Advice for Developers: Make Common Usage Easy

Ken Hendrickson writes "Thomas Sowell has some fantastic common-sense advice for software developers from the viewpoint of an ordinary user: Make it easy to do what almost everybody wants to do. I don't believe he uses Free Software; that means that Microsoft is not satisfying their customers, and Free Software can perform better than Microsoft even in the ease of use area!"

Comments

It's just too difficult!

[Lord Grey]

From the bottom of the article's page:

Want to take action about what you have just read?
Then write a letter to your Members of Congress or your local newspapers, who you can find by entering your ZIP code in the boxes below. Also make sure to tell your newspaper editors that they should carry your favorite conservative columnists!
NOTE: Columns will not be automatically attached to the emails you send through this tool.

Sheesh. All I wanted to do was to forward this to my congressman! Now I have enter my zip code, wait for the next page to load, figure out who my congresscritter really is, rub my eyes after looking at god-awful red-on-green text, accidentally click the picture -- which shows a bio and is not what I wanted to do at all -- ....

<WHINE> All I want to do is forward an email! </WHINE>

Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

Easier said than done. UI design sounds easy but it's not.

Re:Yeah

[happyfrogcow]

Easier said than done. UI design sounds easy but it's not.

that's what you UI people have been saying for years. It's like us developers saying "Writing safe, bugfree code is impossible." Bah!, i say. You're just saying it to demand a premium pay and more flexible schedule. UI's are simple! just look at Emacs.

(just busting your balls, i'm completely kidding)

Re:Yeah

[AKAImBatman]

IMHO, the reason why OS GUIs tend to suck is that there's no one to argue with. When the developer sits down, he thinks about it for awhile and develops what he thinks is best.

When a commercial developer works on a GUI, he first has to sit down with his peers, the art department, marketing, and eventually focus groups to yell, scream, and throw things. Out of these heated arguments tends to evolve a product that has a better balance between functionality, looks, and ease of use then what the developer could have produced by himself.

Of course, different companies have different focuses. Microsoft's focus is to pack features like crazy, then try to find a way to make it usable. Apple's focus is to make a product that does the core job first, then evaluate how necessary the extra features are.

Re:Yeah

[Squishy Eyeball Jeff]

Apple has a veritable bible of UI design in its HIG, and Joel Splosky (of Joel on Software fame) has created his own tome on the subject.

Both are excellent reading for those interested in the art (science?) of good UI/usability design.

Re:Yeah

[argent]

When a commercial developer works on a GUI, he first has to sit down with his peers, the art department, marketing, and eventually focus groups to yell, scream, and throw things.

You wish.

When a commercial developer works on a GUI, there's two ways it usually goes.

One: the art department and marketing come up with something that looks cool, and he has to do his best to implement it whether it makes sense or not. The focus groups don't get involved with the actual software until the 11th hour, and shipping fever is upon the company... up until then they're working with webpages and powerpoints that sort of do what the art department thinks is cool.

Two: the developer implements a prototype, and management tells them to ship it because they heard that Microsoft is thinking of making a similar product.

The two demons...

[rah1420]

... commercialization and commoditization, strike again.

Mr. Sowell complains that computer programs aren't as easy to use as an automobile. Well, the first person to design the steering wheel probably didn't think to patent it; nor did the first person who put the accelerator pedal to the right of the brake pedal and make them thus and so. The auto UI "jest grewed" and became standard through market forces. It became a commodity such that it can't be patented, yet nobody dares to go against it lest they not sell a car.

On the other hand, the designers of software are careful to put a lock on every little feature that they come up with, ensuring that they wring the maximum value from its implementation. Are we ever going to see a ubiquitous interface? Not while the Patent Office lives. (tongue planted semi-firmly in cheek)

And all the bells and whistles? That's simply more commercialization -- let's get more out of it by climbing into bed with the people whose offers we bundle. And make it glitzy, and make it shiny, and make it loud.

I despair of ever seeing an end to this in commercial software.

Ditto for library developers

[tcopeland]

For example, if you're doing a charting library, make it easy to create a simple line graph - no legend, no colors, no logarithmic scales, etc. Just something like:

Chart c = SimpleChartFactory.create({5,12,8}, {"2002","2003","2004"});
c.renderToPNG("foo.png") ;

Don't force me to wade through a dozen classes which must be carefully assembled to make a chart - just make a simple facade that I can use in a few lines. You've done the hard work of creating the library - do the easy work of making a few classes to shield client apps from the complexity.

The FreeTTS guys does a good job in this regard - just a few lines of code gets some words going.

give me a toaster

[yagu]

I think Sowell "gets it" more than the technical community does. I think the camera analogy is apt -- make whatever product as sexy and complex as you want (WORD?), but make it transparent to do the most common tasks. Kind of like an appliance. Like a toaster... if you just want toast, you drop the bread in the slots, press the lever and you get toast. Any other "cool" features should be accessible but not overlaying the 90% use functionality.

I do technology for a living, and I STILL pull what's left of my hair out just trying to figure out how to make word stop putting bullets and numbers in front of my "paragraphs" every time I indent (please, no advice -- I haven't used WORD for years -- it's an illustration).

Um - what does this have to do with OSS vs. MSoft?

[Virtual PC Guy]

'I don't believe he uses Free Software; that means that Microsoft is not satisfying their customers, and Free Software can perform better than Microsoft even in the ease of use area!'

Yet the article is him complaining about a new chess and scrabble game that he bought. No mention of Microsoft - or even Windows.

For all we know - he is running a Mac. Sheesh people - get over yourselves.

Clearly Apple

[shylock0]

This man clearly uses a PC. A Windows-based PC.

And Steve Jobs is clearly the George Eastman he talks about.

I'm not a Mac fanatic (I don't own one, but I do work with them regularly), but it seems to me that this guy is clearly elucidating what is Apple's strategy: make stuff easy to use. For everybody. Without any pain.

I mean, this guy would *love* the free chess app that comes with OS X.

-Shylock

Cost.

[455]

Sometimes, the cost of developing incredible interfaces is not something a company wants to pay for. I'm a developer for my own company and I find that most of my clients want to get the task done (read "functionality"), with all options available, and would rather inform their staff and/or clients on how to use the software rather than spend double the cost to add ultra friendly interfaces.

That being said, of course I always try to develop the most user-friendly screens as possible, but sometimes business functions are just complex. Period.

Graceful scaling complexity

[plsander]

I think the point Mr. Sowell was trying to make with the camera analogy was that for 90% of the pictures I take, the "automatic" defaults produce a good serviceable photo. The advanced features (Program and Manual modes) are available and easily accessable when conditions or desire call for them.

I think Mr. Sowell would compare various programs that he complains about to the camera I learned to shoot on - my father's old Nikkromat. Manual everything, with a SLR light meter. Every shot required evaluating the shutter speed, film speed, f-stop, focus, depth of field, flash/no flash, etc. This was not a camera I could hand to a novice and tell them to "just shoot".

Developers and designers have to make reasonable decisions about default settings, and make those settings easy to change.

They also need to resist the urge to add every feature into the product. Does a chess or scrabble game really need to play music?

Isn't this PERL philosophy in a nutshell?

[gblues]

"Make the easy things easy, and the hard things possible." This applies to a lot more than just Perl scripts.

However, the "easy" thing is not always so cut-and-dried. Maybe he wants to remove red-eye from his digital photographs, and maybe he's using Adobe Photoshop. Photoshop can remove red-eye, but that's not its primary purpose. Removing red-eye in Photoshop is going to be a bit more complicated than a program dedicated to red-eye removal, but that is not a fault in Photoshop. In fact, an experienced Photoshop user could probably remove red-eye faster than an inexperienced user could remove red-eye in a dedicated program.

This is where usability testing is key--why spend time on a feature that only a tiny fraction of your user base is trying to do? Which would you rather see happen to The Gimp: a red-eye wizard, or a Windows version that doesn't spawn a new taskbar item for each new window?

It seems like a "duh" comment to say "make it easy to do common things!" but you have to know what the common things are, first!

Nathan

You completely missed his point...

[alexhmit01]

Since it seems he's used this camera analogy throughout the article I'll comment on this little blurb. I'm not so sure it's a very good analogy to use either. The fact is that if you want better pictures, you NEED to go through all of those "useless" features and change them. All of those values will change depending on the conditions, the lighting, and the activity your photographing. If there are those people that DONT care about those features, get the one-use ones. Hell, they even have digital one-time use camera now.

See, this is where you missed his point.

I have a fancy camera (analog), and a less fancy digital. With the fancy analog camera, if I want to take a family photo, I press the button. At most, I need to hit the clearly marked flash button to turn it on. Of course, if I'm feeling artistic, I may want to adjust the exposure, shutter speed, etc., and those features are all there. However, to simply to the most common operation, take a picture, I don't need to do anything.

Your attitude is elitist, "if you don't want the fancy features, get a disposable camera." Beyond the fact that disposables get expensive real fast, what if I want to have a single camera and be able to take real photos AND snapshots?

The point of the article is that the simple should be simple. If I want to take a picture, I press a button. When I install a dictionary program, instead of being interviewed by the program, let me quickly look up words.

The most common use for the references is a lookup mode, and the application vendor could certainly include a dictionary application AND a multi-media application.

I have an HDTV. Yes the DirecTV box required some settings (which are supposed to be done by the installer)... it asked for my zipcode for the guide. HOWEVER, if I just wanted to watch TV, I could have plugged in the box, turned on the TV, and let it auto-scan the antenna (this should happen on first use, instead of via menu, but it wasn't too bad).

I can adapt the colors, I can go into the service menu and tweak further, etc., for a reasonable picture I needed to calibrate the convergence, etc. However, if I just bought the TV and the HDTV box, on Sunday and set them up 15 minutes before kick-off, I could have been watching the game without problem.

The SIMPLE operation: watch a football game, is easy (could be easier, but pretty easy).

The COMLICATED operation: calibrate colors to the Avia disc, adjust convergence, etc., was complicated.

With MOST computer software, it wants me to go through a process to use the application. That is unacceptable.

Most SOFTWARE SHOULD run off the CD, or like MOST Mac software and be a draggable install (drag into Applications). Installers are bad (make them for unusual use), better search order for applications to it can be one Folder/Bundle is better.

If you have features that require libraries to be installed at boot-time, make them optional. If the library isn't there, no feature unless you run the installer.

Wouldn't it be great if simply RUNNING a computer program/game was as easy as playing a PS2/XBox/Gamecube game?

Sure the powerful functionality can be there for power users, but most people should be able to use your program without help. That sadly isn't the case.

Classic designs, or Software isn't a camera.....?

[blackhedd]

Everybody is talking about how difficult it is to do UI. Yup, it sure is. Just ask the guys who did the classic industrial designs- the Dreyfus telephones, etc etc. Lots of examples in addition to the Kodak Brownie.
The best designs become classics, and really change the way we work and live. And there really aren't all that many classics, vastly fewer than the number of designs that try and fail.
So why aren't there more really classic software designs? Part of it is that all of us programmers have drunk the koolaid about uniform interface designs. They simplify learning by creating references to things previously learned in other contexts. But a real "classic design" is easy to learn because it's *internally* coherent- its reference points are meaningful in terms of its own functionality. If there is complexity, it maps directly to the problem domain and not to the UI design. That makes it far easier to deal with, because it "just makes sense." The iPod is a very interesting recent example, but I can't think of something analogous in the realm of pure software.

Maybe if we break out of the box on UI design, then we might be able to stop complaining about how stupid our users are. After all someone who uses something I wrote is supposed to be *smart* not stupid :-)