try to find ways to make that tool more effient. I hate to go down the analogy road, but what if the auto industry ignored their users? You might have cars that people couldn't fit into.
In the end, users are king b/c they either pay for your software or they help make it better (as in the OSS world).
I don't know who this AC is, but my friends and I are very much aware of the consequences of constantly changing the way you do things.
Our focus was on development, specifically why MS developers seem to have arrested development at about the level of 2 years of real experience. This isn't a slam against them - this was so widespread that we knew it had to be environmental.
We eventually figured out that the problem was Microsoft's constant reinvention of the wheel. We focused on the GUI, and compared the fact that we had been using the same libraries for a decade (Xlib for low-level routines, Motif for lists, menus, etc.), while in the same time MS Windows had released something like 4 separate, and incompatible, graphics libraries.
This mean that while we were able to build on our prior experience - and more importantly build on other organization's experiences as we brought in new employees with fresh ideas - the MS shops were constantly struggling to "stay in place" and there was essentially no institutional memory.
To be honest, I think much of the problems with MS Windows applications can be traced to this. After 10+ years of Unix experience, most people have been bitten by a fair number of "it could never happen" errors, and they instinctively take care to avoid a repeat. A MS Windows developer has probably seen as many errors, but how do you map the solution for a library three generations ago to the current one?
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
Rant mode: On.
This is pure intellectual laziness. What is wrong with being in a "learning mode?" We do it our entire lives! Why should someone want to actually stop learning?
I've noticed a very disturbing trend lately. It could just be my perceptions, but it still gives me cause for concern. Many people (both general consumers and professionals in business) don't want to bother learning anything. They want to tackle complex tasks that could never be done before, but insist on not having to learn the tools to do it. I see it here at work with people who insist on holding on desperately to suboptimal programming tools when others would tackle the job more effectively. I even see it in my own family: I once got a call from my mother, while she was on vacation, asking how to access the voicemail for her cell phone. She called me at work, in the middle of the day, simply because she had never bothered reading the instructions from her service provider! (I taught her the meaning of RTFM that day.)
I understand that many products can be difficult to use, especially software. It takes effort to learn these products, and effort to use them. However, very often we barely have the technology working. How can you expect it to be easy to use as well? Automobiles, television sets, and radios are all products that many now consider fairly easy to use. Now ask the question: How long did it take for them to get to be so simple? Some of these products have been continually developed and refined for over a century. Now consider how long VCRs, camcorders, and software products have been around. By comparison, these are all fresh out of the R&D lab!
People need to realize that complex tasks can't generally be simplified overnight. It takes time to find the solution to the problems at hand, and even more time to refine the solution such that it is both effective and efficient (i.e. it requires a minimum of effort to use.) All of the complaining does nothing but add to the noise.
Rant mode: Off.
Thanks for reading.-kjz
First, I think the article is spot-on. Gods, I'm tired of adapting to so-called upgrades. I rarely upgrade things unless there's a reason, but there are times you're left with no choice (say, a company-wide decision).
The other side of this thats ignored is the programmers. A lot of us are NOT trying to ram out Spectacleware, we'd like to talk to the users, like to go "slow and steady" and don't get the options. We don't often get the chance to make that decision, however, because someone wants something out the door pronto.
Version fatigue? I'd say its being suffered on both sides because the people making the decisions don't care about users or programmers.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
Maybe it is because we don't get paid unless people buy a new version, and people don't buy new versions unless there is some change. Bug fixes are often hard to notice (and really ought to be free anyway).
I'm usually frustrated that adobe doesnt add anything new/useful to their "upgrades" interface changes etc etc the only appealing thing from 6 to 7 for me was the healing brush.
I, for one, agree. The longer people keep the same system and the same software, the better they learn it.
I don't buy this stuff about how unix is hard and other stuff is easy... I remember LOTS of yuppie boomers who learned old wordperfect just fine.. and that's certainly not wysiwig. Obscure keypresses, hidden markup codes, they understood it all.. and some were really good at it.
The problem is when things change rapidly. Totally.
Emacs keybindings aren't changed because there is no reason to change them. Nobody wants to re-write all that lisp.
software developers, people who only ever use vi or Emacs should shut up when the discussion comes 'round to GUI design principles or software usability.
They have no [expletive deleted] idea what the problems are because THEIR software has been stable for decades.
Using "make" or a shell does NOT make a coder into a user. It does not provide the programmer with any perspective into "user-land."
That's why most Linux GUI stuff sucks, can't copy/paste across applications, doesn't follow guidelines and is so ideosyncratic you just want to strangle the coder.
Being a domain expert is fine if you're working in that domain. But coders are supposed to be experts working in their OWN domain: CODING.
I wouldn't want to look at or use code produced by a domain expert (it'll be correct but it'll probably be buggy, unstructured, unmaintainable perform like a resource pig.)
By the same token, I wouldn't trust code that has been produced by a software God but has not been verified for correctness by a domain expert (it may be sweet and run like blazes but I can't trust that it actually solves the problem its supposed to.)
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
...this "version fatigue". I hope it gets as widely adopted as "vaporware" did. Version fatigue is an excellent way to describe that part of so many new releases of older products that are nothing more than moving the chrome around on the sheet metal, and have nothing to do with the underlying chassis and powertrain.
Sometimes one pithy identification of a problem is enough to cause radical changes for the better. Version fatigue might be a very powerful addition to the lexicon.
was there any open-source equivalent to Access in, say, 1993? I think not. There isn't one today
Well, open source databases have been around a long time. PostgreSQL has its roots in the late 1980's, for example. Also, the reason there isn't an open source equivalent to Access, is that open source developers quickly realized that Access is pretty much a joke and went to work on real RDBMS systems like PostgreSQL.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Why can't a button be just a button, and why do skins seem to automatically mean bitmaps pasted over buttons?
-jhp
/. -- the Free Republic of technology.