On The Durability Of Usability Guidelines

Ant writes "Useit.com's Durability of Usability Guidelines article says about 90% of usability guidelines from 1986 are still valid. However, several guidelines are less important because they relate to design elements that are rarely used today... The 944 guidelines related to military command and control systems built in the 1970s and early 1980s; most used mainframe technology. You might think that these old findings would be completely irrelevant to today's user interface designers. If so, you'd be wrong."

Comments

Want to buy my usablity guidelines ?

[thrill12]

In the first paragraph, the author already mentions that the 977 found guidelines pale against the 1277 guidelines he('we') offers.
Upon entry of said page, user is shown a bill of 100's $ to buy these guidelines.

I'm not suprised?

[defile]

The fact that I get my work done faster using a command-line 95% of the time, and manipulate GUI elements using conventions established in the 80s around the X11 project suggest that computers haven't gotten that much easier to use. In fact, in their rush to become more usable for the uninitiated, I think they become harder for experienced people to use.

When I sit down at Windows or Mac, my productivity drops. Eventually it comes to a total standstill because I'm so frustrated that I have to stop and find out how to emulate x-mouse under the workstation I'm in front of today. Or find some alt/ctrl-click window resize equivalent since every laptop has a difficult to control pointing device and positioning it over the exact lip of the edge to drag is pretty troublesome. Or look for some xkill equivalent and realize that most systems don't have one and that I really do have to wait for this sluggish application to decide to respond.

I'm still trying to figure out how to make MacOS X usable since everyone sits me in front of it expecting me to enjoy it more because it's "UNIX underneath, somewhere". Then I spend a few minutes to try to remember where to find Terminal and then spend another 10 minutes trying to adjust the colors/font settings so that it's white on black and not 6pt font. I've been doing it for about 4 years now so I figured I'd be an expert on it, but I never can seem to remember. Maybe it's because one day Apple decided to improve it and moved the widgets around and I haven't been able to make any sense of it since. I usually give up and go to a different computer or suffer with the terminal as-is, hoping that I get my work done before I go blind. At least when I can't figure out how to make gnome-terminal or kterm do what I want, I can ALT-CTRL-F1 and get the virtual console which is usually a heavenly 80x25.

Also, apparantly no one but me feels that MacOS X's interface is too slow, even on really really powerful machines.

Complaints that no one understands. *sigh*

Re:I'm not suprised?

[defile]

...there hasn't been much progress in UI design.

Maybe even anti-progress. I think computer uninitiates are terrified of modern desktops. They don't really guide the experience. You get a mouse pointer and you're basically told to figure it out. Some things you push down get mad and ring a bell, some things open other things to push, and some things just do nothing. Seemingly at random, ALERTS! pop up and give you a cryptic message. The thing you once pushed down that gave you a mad sound now does nothing, or gives you a happy sound. The thing you tapped earlier doesn't respond. Somehow you find out it needs to be double-tapped. Of course, you're new at this so your double tap comes out like tap---jerk mouse---tap. Instead of "launching" this program, what you did was just move the picture of it over a picture of something else. Now you can't even access the something else since it's covered. What do you do?! You click on it again and suddenly the text underneath the picture is now surrounded by a white box and there's a cursor in it. You try to click it again but the cursor just sits there blinking, impatiently. You try typing something and suddenly you've obliterated the name of the program you're trying to start. You freak out, fearing you've destroyed the computer and call your son for help, who laughs at you.

Eventually you start to notice patterns (these always mean happy, these always mean sad), but these trends are occasionally thwarted and you're thrown for a loop.

A command-line interface, on the other hand, is a guided conversation. Starting out from ground zero can be a bit rough, but you figure out very quickly that you type a command, and the computer tries to interpret it and give you a response. It's clear that you need to learn the computer's language (after someone explains what the seemingly terrifying "syntax error" means). You usually know when it's your turn to speak and when it's the computer's turn to speak. Of course, there's an entire body of stuff to learn before you can do any work with it, but the experience itself is very calm and soothing compared to the information overload that's in a modern desktop.

Try teaching your grandparents to use a computer sometime. I did.

My grandmother kept picking the mouse up and moving it around in the air because she didn't understand dragging it on the pad. She was confused that such a sophisticated piece of machinery didn't let her do something that felt so natural to her.

Re:I'm not suprised?

[Eythian]

You're definitely not the only one. I came from using Linux, to using OSX, which I suffered for about a year. I was used to the customisability that Linux provides (focus-follows-mouse (I started UNIX on a minimal WM on Digital UNIX where that was the default), the ability to define shortcuts for all kinds of things, ability to pick a theme that behaves how I want, and so on). I was really slow working on OSX, as about the biggest customisation I could make was between the blue theme or the grey one, unless I happened to stumble into a 3rd party program that didn't require my money that would do the job.

It didn't help that the UI was very slow too, not necessarily in raw speed, but in behaviour. Like the dock to auto-hide? All well and good, but you have to mouse to the bottom, pause for a moment, then the dock comes up. Not so good if you are wanting to do that a lot, and would like it to come up instantly. So I left the dock open all the time, which loses a chunk of screen real estate. Want to get to that directory deep in the tree? Opening finder and navigating to it is much slower than "cd w[tab]m[tab]s[tab]m[tab]n[tab]b[tab]", and this can be immediately followed by "emacs C[tab]" to start work on the file.

It didn't help that I was also used to things common to the Linux desktop (alt-drag for window dragging, easy access to a useful command prompt, etc).

It got a lot better when I was able to move back to a Linux machine. A little bit of time tuning the desktop to what I wanted, and I was working a LOT faster.

(God, rereading the above it sounds like I'm astroturfing Linux or something. That's not the case damnit!)

Re:I'm not suprised?

[narcc]

I teach adult computer literacy classes professionally. I've always believed it was easier to teach someone (especailly older) how to use a CLI than a GUI. It's true that the learning curve is (or can be) much higher - and that they can't often use new skills across applications. However, the older user isn't as limited by their degrading physical dexterity and vision in a CLI.

I once had an 80y/o woman with crippling arthritis spend 2 days trying to use the mouse to play solitaire. She knew what to do, but just couldn't handle it physically. That's an extreme case, but many older people face similar challenges - such as reading small print through bifocals (straining their necks to see!)

Older users also tend to 'experiment' less than younger users. I may teach an older student to use a mouse and navigate menus, but I'll be damned if they'll select an option that they've never encountered before! (I know, there are exceptions ot every rule. Away with ye random counter-example trolls!)

In a CLI the user has pleanty of opportunity to check and recheck their actions before they initiate them. This makes the learning process much less stressful for them, as they (particularly male users) tend to frustrate easily when mistakes are made. (Drag and drop takes -er- practice.)

Older users also view compters differently than their younger counterparts. An older user typically has a very specific set of applications that they intend to use the computer for. The computer to them, is a means to an end. They don't care about things like directories when all they want to know is how to start and use their wordprocessor. "I bought my computer to do such-and-such, why teach me somthing I'll never use?" The younger user tends to view the computer as an end in and of itself.

Using a CLI give the older user the opportunity to follow a very simple and specific process to achieve their computing goals. (Isn't ease of use what it's all about?) The GUI, as far as I can tell, just gets in their way. In the example above, typing:
cd\
cd wp6
wp
is very simple and, above all else, consistant. Which is what the older user is typically after. No suprises please. Plus, it requires fewer steps and less dexterity than, say, clicking start, programs, Corel, WordPerfect 7, WordPerfect.
(And Boy do they like to write down "steps"! I often qualify things with -- "this may vary somewhat on your computer.")

Just my thoughts on the matter -- YMMV. Your experiences may be different than my own.

God I hate Jakob.

[Anonymous Coward]

Academia is way too good for this hypocrite.

He shamelessly compliments the success of sites such as Google for providing useful information easily to users.

Of course, you can easily get useful information from Jakob, for a price.

If he relegated his reports solely to Intranets, the so be it. However, not providing extensive usability information to the Internet at large simply reduces the chance that web design will incorporate his ideas, which is completely contradictory. That is, if you think anything he has to say about web design is worth anything other than huffy, bloated common sense.

Re:WILI v KISS

[fossa]

Hm... you have a point certainly, but to dismiss "art" in an interface as rubbish is a bit drastic. Have you read Don Norman's Emotional Design? In it, he cites a two studies that compared ATMs. Two types of ATMs were used, identical in function with one looking "good" and one "not so good". Users of the nicer looking ATM had fewer problems using it than those of the other. Yes, actual observed problems, not answers to a survery "did you like it?". I do not know how they decided one ATM was "better looking" than the other, which is the first question I'd like to have answered.

At any rate, the study seems fascinating but not terribly surprising. Norman proceeds to sketch a theory of why the nicer looking ATM was easier to use, using cognitive psychology and the usual HCI tools to do so. I have only read the first couple chapters of the book, but highly recommend it.

Your final comment is appropriate. An interface that ignores art will likely look awkward or be otherwised noticed by the user, thus negatively affecting usability.

Crap Interface Design

[Vollernurd]

A good article and a good site too. I always had pretentions of reading more into the HCI/usability arena.

You would think with 20+ years of generaly accepted interface guidelines, look and feel consistency, etc. that AOL would get their Nutscrape browser working with the "File Edit ..." menus on the correct side of the window.

Don't get me crapping-on about that damn, godforsaken RealPlayer. What the hell is that supposed to be? Ack.

I wish people would just try and stick to conventions. After all, how many times are you fooled into pulling open a door with a pull-handle fitted when the door is actually push-only?

Or is that just me?

Intuitive Vs Cultural in the UI -A Hammer isn't...

[cbelt3]

Am I the only one who is concerned about the base fact that the concept of 'intuitive' is deeply cultural ? Reminds me of the kids who scored poorly on IW tests because it had questions like: Cup is to Saucer like Hat is to Head. The kids who had never seen a Saucer or a Hat were screwed.

In my experience (14 years of weapons system/ military test systems design) the real benefit of milspecs/standards is that they are mono-cultural- Military culture ONLY. They assume NOTHING, and define only those things that personnel who fit the military human standards (height, weight, strength, dexterity, vision, etc..) are capable of doing.

"Modern Intuitive" GUI's and CLI's are intuitive to the designer ONLY. Icon to hold documents together as a staple ? Great ! What about cultures that use straight pins instead of staples ? etc., etc, etc... Good design means knowing your audience. Great design means BEING your audience.

Re:Others....

[fyzix]

I agree; if Nielsen is to be taken seriously, the least he could do is make his own site usable. His entries on usability often strike me as bitter and tired. A change of scenery/attitude would do wonders for his ability to influence the design community.

5.2.16 Editing address headers

[Anonymous Coward]

5.2.16 Editing Address Headers Allow users to edit the address fields in the header of a message being prepared for transmission.

Even though this is still true, it's hard to imaging a designer who would produce an uneditable address field today. I'm sure they exist, but they must be rare.

Unforunately not. One of the most annoying features of MS Outlook (Exchange-mode) is that you can'tedit addresses once they've been verifed (which typically happens in the background). This makes perfect sense if you're writing/replying to your collegues, but notfor SMTP addresses.

Let's say you just typo:d something like wniston.chruchill@averylongtimeagohewasprimeminist er.gov.uk. As soon as Outlook sees that it's an SMTP adreess - blam - instantly accepted and converted into a clickable link (not that anything happens) and, of course locked from direct edits. Now you need to right-click, select properties, edit, click OK. Sigh...

Pretty inane and completely inconsistent with anything else, like... a rather prominent feature of Windows called Explorer. It goes into edit/rename mode for files&folders following a "slow" single-click. I happen to hate it because of it's super-sensitivity when I'm dazed, and for it's delay when I'm not, so I always hit F2 instead. For those who didn't know it works like File | Rename, ah, well, that's another MS speciality: have a shortcut key active, but don't tell anyone about it.

Related: commands and error messages

[KMSelf]

Elsewhere Nielsen advises designers to hide low-level error messages from users. Completely misguided.

One thing I've noticed adminning both GNU/Linux and legacy MS Windows boxes is how much easier it is to research issues in Linux. Plug the command and error output (command output, logs, etc.) into Google, and find the solution. That's GNU/Linux.

Windows. Well.... Is it "The Internet", or "Internet Explorer", or "MSIE", or "IE"? Since you can't copy and paste from an error dialog, what exactly was the error message? (Aside: I hate GNOME, but damned if they didn't get this right: popup error dialogs are copyable as text). Even program names are amazingly un-Googleable. "Um. Let's see if there's anything in Google for 'Word'". Almost as bad as Mission Impossible (the movie) where Cruise searches the Internet for "Job" (from the Bible)...and turns up zero hits. Um. Yeah. Nobody's ever posted a job listing.... Long and short of it: it's bloody difficult to Google for solutions. Also seems to be a cultural difference where people don't post their Windows issues (or at least not meaningfully).

Back to our story: yes, being able to identify the specific program, feature, and location of the error, and if at all possible, the precise error text. Succinctly. But specific.