Slashdot Mirror
Why Users Hate IT Products and Developers
bfwebster writes "The Washington Post has a commentary by one of its regular columnists, Marc Fisher, on why computer users hate what he terms 'our techie masters.' One of his more pungent and, I suspect, on-the-money comments: 'Computer training has become the living hell of the American workplace...each new system is more confounding than the last, and each new product strips away many of the advantages of the previous system.' Not a Luddite screed; more an angry outburst asking why commercial software systems are often so wretched. Worth reading and pondering."
The software is usually designed for the wrong reason in the first place: to fulfill a marketability niche seen by some buzz-word driven demand. It's sold from a marketing and sales rep, whose usual job description could be summed up under "schmooz with customer", who pulls out his checklist of latest technologies to make sure he promises X, Y, Z and hyperbaric interoperability with toasters from obscure places like Kansas.
These requirements and obscure promises are handed to engineering who satisfy the technical aspect and ship it. Never have any of the QA departments I've seen have a dedicated usability expert; most of the QA engineers were just re-tasked programmers without any HCI design principle background or experience.
So, since corporate and enterprise level software development is driven by the sale by those out of touch with the true needs of those making use of the software the incredibly wide gap develops that frustrates the @#$( out of everybody.
Any spoon would be too big.
Why'd you move the send button, though? It was fine where it was.
haha, this is +5 Funny right?
What computer program do any of you use that you had to be trained to use? Microsoft Office? Umm, *most* people have no use for any of the apps other than Word.
I was able to sufficiently use Access and Excel in 30 mins or less.
Now, let's look back in the day. WP5.1, DOS 5.0, and Lotus 123. WYSIWYG+123 was not much better. Those applications required training and complicated Function Key cards above the KB.
Most people can fumble their way through the current Word version by searching the menus and using their doc "wizards".
People are just lazy.
If we are talking about mainframe frontends, they are even MORE insane. Most programers (while not the best UI designers) have made it much easier than using a VT100 term emu. for using the mainframe.
Stop the whining and learn to use the god damn things...
Not a Luddite screed; more an angry outburst asking why commercial software systems are often so wretched.
Heh, let's give 'em all Linux kernels to play with, and sendmail.cf files and procmail filters too while we're about it, and watch their eyes shine with joy as they appreciate the wonders of the non-commercial world...
Er, maybe not.
You're a perfect example of what this article is talking about. Arrogant, clueless IT people. Thanks for the example.
Yes, many computer products are hard to use, but in our corporate society, I don't understand why it is the developers who are getting the blame for that. Most software corporations strive to save money by doubling up on jobs and having people design the UI who are not skilled at it. Often it is the developers or marketing people, neither of who are trained in human interface skills.
Once senior management realize that they need skilled UI designers so that the end users don't get frustrated, then we will make progress. But as long as we live in a bottom-line society, we will continue to put out poortly designed software.
In software..
1) Corporations think it's a good idea to add more features to their software.
2) Corporations have no idea what people actually want to do with their software's new features.
3) Corporations fail to realize that what we often want are not new features, but actually smoother design, better ease of use, more speed, and more stability.
Thus, what we get is "bloatware" such as ICQ - where so many new "features" are added to the program that it becomes impossible to use and navigate even when you want to use the program for even the simplest functions. (When I got the latest version of ICQ it took me 5 minutes to figure out how to add a new contact by UIN#.) AIM is headed this way, too.
I can't stand Office XP because of all the stupid features you don't need.
Even Office 97 has a large plethora of thoroughly useless features.
Send To Routing Recipient, Send To Fax Recipient, Footnotes, Comments, Document Map, Field, Cross-Reference, Index & Tables, Insert Object, Insert Bookmark, Look Up Changes, Track Changes, Change Case, Style Gallery, Merge Documents, Letter Wizard, Formula
It gets worse as the version numbers get higher. Maybe what we want is more ease of use and less damn paperclip animations.
Note however, that Fisher doesn't propose returning to his trusty Underwood typewriter to write his columns.
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
Upgrading to XP would suck. I've used it, and it ain't purty.
But come to think of it, this is one area where Linux is *much* nicer from an end-user perspective. I've been using Linux since RedHat 5.0, running Afterstep. I 'perfected' my GUI years ago, and it hasn't changed since. No matter how many times I've upgraded. Granted, the other apps I've used have changed, but this one constant would be nice for many end users.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
I'll bet if the people who wrote MS Windows had to answer help desk calls, they wouldn't have changed the location of TCP/IP settings in every single operating system. I also like the quote "Techies, professors conclude, must act more like psychoanalysts; they must learn to "appreciate the difference between what people say and what they mean."" For example - "The CD-ROM won't read my CD" translates into "I keep putting the CD in upside-down" Or - "My Email program doesn't work" becomes "The voice in the computer says I don't need to dial an area code"
This frustration and hatred also applies to Free Software projects/products, probably even moreso.
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
It's incidents like this that make me think it really is time to listen to the usability experts. Sure, the extremists we hear about seem to have some crazy ideas, but there must be some out there that have a clue about how we can make interfaces more usable, right?
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
What bothers me most about this 'discussion' and others like it, is that it seems anxious to place blame on one 'side' or the other. it's not *US* vs *them*, really at all, and this kind of thing only makes the argument louder.
that said...the article seems to imply that it is on the 'techies' to adjust thier point of view, which is pure, pandering, horseshit. Why *shouldn't* perfectly (otherwise) competent adults be expected to learn a bit now and then, and adjust to new technology?
Anyway- if the new stuff sucks, blame the people who picked it out, and insisted on it, and bought it, rather then getting all catty with the poor schmuks who have to make it work and teach 'users' how it works.
pffffttt.
Skip "Breathe in, breathe out...the rest is easy"
It takes much longer to turn on your machine in the morning now than it did 20 years ago.
;)) and finally another floppy to load my document in. Faster, yeah right.
I don't know what kind of system this guy was using in 1983, but mine required one floppy to boot, one floppy to load the Word Processor (anyone remember WordStar, now that was a simple system
Techies, professors conclude, must act more like psychoanalysts; they must learn to "appreciate the difference between what people say and what they mean."
Actually, it sounds like techies are suppossed to be more like psychics than psychoanalysts.
In a study of 8,000 tech projects in businesses, only 16 percent of the new systems were deemed successes.
Maybe this because the techies gave the users what they wanted, instead of what they _said_ they wanted?
I don't know, you make the call.
The first answer is simple. Ease of use and power are inversely proportional. If you increase ease of use you decrease power. A CLI with toos like grep is powerful, but harder to use than F3 in windows. You can sometimes get more power without losing ease of use, but only to a certain extent.
The second answer is that people fear computers. The tech industry on purpose or by accident has created the illusion in people's minds that computers are difficult to master, extremely complicated, and hard to learn. This is not the case. I tell people every day to build their own computers, and they have this fear they will mess it up, or that its difficult. In fact it is no more difficult that putting together a set of legos. Square peg and square hole. If people stop fearing computers and begin to believe they are simple, then people will have an easier time learning them.
The third problem is trainers. The method of teaching computers sucks. People learn processes, click this, click that, then click this. They don't know the meaing behind what they are doing. To use the old car analogy, they've reduced the number of controls in a car to steering wheel, two pedals, and stick. The driver doesn't have to know how the car works, because they can memorize what all the controls do, since there are few. In a computer it is impossible to reduce the number of controls to so few. So in order to make use of it, you have to know at least a little about how it works. The biggest thing people need to learn is file systems. We all know about the metaphors of desktops, files and folders. But common folk just don't get it. Because of this "easy to use" programs like MS Office become difficult. Trainers should teach people the parts of a computer, how they work, how their operating system works, and all the basic things that apply to everything they do on a computer. Once they comprehend this much, picking up a new system is not so difficult. Instead the trainers just say "click on the OK button in this box". If they don't know the meaning of this, they don't know what to do when something weird happens.
Summary
A)power or ease, can't have both
B)don't fear the reaper
C)learn the basics then the specifics
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
In a large company, that is true. I've sat in change meetings, where what the company wants is discussed and the IT drones are charged in implementing it.
Now I'm MIS/CIO/CTO and chief bottle washer for a small/mid sized company (~200 users). No one here has a clue how to 'implement policy'. I tell them that the domain security policy should be set to disallow users from installing software, as they may bring software from home, which is illegal and the company may be libel. They hear "disallow ... users ... installing software ... illegal ... company libel ..." and hear $ker$chink$. Anything technical . . . it's just deer in the headlights. Implement that policy . . .no way.
I am the IT person, and it my job to see the need for a policy, decide on that policy, and implement that policy.
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
From what I have seen, not having the IT staff train all the employees is a good to avoid friction between IT and the other departments. Have IT train a few enthusiastic and knowledgable non-IT people, and then have those people go out and train the rest of the employees. The teachers will be able to sympathize more with regular employees, and the regular employees will look at the teachers with more respect than if they were IT.
Anyone can state the problem.
How about a solution?
That few percent that were deemed a success; what was different? What should the teeming masses attempt to emulate? Why?
I'm one of those software instructors who provides the training on the huge custom software package to the customer.
Typically when I arrive on site to show the customers the software we just spent a year creating for them, (**after the customer signs off on the requirements**) and I show them some super wham-o-dyne feature that is not included in the base package, I usuallyt get one of these responses...
1. (90% of the time) What a stupid feature. Why do we have that? Does anyone on earth use this feature?
Typical answer: No one else has it but you, your firm asked for it, and we spent about a jillion hours of developer time working it in and testing it even though the only person on Earth who thought it was a good idea was your project manager.
2. (10% of the time) What an excellent feature! I'll really use that. It will make my job easier. I'm glad we have this super wham-o-dyne feature.
I've seen it again and again. Most of the software ends up confusing users and being far too complicated because a few people insist on adding bizarre stuff to the base package.
I've seen the same thing in some open-source projects too, where the main developer can't resolve (or doesn't want to resolve) a dispute between two other coders, so they add in "options" so everyone can be happy. But it sometimes ands up making the final product a mess.
And as for spending enormous amounts of time in training on the new computer systems, I have to say that many times customers demand it.
If a customer lays down a lot of money for a custom software package, they simply expect an instructor to appear on site, in a tie, wielding donuts and coffee and lunches. We have CBTs that take about 2 hours and cost virtually nothing and cover the base package really well, but customers would rather have half thier staff sit around in a class room for two days instead. For non-technical personnel especially, they just demand that level of service if it's needed or not. So at least in my case, I can't take the blame for forcing the end users to sit through training! Guilt no more!
Never confuse feeling with thinking.
Still, there is a counterargument that the "we hate 'techies'" pundits tend to gloss right over. It can be encapsulated in the old saying, "if it were easy (or fun) they wouldn't call it 'work'".
When Indycar racing went from smooth shapes to lifting bodies, do you think that race car drivers just jumped in the new cars and set records? No, I imagine they spent a lot of hours at the track practicing, I mean working. When lumbering went from 2-man saws to chainsaws, and from chainsaws to diesel logging machines, do you think old Sven just picked up a chainsaw and got started? No, I imagine he had to do a bit of training and practice so he wouldn't cut his leg off. If Shakespeare showed up today, would he start off with a best-seller, or would he have to do a bit of research about modern society, language, etc? In other words, a bit of... work?
You see where I am headed. When a simple change is made to a computer system, the worker bees who use that system in their daily tasks expect that it will just automagically be understandable to them. None of that nasty "work" here - it's a computer!
Now since "techies" spend 40% of a typical day teaching themselves new systems (since Marketing bought it but forgot to budget for any training or support, IT has to figure out how to make it work. You don't understand the procedures for analyzing sales of women's underwear? Better learn that quick too so you can get the new system set up right!). We do the work. The worker bees just kvetch.
That's another line of thought, anyway.
sPh
The short answer seems to be "get a mac". Ease of use, standard ways of doing things, tendency to failsafe even if it wont let you eject the disk, and desscriptive error messages are the hallmarks of mac's human interface. even the computers cost more because in part they have higher standard for fabrication and higher level of standard features (fire wire, ethernet) so the software and users can count on commonality in operation and fewer options to choose from.
microsoft on the otherhand has won the market by doing exactly the opposite. Proliferation of features. Constantly changing features. This permits both the embrace-and-extend and the planned obsolescene (word 5 cant open word 6). It also muddies the waters so much thet people give up any buy the product with the most features rather than the product that integrates its features the best. And it lets them release code as they go, no need to plan ahead, just slam out the next feature.
This is not an isolated effect. its well documented in economics theory under the rubric "bad apples drive out the good". meaning when the buyer has insuffient information to make a comparison between good and bad before the purchase, then it becomes a race to the bottom, or a race for irrelevant aspects that a buyer can judge.
I am reminded of Dilbert Interviewing the elbonians for iso9000 compliance with a documented software development feature:
Dilbert: so what is your process for code development?
Elbonian1: We hold a village meeting and boast of our skill
and curse the devil spawned end user.
Elbonian2: sometime we juggle
Elbonian1: Then we slam out some code and fo roller skating
The amazing part is that as long as they always follow their process they are ISO 9000 level 2 compliant. They might even generate uniformly better code than someone without a process.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
'techie masters' hate users
Creating interfaces for business apps that resembled gaming apps would probably only make the problem worse. When a user sits in front of a game there is incentive to learn how the game and the interface works. To do well at the game you have to understand the workings of the game. To become better at the game you have to learn how to quickly and easily use the interface to perform the game functions.
With business applications there is little to no incentive to learn the application like this. The users use what they have and poorly at that. If they can't figure something out they don't pick up the manual they call support.
I think the best example of this is comparing gamers who know the shortcut keys for all of the commands in thier favorite games and business users who rarely know more than how to cut/paste with shortcut keys. For everything else they mouse through a menu which is less efficient because one hand has to leave the keyboard to go to the mouse.
I like to occasionaly walk through the office and see if anyone uses the shortcut keys. 90% of the time one hand is on the keyboard and the other hand is on the mouse and they are fiddling with various menus.
I'm an assistant in a basic computer science class (Word and Excel stuff), and 97% of the people in there have absolutely no common sense whatsoever.
This is what my time consists of:
Student: How do I format these cells to money format?
Me: Format up at the top, then to cells.
--5 minutes later--
Student: How do I change this number to have a comma?
Me: Go to hell.
Student: What?
Me: Oh.. format/cells.
I can't even imagine a program these people wouldn't have trouble with.
As much as i've personally spearheaded various upgrades throughout my time working with computers this article raises a very interesting point.
I can't remember how many times I have had users almost beg me not to do upgrades. It is not as if they didn't care about security concerns or the latest greatest version of the software, it's the trouble of having to re learn how to use the software. My most recent experience was with Quick-books Pro for Macintosh. The small business I worked for had spent approximately 3 years working with a copy of Quick-books Pro 4.0. All the inventory and accounting information had been tweaked to suit this particular business and for the most part everything worked as it should have. From my perspective this outdated copy of Quick-books was a constant thorn in my side. It had numerous bugs and the user interface was awful. Well, one week ago I got a call from the bookkeeper of the business. She was delighted to hear that Inuit had released a copy of Quick-books for OSX! This shocked and surprised me as I was under the understanding that Inuit wasn't going to release any more copies for the mac (not enough demand the phone rep told me). As I headed back into the shop to help do the upgrade I had visions of a improved user interface complete with networking support. To make a long story short they didn't change much. In fact they managed to remove some of the features (perhaps bugs) that my client had come to use quite frequently. The toolbar comes to mind. In the older version of Quick-book Pro the toolbar had about 15 or twenty buttons with icons. It could be moved all around the screen and even disabled if needed. The best part was the ability to add almost any report to it. The owner and bookkeeper of the company had become very used to opening the pending sales report from the toolbar. The new version changed that, you could no longer add reports to the toolbar. You where even limited to less spaces in the toolbar than the older version! After spending a few more minutes working with the newer version I discovered quite a few bugs that where still present. This was definitely not an improvement.
I think this outlines one of the basic problems that programers have in relation to their users. What is obvious to the programer or even the power user is not obvious to the end user. For programer the task up dialing up is as simple as finding the ppp program and telling it to dial. For the end user this logical progression of steps isn't so obvious. Why do they need to know what a dialer is? Why not have the system just work as expected. I find it hard to come up with concrete examples of this problem because most every system I work with is logically laid out. For the client that I work with it is not. He is a mechanic and what is logical for me isn't logical for him.
In my most humble of opinions apple has made great progress in this regard. They have tried to keep their interface consistent across many changes in the underlying operating system. Even when they made drastic changes to their system as in the case of OS-X the user interface was still quite the same. However small things did change. Once again from a computer users perspective moving the status icon for the dialer to the upper right hand corner isn't a big deal. But for my client it is just one more annoying thing he is going to have to relearn.
Computers are tools. I feel that the industry sometimes forgets that with every change we make in the name of progress. I for one love having a updated system and latest technology but for my mechanic friend a simple consistent system is the most valuable asset.
A very long time ago, I took a class called systems analysis. In this class they taught to design computer systems by using very radical technics like;
Asking people how they work
watching them work to make sure they did what they said they were doing or even working with them
Asking people what would make there work easier, faster
Letting them make changes to the user interface and participate in testing
It sounds like all of they radical ideas never took. If the workers don't like say using MS office, then get new people. If the business doesn't fit a Quickbooks template, change your bussiness rules. Why do Games work for their users and business programs don't is an easy one, Game programmers play games, bussiness programmers usualy don't run businesses they work for them.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
He doesn't know what he wants. He didn't cite one specific gripe or even a trend. All he said was "new software sucks", simply because he was used to the old stuff. May as well say "change sucks". Some reputable theories of the universe say that change is the only constant.
That aside, yes, there's a personality/approach gap between those making the software and those using it. Most frustrating are the multitudes whose approach is so crippled that to their questions I deliver the pithy universal advice "try it and see".
Start Running Better Polls
Company's are changing their license agreements constantly thats why
You may find that the app your company depends on has changed. This is all well and good, until the license for the old one runs out. After that, it is technically illegal to run the old one when the new one is accessible. I think generally company's allow you 2 versions 'grace' period to upgrade before licenses are withdrawn
What to do then? you're in the middle of a dilemma. Either you stay with what you have and risk the law, or you're in deep with upgrade mania that just causes you more problems than you bought. They have you over a barrel when you buy commercial software
OSS is the way. Well the proper licensed stuff is anyway. You can use what you have and leave it working well. I think this will be the greatest part of the threat to commercial software from OSS, that systems dont need changes
I was primarily talking about apps developed in house, since those are the most used apps in the corporate world, I'm willing to bet.
/. alone posts a "Version 0.2.3.1.2 of GNUXKApp is out today" several times daily. RedHat has, what, at least a new major release every year for the past few years? Maybhe more ofen than that? Sorry, bud, but that last paragraph doesn't hold water.
As far as commercial licenses, what happened to just buying the damn thing? That's what I did for my biz. I bought a license to use the software indefinitely, and that's it. I use it, it works, end of story.
OSS is the way. Well the proper licensed stuff is anyway. You can use what you have and leave it working well. I think this will be the greatest part of the threat to commercial software from OSS, that systems dont need changes
Oh, now that was just plain funny. It seems that
Users aren't the only ones that face this. It can be said of almost all software, including languages and OSs.
I'll grant that C was a true improvement over assembler, and that Java is the cream of the crop of the family that includes things like Visual Basic and Perl and C# (no, I'm not trolling the Java fans - none of those are appropriate for an ethernet card driver) but will we really be unable to live without Java++ or C++++ or whatever .NET is going to morph into next? Of course not, if only because that's all the latest wave of low-cost developer resources fresh out of college are being taught. They sure don't seem to know a lick of C or x86 assembler these days.
"Advances" such as C# are not technical advances, they're market-domination techniques. Keep that in mind when your favorite new language of today starts to phase out five years from now and is replaced by something that has the ultimate goal of producing essentially the same machine instructions that C did ten years ago.
The unwavering constant in my world of IT consultation work is the assured shittiness of the Customer's line-of-business application. Either it's an off-the-shelf app. that they're pushing beyond its functional limitations, or it's some home-grown bag of dung that coddles their entrenched antique business processes and reeks of inconsistent user interface, poor or completely lacking forethought in design, and lamentable "technologies" (everybody say "toolbars of icons with no tooltips and no menus", "two digit decimal date fields" and "shared file database"). In the end, it really doesn't matter how they've chosen their IT fate, it always ends in everybody bitching about how bad it all is!
The idea of defining requirements and selecting off-the-shelf packages based on those requirements seems to be completely foreign to non-technical users ("I have three (3) kids and a dog-- I think that two-seater little red convertible sportscar will make a good family car!"). Of course, software marketing would have you believe that their products will allow you to travel backwards in time and transmute gold from pocket lint, as long as you keep up on your "maintenance agreement".
On the "internally developed" side, the failings I see almost always involve an inability for a development group to shut the fuck up about their fucking "technology" and learn about the users' BUSINESS REQUIREMENTS! They users aren't going to get any benefit from your buzzword-fortified J2EE-compliant mobile wireless XML fibre-channel attached pneumatic Bluetooth ass-rampager if they never USE the damned thing because it doesn't satisfy any of their business requirements.
We don't have the fucking computers in the business because we just want to have computers! We are here to make fucking money, and the computers are tools to help us.
Doesn't really matter much to me, though... They'll all still need switches, routers, and infrastructure gear, whether they ever get it together or not... *smile*
The Attitude Adjuster, I hate me, you can too.
We live in a society that results from three generations of teaching that the entire class must move at the pace of the slowest person. I say to hell with the idiots. You need to know how to use the software to get your job done? Tough, learn how to use or make way for someone motivated to figure it out. McDonalds is always hiring.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
As somebody who knows how to program, I suffer even more from the stupidity of many commercial software products. Granted, I also know that time is often too short to implement every nice-to-have intuitive feature, but on the other hand I often encounter stupid solutions that would have been trivial to solve in a better way. That kind of stupidity tends to drive me absolutely mad (I don't like that trait of mine, but still).
I pity the normal users who tend to think that it's their fault if the computer is not intuitive. Let's face it, most commercial software products are bad...
The author got it almost exactly right. When you study the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) for techies you find that they are made up almost entirely of 4 types INTP, INTJ, ISTP, and ISTJ. nearly all the core software that runs the Internet was written by INTP and INTJ people. (In general INTs are more likely to like python or lisp while ISTs are more likely to like Perl.) NTs are concept oriented with STs are detail oriented.
INT*s make up about 2% of the population and IST*s make up about 10% of the population. The key is the IT in the type. "I" stands for Introverted and "T" stands for Thinking. The ITs make up only 12% of the population. The opposite types, the EF Extroverted Feeling folks, make up 36% of the population. The EF folks like to talk to people and make friends. The IT people like to learn things and make systems that work.
The result is that the people writing the code have a point of view that is shared by only a small minority of the population. While the largest subgroup of the population has a point of view that is exactly opposite of the techies.
Obviously the techies can not design for the "feelies". And, the "feelies" will not take the time to communicate with the techies. They write us off as "geeks" and "nerds" and belittle us every chance they get. While we tend to call them "air heads" and ignore them.
There really are two cultures. Until people on both sides of the divide understand that the divide exists and work to bridge it, we will keep seeing articles like this one.
Stonewolf
(Parent of parent...)
OSS is the way. Well the proper licensed stuff is anyway.
(Parent...)
Oh, now that was just plain funny. It seems that /. alone posts a "Version 0.2.3.1.2 of GNUXKApp is out today" several times daily. RedHat has, what, at least a new major release every year for the past few years?
(And now me... *smile*)
The point is that no one can stop you from using Free software in whatever manner you want to. If you love Linux 1.2.13 you can keep right on using it for as long as you want. You can contract out for firms to add drivers or fix bugs as much as you want. If you want to pay somebody to backport IPtables or Usermode Linux to 1.2.13, go for it!
Remember USB devices that used WDM drivers that say "Requires Windows 98". There's no reason why WDM drivers couldn't be made to work under Windows 95-- except that Microsoft didn't want to do that work when you could just pay them more and get Windows 98. That's just fine, too! It's their code, so that's their right. Want to add that support yourself? Too bad-- you don't have the code, and it probably violates a license anyway. Think "Group Policies" and Windows NT 4.0 (if you've never noticed, Group Policies are implemented mainly by a tweaked-up USERINIT.EXE), or perhaps FAT32 and Windows 95 OSR2. I'm picking on Microsoft a bit unfairly, 'cuz there are other manufacturers that are more flagrant about it-- but it's their code, so it's their right, and you're stuck "on the treadmill" because you chose to use their software.
Free software isn't anybody's code, though. You can add whatever you want-- or hire somebody else to do it for a fair and equitable rate.
"Upgrades" don't "have to" happen. These "forced upgrade" cycles are a symptom of the idiotic "commerical software industry" believing that they are somehow both manufacturing and service companies-- all at the same time! Use and contribute to Free software, and get yourself off the treadmill if you don't like it.
The Attitude Adjuster, I hate me, you can too.
The key here is that new features are user driven, not techie or marketing department driven. When you do business this way, the users get exactly what they want, and they're a whole lot happier. The problem with the systems mentioned in the article is that the users are never consulted. The software buying decision-makers allow themselves to be dazzled by the marketing drones and never stop to reflect that the system currently in place is well-matched to their actual requirements. Certainly they never ask their employees if they want something new. The marketing drones are interested primarily in sales --that's how they make their livings, after all. What they demand in new features is driven less by what their customers actually need thay by their own need to have something, anything, that they can take and convince those customers they really want. The techies who actually implement the requirements are now at three removes from the end users, and so it should come as a surprise to no one that they don't have much of a clue as to what those users might want.
In other words, the way business is mostly done in the IT industry is broken. While at first glance it might seem reasonable for the users' ire to land on the techies who do the work to create the new systems they despise, the techies are in a way the people least responsible for what's in them. About the best they can hope to do is to implement what they're told to implement as best they can.
I'm so glad I don't have to live with this kind of thing myself.
And the brethren went away edified.
Although I agree with the underlying sentiment that computers are still too difficult to use, here's a sample of what can happen if users drive the show.
I worked for a few years doing performance tests for a large telco. One of the applications that had been around for years was a total dog's breakfast. The backend was written in COBOL, and wrote to a "database" comprising zillions of ISAM files running on a Unix server.
This Unix server was ENORMOUSLY configured considering the relatively small amount of work it actually did; for some reason, it performed like an absolute dog even with loads of CPUs and memory. Unfortunately, that particular Unix vendor was no longer around, so none of the performance tools we were using supported this 10-year old orphan piece of hardware. We basically had to rely on top and sar to get performance data from this system; OK for measuring how performance is at any point in time, but not great for isolating problems and identifying problems such as long-running locks on ISAM files...
The user interface was a strange mix of an ancient proprietary GUI and Java applets - as a result, some screens were only accessible via a browser, while other screens needed this extremely fat client to be used. The proprietary GUI interface was very strange; in some cases, you'd click on "buttons" and they'd turn into drop down menus, or you'd click into a text field, but you'd then have to hit prior to typing anything in that field.
Using this interface to create repeatable business transactions for performance testing was simply hilarious - I eventually resorted to writing down details of every mouse click and keystroke I had to make, because otherwise I could never perform the same task in the same way twice.
For any given business transaction, there might be up to 10 totally different ways to enter in the information - different screens, different sequences of screens, and so on.
How had this app ever gotten to this state?
Apparently it had been fairly leading edge when it was first installed in the mid-80s. In those days, there was no standard Web browser interface, and ISAM files were regarded as faster and at least as robust as databases at that time. Furthermore, ISAM functionality came free with the OS, but you had to pay for databases licences... Then the users started asking for new features to be added to cope with the changing business requirements. Each request had bypassed the internal IT department as a matter of policy for this application (no idea why), so there was no sanity or quality checking done along the way - the vendor simply implemented every strange request from the user base exactly as documented.
Over time, the initial expert users of the application left, and were replaced by newcomers. These new users were faced with a system that wasn't particularly intuitive, and sometimes couldn't figure out how to do business process X. No problem - they just submitted a request for "new" functionality to be added. Meanwhile, the original developers of the application had also left, and been replaced by newbies as well. These newbies looked at the request for "new" functionality, couldn't figure out how to do it with the existing interface, so they built a totally new interface to do the same job and bolted it on to the application.
Now, the new user who requested the change might not have been that clear on the how that business process occurred in real life, so maybe they got the original request slightly wrong. No problem - they just submitted a change to the interface, describing how it should work. This time, the request went to a different developer (did I mention there was no centralised bug tracking for this app?), who might build a totally new interface and bolt that on - he didn't know the "new" interface existed, so he just built a "new new" interface.
If any of these changes required "database changes", no problem. The app just uses ISAM files, and any centralised diagram of how all these ISAM files hung together had presumably been lost. If the developers couldn't find the relevant group of ISAM files they needed, then they'd just create some more and get the users to populate them with data. Over time, there would be one group of users maintaining data in one set of ISAM files, and another different set of users
maintaining exactly the same data in a different set of ISAM files for the same instance of the application.
The Java interfaces came about because a manager at the customer site decreed that Java was the way of the future some time in the mid 90s, and made a blanket decision that all new user interface work would be done using Java applets. It was deemed too costly to rewrite the existing interface using Java, but over time the whole user interface would migrate to Java so there wouldn't be a problem... This situation stayed in place for a few years, but eventually this manager moved on and his replacement decreed that Java applets would no longer be used and a new interface would be chosen. An extensive review of user interface tools was conducted, before it was decided that the cheapest option was to go back to the original proprietary user interface - after all, the users already knew it so there was no training required... Once again, it was deemed too expensive to migrate the existing Java applet interface code to the proprietary interface, and again it was assumed that the Java interface would disappear over time as requirements changed and the replacement screens would be implemented in the proprietary GUI again.
When I finally got to look at this app, it had more downtime than all other host-based applications combined (and telcos use a LOT of different applications, so that's a pretty big statement). As I said earlier, the hardware requirements of this app were unbelievably high given the number of users it supported and what it actually did, so it ran on two extremely expensive Unix systems from a deceased vendor. A pilot had been done to investigate migrating off this hardware, but it had been killed off when it was found that the proprietary GUI wasn't supported on any current hardware - it too was deceased.
As far as I know, this app is still in use today. I regard it as a great study in what happens if you let the users run IT...
"I think a lot of this has to do with the elitist mind set of a lot IT workers. They see themselves as the masters, the ones who ought to be in charge because so much of the work is done through systems they built. But really, they should think of themselves as servants, trying to build the best system they can to support the end-users. After all, in a business setting, the end users are the ones who produce the true value of that business. IT people are just there to make it easier."
This is dribble. Pure, 100% unadulterated Dilbert. I am thoroughly fed up with this "master, servant" BS.
Why do IT folks worry so much about what their position is relative to non-IT folks? How do we come to the point where IT pin-heads dictate that people who work in the same organization are to be referred to as "customers"?
Lets set the record straight. People who work for your organization and do not happen to be in IT are co-workers and peers, not "customers". They don't pay you, they can't fire you, they can't send you back under warranty and you don't get to refuse to do business with them. When they fuck up systems you have as much right to complain about them as they you. I'll begin to behave as though non-IT folks are "customers" the day I get to install a cash register near the door to my office.
Is it true that some IT "professionals" are elitist? You bet. The fact that they are elitist isn't the problem. There are elitists in every walk of life, from the Vatican to the local Jiffy Lube. The problem is some IT manager hasn't done his job and fired the hell out of the "elite."
IT staff doesn't exist just "to make it easier". Computing long ago transcended the simple role of reducing labor costs. Computing is the single most important method of communication in the business world. Modern business is not possible without modern computing.
Screwed up people (IT and otherwise) using screwed up software for screwed up reasons, all under the auspicious of screwed up management. Some people think all this screwing up can be fixed if we just straighten out the relationship definitions; make sure IT knows that everyone else is the "customer." It cannot. Making systems work well requires talent, hard work and investment. This is required of all parties involved; IT and otherwise.
Here's a bit of common junk science from the article:
In a study of 8,000 tech projects in businesses, only 16 percent of the new systems were deemed successes
What, exactly, is a "tech project"? Define "new systems". What criteria is applied to conclude whether things may be "deem successes" and by whom? I could pick this apart in my sleep. Suffice it to say, that statement is ambiguous to the point of being worse than meaningless. It is laughable. Anyone naive enough to quote such a thing in their own material is equally laughable.
Whatever the case may be, I'll take it on faith that up to as much as 16% of "tech" projects can, in fact, be "deem successes". What I know for certain is that every one of those successes were created by hard work, talent and mutual respect among IT and non-IT contributors, not because some CTO publishes a memo about how the word "user" is offensive and will no longer be tolerated.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
Well he should try dealing with PHB's who have some vague idea of what they want but can't explain it. Then when the project is 90% complete turn around and say "Thats nothing like what I wanted" even though it matches the original specs to the letter.
I think mr Journalist had better have a talk to his IT procurement committee before he goes off half cocked. Usually these committees are staffed, not by end-users and techs, but by middle management types whos closest interaction with a computer is getting their arse kicked on any number of first person shooters.
While I sympathise with end users of shitty software (I too am forced to use Windows now and then), I take offence when they start blaming the techs themselves for the problems of an entire package. Its like blaming the carpenter because the building committee decided to only use styro-foam in the foundations of the building.
The main problem I see with typical end users is that they don't realize that the computer is a tool they are required to use to do their job. They are extremely reluctant to learn anything. The funny thing is, when they interview for jobs, they say "Oh, yes, I love computers, I have one at home, it's great." Then when they get on the job and don't want to make an effort, they call support and laugh, saying "heh, I'm computer-illiterate".
Would you go to a mechanic who held up a wrench and said "heh, I'm wrench-dumb, these crazy things." ????
Users need to understand that they CAN read the screen and actually THINK about what it says before panicking and calling support. They need to realize that they must know how to use the tools that are required for their jobs. Or, they need to find another job.
"Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
Steven Covey wrote a book a couple/few years ago titled "The Inmates are Running the Asylum". In it, he makes a compelling case the modern software development is divided into four areas:
1. Management, which sets requirements and determines resources.
2. Developers, who, uh, develop the code.
3. QA
4. Support.
His premise is that what is lacking is a fifth group whose purpose is to design the usuability features. In my software development group, we've got all four of the above mentioned groups and what we end up with is a powerful, feature rich, stable tool that is the devil to learn. The developers do their best to design UIs that are intuitive, but what's intuitive to us is often backwards to our end users.
Covey states that developers fear ceding control over their work. It is this fear that was the basis for the resistance of the initial creation of QA departments. Apprarently, back when dirt was new, developers tested their own code and resented QA encroaching on their turf. It took a bit, but now QA is more or less entrenched and developers rely quite heavily on QA (I know I do). Covey argues that the UI design work that is currently left to these same developers should similarly be farmed out to teams of UI designers. Granted, it just so happens that he happens to run one, but I still think his point is valid.
Developers have no place designing how a user inteacts with the back end processes. Asking us to do so, or, more likely, not asking anyone to do so results in software that is a PITA to learn.
if apple made an os X for pc, they could trash m$ in just a couple of years
I don't understand why people believe this to be the case. The main problem is not that the mass market wants x86 hardware. It's that Microsoft has used its infinite resources to completely obfiscate the advantages of non-Windows platforms. If the collective consciouness of computeruserdom undestood that you shouldn't have to put up with all of the problems that Microsoft throws at you, I think we'd see a substantial exodus to Mac OS X.
Moving Mac OS X to generic x86 hardward partially solves the problem of initial cost, but you're still feeding into the mindset that computers can be easy to use if they're based on such on architecture. There's absolutely no way a user can expect to consistently have a good experience when their particular computer is but one instance in a sea of configurations of varying quality.
In other words: the hardware/software integration is a core component of why Mac OS X is so good.
And regardless of the state of software/hardware compatibility, the biggest issue is and will continue to be that Microsoft has made things so confusing that it has scared people into thinking Microsoft is their only option.
- Scott
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas
While it's true that some techies are poor in the "user friendly" department, the majority of bad system design comes from the management.
I've worked on a number of systems where what would have been a nice design has been sabotaged by management decisions. Almost always by management that doesn't actually use the system in question.
Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
It's nice to hear this guy whine about not being able to use the new systems. Try being a developer and keeping up with the changing technology that keeps getting thrown at you every 12 months because of the marketing departments of MS and company. He seems to think that it's the technical staff vs. the users. Sorry buddy, but I am a developer and from my perspective it's the techie's vs management; but the users get the fallout (crap product). The clueless are not the users as far as I am concerned. Anybody ever work for a tech help line? Can you BLAME the customers for being pissed? These companies just want your money...period.
I can't even count the number of times that the dev team has tried to convince management that we, (the dev team) should be allowed to help with creating specs for systems (I preume they feel it would undermine their authority). Companies unleash the sales guys, who don't know their assholes from a hole in the ground, who promise stuff that WE can't deliver. And then the client wonders why it's not in the system or just plain crap.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. The ENTIRE High tech industry needs a reality check. Starting with management. It isn't possible to be a good manager of the high tech department without having some sort of background in the project your managing.
Fear not users, every techie I know wants to build you a good product(do you like the idea of your work being respected? So do we), but the MBA's from above know ALL.........;)
To put it simply, USERS ARE MORONS. Most user-ware (ie: officeware and consumerware, not higher-tech software like IDEs, graphics software, audio software, etc.) software these days falls into three categories:
Category 1: MAJOR overhaul from either old mainframe or DOS-based application from proprietary vendors who have long-since gone out of business, and that won't run on any computer less than 10 years old. This is VERY common, and often gets the most complaints (as it should) from disgruntled employees who are used to the old systems. These types of upgrades cause the most grief, unfortunately they're necessary because you can no longer obtain hardware that will allow you to print, run the programs, or basically be productive.
Category 2: Cross-grades. Changing from one vendor to another because the vendor has a.) gone out of business, b.) started charging astronomical fees for upgrades or support or c.) some major flaw has been discovered with the software that allows Bob from maintenance to log in as the CEO and give himself a 6 figure pay raise. This involves "transferral of concepts", ie: the brain power to realize "Hey, this is more or less the same damned software, just the buttons are in different places and the 'About' dialog says copyright 2001 Company A and not Copyright 2000 Company B.."
Category 3: Upgrades between versions. Ie: from Office 2000 to Office XP. Everything works pretty much the same, looks pretty much the same, it's just a bit less crashy and has some features that didn't exist in the old version. These are usually the most annoying upgrades of all because they cost the management a bloody fortune and reduce them to a growly mess that wants to see 3000% productivity increases. HOWEVER, it's no re-learning, despite what your secretary or co-worker says, it's just a transferral of skills and a TINY bit of new stuff to learn.
I'm not saying that a lot of stuff comes with unnecessary bulk and expense, I'm just saying that a LOT of the complaining is from someone who can't figure out that the "align center" button has moved three places over, and that the little printer icon in the area that it used to be in will NOT align center, and will--in fact--print out whatever is on screen, whether or not you want it to.
As for "the product your customer wants", NO product is for a single customer, but every product is expected to meet the requirements of every customer... Your deaf grandmother might not want to play MP3's, and Bob from maintenance might believe anything but the old fashioned vinyl is immoral, but a LARGE number of people would be very happy to see that functionality built into everything, including their hair dryers.
The big beef I have with software developers is often that functionality is REMOVED for no good reason.
-Sara
Having read the article, I feel insulted. I'm an "IT person" and the fact of the matter is that the end users are not some kind of "extroverted and intuitive" person that I just need to listen to more. If they were extroverted and intuitive then maybe their explanations of what they did to their computer would make sense.
I pride myself on being a good listener and handholding users through change that they are often ill-equipped to handle, but the author of the article implies that I need to become more proficient at understanding things like "when I clicked on it it wouldn't do anything, and then all my icons were gone, ever since you replaced my screen". I may be analytical but I'm not a mind reader.
It is true that computers started up faster twenty years ago, but I have never met a user that wasn't happy to get a new computer ("It's so much faster!"). I also meet many users wondering when we'll be upgrading to this that or the other thing because new software does more. There isn't some vast majority of users saying "bring back DOS, take away my mouse, why do I have to use IE5.5 rather than Netscape Navigator Gold?".
These brilliant journalists that are reduced to babbling because they don't understand software most likely also cannot program a VCR, set presets on their radio, or master even the most basic of computer concepts like single-click versus double-click versus right-click. The computer would have to be HAL-9000 to be able to figure out what they wanted it to do.
XeoMage
This has been tried before. However, the similarity only goes so far. Differences between playing games and using other software include:
1) Game players want to be entertained and challenged. Playful distractions are generally resented by application users, as they want to focus on completing their task.
2) Games generally have an amount of randomness, in order to challenge the player. Predictable behavior is preferred in non-game designs.
3) In games, players compete with the system or with other players; non-games should give the user a strong sense of being in charge.
Have you read the Moderation Guidelines Addendum?
This is outright hostility, not mere feature bloat.
You'd complain, too, if a bunch of outsiders shoved a bunch of unwelcomed, unrequested changes down your throat.
In business, IT is a supportM function. No one else cares about hacking your precious kernels.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
It's these forced choices that piss off the users.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Dont make the upgrade today. Say that its not worth it. We can survive for a bit, the incremental difference is not worth the cost. Talk to me in a year when you come out with another major version.
The choice is not this crap or that crap. You can also choose not to buy any crap at all!
This post is a terrific example of why users hate developers.
It has been proven people learn and think differently. People (at least end users -- that is to say, people with lives) use the computer to get work done. It's a tool, just like a hammer. A carpenter can't keep re-learning how to use a hammer over and over. A writer or assistant or office worker can't afford to keep re-learning how to use their tools (like computers).
someone who can't figure out that the "align center" button has moved three places over
Oh, please. You are going out of your way to insult people. While some may have that trouble, you might be working with someone who learns best by location and spatial relationships. Was there any reason to change that interface?
That's part of the problem -- as stated in the article. Developers are piss-poor at understanding that not everyone thinks like they do.
If we (as developers) are designing products for the end user, than it is our job, plain and simple, to produce a product that meets their needs. If you're unable to do that, or don't like trying to understand how other people think and learn and work, then go out and find another job that will let you hide in a cubicle and not force you to learn interpersonal skills.
It's funny -- most of the replies in this topic basically prove what the article said -- that IT people have poor people skills and can't understand that different people think and work in different ways. Most of the replies are people pissing and moaning that users are stupid.
I guess IT people -- those of us who are so smart -- just aren't smart enough to "get it." We can figure out things that work with ones and zeroes, but we just aren't smart enough to figure out complex systems like human thinking.
Oh, and I'm posting this anonymously becuase I've seen how nasty people here can get when someone dares to hold up a mirror to them and say, "See how stupid you're acting?" Instead of looking at themselves, they would rather shoot and maim the messenger than even try to deal with the fact that the message may be valid.
I've seen features removed (and more commonly, a useful feature not added) from commercial software, because it makes the applications simpler. Ask yourself these questions about a feature:
If the answer to both is yes, it's a no-brainer.
I remember when I first started to use a WIMP system (Acorn Archimedes). I had not the slightest clue what I was doing.
Since then, I have found that what I have learned is not just how to do things, but 50% of it is how to deal with unexpected/confusing circumstances.
I think sometimes thats the real reason I can use one - I'm not scared out of my wits about what is going on. I know it, its my environment, and I understand the (in)significance of various popups/error messages, actions, etc.
I suppose I really went on a steep learning curve because the software wasn't aimed at any specific user type; rather, it is aimed at everyone, specifically those with prior experience.
But there seems to be less Training given in the basics of operating a computer (filing, security, etc), than there are in using a computer to perform a small set of tasks (MS Office XP course, anyone?).
I have also noticed that once new user has worked out only what they want to do (not what they *can do), they will in general stick to that small range of skills but not branch out any further - wether that be through fear or laziness. A lot of the training for applications is quite mollycoddling in that way - the trainers know the users limitations - and they just want to show them how to use "mail merge" and get out of there, rather than increase the user's confidence in using a computer, overall.
*That*, ultimately, is why it is so hard for people to use new Software. Most of the time, it's not the software - it's that the users are pissed off that they have to relearn everything, for the same tasks they could do before. (as I said, its a heck of a lot easier with prior experience of a variety of other apps)
Of course manufacturers could remedy this by having every tool look and operate the same way (albeit near impossibly), but in the long run it would make more sense to teach people how to explore and deal with their overall environment. Its only natural that this ability and confidence spreads into the other areas.
<B>note to self:</B> <I>post as html</I>
...after watching this cycle repeat itself over 25+ years, it comes down to this:
When users choose and buy their own software, things work. When IT departments assume control of the computers and the software acquisitions, things go downhill.
In the mid-70's, I worked in a Computer-Aided Design department that had been built on department-purchased minicomputers (PDP-8's and -11's) and was moving onto the corporate 3x0 mainframes for performance. The transition was a disaster, and we were saved by the availability of mid-size systems (Prime's and VAX's) the department could acquire and control itself.
In the early 80's, the availability of workstations (Apollo's and their ilk) created new opportunities in the computer-aided engineering space, driven by the demands of the departments doing the real work.
A few years later, people started to buy PC's (and the software available for them) on their own dime (and later on their department's budget) because they ran software that enabled them to solve problems and get their work done. Once PC's had established themselves on corporate desktops through the back door, the IT departments moved in and took over.
More importantly, the vendors of the software once selected by individual users (Lotus, in my personal experience) started to realize that they had to sell their product to IT managers, not end users, and that started to drive the further evolution of the products (to their detriment, IMHO).
The PDA market exploded when they were purchased by individuals, and that marketplace has stagnated since they became an "enterprise product" selected by IT departments.
Apple still sells the Mac to end users, and Linux was driven by the needs and motivations of individuals. This is where the real action is today, and I hope and trust that there will always be a corner of the computing business where real people decide what they need for themselves.
Even if a high quality software is produced I don't think there is a good chance it will be adopted by the masses.
Take my favorite editing program, EditPlus. It was recommended by a friend and I found it to be perfect for what it is supposed to do: edit files. It beats the crap out of Notepad and Kate for KDE is just a broken reflection in comparison. But nobody has heard of the program and no one uses it.
If there is a Linux equivalent I haven't heard of it and I don't think there is any way I could. Currently there is no way that the highest quality software can be brought to the market. If users could go and easily try out and aquire different programs for their regular tasks then I'm sure the quality of software would appear to increase dramatically.
Unfortunately we are stuck with the defaults and the status quo (notepad.exe).
ICQ was an exception to this theory, great software when it came out, sadly useless now. Trillian is a case for the theory, better (I think) than ICQ, but not that many people seem to have heard of it or use it.
Mars
USERS ARE MORONS
while this is largely true, it's also true that "tech people" whose job it is to deal with the technology itself often forget that the point is the work to be done, NOT the tech process. So your accounting user may be a "tech moron," but that's ok, because their job is not technology, but accounting. By most accountant standards, *I* am a "financials moron," but they don't hold it against me, that's why we BOTH have jobs. Really, it's better this way.
a LOT of the complaining is from someone who can't figure out that the "align center" button has moved three places over
the problem is this: If a user, in the course of doing their REAL job, finally knows where the print button is, what happens when an "upgrade" moves it? well, that means looking at and clicking on every button that exists on the screen to find the new one. That's time not spent doing their actual job (accounting or press releases or whatever) and is time "wasted." Why, exactly, does the print button need to be moved?
Look at your average program interface: how many clickable items are on the screen? count em, and now search em ALL from the perspective of someone who's not used to reverse engineering UIs (consider that "smart users" are the ones who have a good reverse-engineering-a-new-UI skillset). Then ask yourself why the result of "right click on Network Neighborhood" changed from windows NT to windows 2000. Any good reason? Anyone?
I am no mechanic, and it would royally piss me off if the gas/brake pedals moved every time I brought the car into the shop. It also TOTALLY pisses me off if somebody moves my car seat from it's "perfect driving position." The car software analogy doesn't really fly far, but the emotional attachment people get to a certain way of working is very similar. It's just that car manufacturers respect that, and software UI engineers don't.
So don't flame on USER MORONS too much. The "smart programmers" should use their powers for Good, and maybe avoid the temptation to put 1700 clickable items onscreen at once, then shuffle them every release in order to be "New."
sPh
This is a constant dilemma for a developer, because no matter how much you dumb it down, along comes a dumber user. I manage a password-required web site, and I get users who call because they can't log in, and it usually boils down to they can't type their password correctly. The most hostile exclaim "Why is this system so hard?" or "Why is this happening?" and I restrain myself from replying "because you didn't type your credentials in correctly." NO, that's "blame the user" which they don't want to hear, yet I feel vindicated when I ask them to enter a new password twice and then they say "it says 'you didn't enter the same password twice'" - after hearing from them "of course I'm typing the same password that used to work!" Ok, enough venting and back to work...
The author writes:
/. I rest my case.
Give me back my old computer stuff. And this is what I mean: I'd really like to have the system before that.
The funny thing here is that the "hard-core techies" this guy is complaining about would say the same thing! Reference all the PDP-8 / Amiga / VMS / Commodore / Apple ][ nostalgia that we are regularly subjected to here on
I'm seeing a lot of comments about how Linux or OS X or whatever is easier to use than Windows. That's not relevant! No one really "uses an OS" in the sense of getting work done. In an office, most people are running one application all day, whether it be Freehand or a front-end to a database. Or they switch between a few applications, but they still don't spend the day futzing about in a desktop explorer thingy. So we're talking about how well applications are designed, not OS interfaces.
(As an aside, I think that 90% of the people promoting "Linux" are actually promoting a window manager or desktop environment, and it makes very little difference what's running beneath it.)
Exactly. Most of the people who are developing software, even in-house (maybe more in-house developers than mass-market product developers) don't bother to find out what the software they're making actually does. All developers should have to spend a week performing the job of the end-user their product is aimed at. But, of course, noone wants to see what a LUser needs. That's why they're doing answering the phone and the developers make the big bucks. Right?
"That's part of the problem -- as stated in the article. Developers are piss-poor at understanding that not everyone thinks like they do.
If we (as developers) are designing products for the end user, than it is our job, plain and simple, to produce a product that meets their needs. If you're unable to do that, or don't like trying to understand how other people think and learn and work, then go out and find another job that will let you hide in a cubicle and not force you to learn interpersonal skills."
Sure IT people have problems. Some are their fault, many are the fault of management or marketdroids or someone else. But when it comes right down to it, it is impossible to design software that is easy to use by all who need to use it. It's that simple.
Let's start with a real world example. Many people drive cars. Most consider cars easy to use. They go as far as to compare them to software and say "it should be simple, just like turning a key and it goes!"
Cars are NOT easy to use. You have to take many classes to learn how to use them and log many hours of driving before you're even allowed to use them unsupervised. It takes years to get proficient at it (inexperienced drivers get in lots of accidents). They aren't a "turnkey solution", they require a very complicated set of actions to get it from one place to another, and the actions vary significantly each time depending on conditions, traffic etc. But since people do it every day, and are willing to learn, and practice and work hard in order to have the priveledge, they THINK it's easy.
Cars only are good for one task really - driving from place to place. On the other hand, computers perform HUNDREDS or THOUSANDS of tasks. Most of the time, those tasks require the exact same steps each time you do them. But people are unwilling to set aside time to learn, and just complain. They ask for changes, but won't articulate what they'd like it to be like. They just want it to be "better" or "easier" or "more like [some invalid analogy]".
No matter how easy you make the software, people will still be unwilling to learn it, and will remain confused because of their own stubbornness. An example to prove my point:
We recently installed some new shipping software. We had to because it needed to interface properly with the company doing the shipping. It isn't the greatest software in the world, but there weren't a significant number of end-user changes, and all of them were good changes, mostly small ones. Of course, right away we get a call from an employee who is utterly confused. They were so confused in fact, that they shut down the computer and were afraid to turn it back on.
They had entered some orders, and with each a dialog appears asking for shipping information. There is a certain checkbox that they check for almost every order. After entering several orders, a dialog box popped up that says roughly "I see that you've checked [that checkbox] for the last four orders. Would you like me to check it automatically in the future to save you time?" It had two buttons, "yes" and "no".
Now, I would argue, that the course of action in this situation should be COMPLETELY intuitive, and any idiot should be able to decide which they'd prefer. But apparently that's not the case. This is almost an exact transcript of the conversation. No, I'm not joking.
Employee: "It came up with this box, I've never seen it before!"
IT: "I'll take a look at it." [brings it up on the computer] "Oh, it's just asking you if you want it to automatically check that box for you in the future."
Employee: "But it's never come up with that before! Why is it coming up with it now? What should I do?"
IT: "Well, it's probably part of the new software. It sees that you always check that check box and wants to save you time."
Employee: "But it's never come up before! I don't know what to do."
IT: "Well, do you want it to check that box for you automatically when you enter orders?"
Employee: "I don't know. I don't want to do the wrong thing."
IT: "It will just check the box automatically. If you have an order that doesn't need that, you can uncheck it."
Employee: "So which should I click."
IT: "It DOESN'T MATTER. WHAT DO YOU WANT IT TO DO?"
Employee: "I'm not very computer-literate."
IT: "Just click yes."
Employee: "Ooookaaay. I just don't know. It's never come up with that before."
IT: "Yes, you mentioned that."
You can see that the person didn't even want to try to learn what the thing does. They went as far as refusing to let the English language of the box into their brain for fear of being contaminated with thought. It goes way beyond being unwilling to learn complicated instructions or cryptic commands. They were unwilling to not be a robot. If a task involving computers requires any sort of independant thought, logical processing or even READING of direct, onscreen instructions, many users are completely unable to accept the idea of them performing the task themselves.
... "Give me a woman who loves beer and I will conquer the w
To put it simply, USERS ARE MORONS.
That's as may be, but they're the point of all this. Your job as IT guy is not to create a computer system that you can use. It's to create a system for those morons to use. If you create a system that morons can't use, you've failed.
The bit about the align-center command is a good case in point. While some, perhaps most, people learn and understand based on graphical icons, there are people who do not learn that way. There's still a lot of work to be done on user interface design. One of my biggest beefs was with some one of the cheap graphics/presentation packages, probably just PowerPoint. With the 2000 upgrade, for no reason that I can figure out, they moved a good portion of the drawing tools down to the bottom of the window. Since I don't use that software too often, it took me a while to find it, because I was used to the paradigm of all tools on the top toolbars, and didn't look at the bottom of the window for anything but status info. These are the kind of things that IT people need to understand will cause problems. If a month goes by between the upgrade and the first use, people won't even remember that there's been a change, and so when they can't find what they're looking for where they expect it, they get confused.
I can handle that, but then again, I'm a geophysicist. I should have better spatial and technology awareness than the average secretary. I've used vi since first getting access to a Sun box in grad school. I've programed on everything from C-64 to VAX to Solaris to Wintel. I'm not intimidated by FDISK or bios updates. Nonetheless, I run into many of the same problems regular users do.
RTFM and STFW only works when TFM actually exists, or is in any way accurate. Many's the time that I've found out that what I'm looking for just isn't documented well.
One of the biggest problems with 'Category 3' upgrades is that software providers immediately drop all support for previous versions. This means that you can't avoid doing the upgrade. Even if you decide that the disruption of an upgrade to the newest version of a given software package isn't justified by its new features (especially since you've just gotten all the patches that made your current version stop crashing), you will eventually have to buy a new machine. You'll have to buy new software to run on it. Since M$ doesn't sell Office 2000 anymore, you have to get Office XP. If the person on that machine is going to be able to deal with everyone around him, they all have to be upgraded now.
I'd really like to see a slowdown of the version cycle, with the intervening time spent making the old version more stable, and a sales structure (assuming OSS doesn't take over) that makes it painless to get machines that will remain compatible with machines around it.
Interestingly, a lot of technical software is pretty good about maintaining integrity. I now work with a lot of GIS software and image processing software (raster GIS, not general photo processing), and version upgrades are almost always painless. New features are generally useful, and rarely do I find I miss an old feature. Would that M$ could learn that lesson.
if ($it != $onething) {$it = $another;}
Well I think the reason why people do not like IT people is a follows. We are at fault for it. We as tech people will go around telling them that since they don't understand computers that are stupid. The other day at my LUG group the people were calling the general public a bunch of stupid idiots. Look at it this way, why work with and respect someone who just going to call you stupid. I know many very very intelligent people that have never used a computer.
I have at my church gotten linux used on 2 computers, soon to be 3. The reason the people were open to the idea, was not because I went in and started badmouthing what they were using, I went in and said this how we can make what you do more efficient. I have set up a network and installed a samba server and a linux firewall (this also allowed the church to save on internet connectivity, instead of 3 isp at 20 for the different users, one dsl at 40 a month a savings of $20 a month.) When you go to people remember that they may not know computers, but that does not diminish them, and does not mean that they are idiots.
The poster of the parent is one of the sweetest little creatures when it comes to talking to users, to the point of doing step-by-step tutorials with screenshots, and would NEVER think of talking down to them or cricitizing them in any way to their face. It's counterproductive. The best way to get them to learn is to praise them to death and tell them they're wonderful when they learn the difference between click and double-click. I've been praised for my patience and wonderfulness when it comes to teaching people stuff.
But that doesn't change my view--if someone cannot and will not learn what an icon means then they're something wrong with them mentally. (All the more reason why I shouldn't be mean to them). You don't open up a file cabinet and throw your file in at random if you want to find it down the road. You don't bring the paper you want a copy of into just any store--you look at the signs in the window to determine whether or not the store has a copier in it--otherwise you'll end up running the paper through a coffee machine.
People who expect computers to read their minds are NEVER going to get anywhere.
-Sara
that is how commercial software has changed the face of the computing industry - by promise of better features, but in reality, much less useful software
Much of this surrounds the business model of software vendors. Build it, sell it, change it, sell it again, repeat.
Features get added that aren't used much, if at all, while other features get diluted, altered or dropped altogether in a hope to get the resale dollars. The IT industry as a whole is to blame (although there are clueless faces to blame on the other side of the equation too).
Arguably, the technology in cars, vaccuum cleaners, wrist watches, calculators, alarm clocks, etc, has changed drastically over the years, but the user interface has remained virtually unchanged. ABS brakes don't change HOW the user stops the car, only WHAT happens to stop the car. This is a valuable lesson for us all to learn.
However, on the other side of the relationship, we also have eager beaver managers rolling out new version after new version with (I would guess) little benefit analysis being done. MS Office hasn't changed fundamentally since version 95 (with some exceptions), and yet almost every client site I'm on has Office 2000 or XP (although my current site is still 97).
Would you ever buy a toaster that didn't behave almost exactly like your last one? Can you say the same thing for software?
Karma: Excellent (Mainly due to Bill & Ted's Karma Adventure)