Slashdot Mirror


How Today's Tech Alienates the Elderly

Barence writes "A UK academic has blamed unnecessarily complicated user interfaces for putting older people off today's technology. Mike Bradley, senior lecturer in product design and engineering at Middlesex University, claims efforts to be more inclusive are being undermined by software and hardware design that is exclusively targeted at younger users. He cites the example of the seemingly simple iPhone alarm clock. 'They're faced with a screen with a clock face and a plus sign icon, and they couldn't understand that you were "adding an alarm," so they didn't click the plus sign to get through to that menu. Pressing the clock image takes you through to choices about how the clock is displayed, and it's not easy to get back again.'"

453 comments

  1. Unnecessarily complex? by pspahn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Couldn't that also be interpreted as "necessarily simple"?

    Older generations don't get it not because of its complexity, but its simplicity. They might understand better if everything had a label and step-by-step info, but for the rest of us that do understand, this just adds complexity when it might not be needed.

    --
    Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    1. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by uncanny · · Score: 4, Insightful

      that's like saying calculus is easy just because you know how to do it, and someone more, ignorant if you will, would have to be shown how to use it. you grew up with computers, so you know the ways to manipulate a comptuer already. Todays OS's are VASTLY more complex than, say, DOS

    2. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by foobsr · · Score: 1

      but for the rest of us that do understand, this just adds complexity when it might not be needed

      This would be 'adds complexity when it is not needed', but a prerequisite for understanding this is having a grip of everyday language. This might probably be too complex an endeavour if one is trained to live with 'simple' interfaces.

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    3. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Calculus is easy, but often people are not exposed to it until they are 17-20 years into their lives which makes it harder to learn.

    4. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by rmstar · · Score: 3, Funny

      Frankly, I think the problems with UIs are unsolvable. There is a point of diminishing returns, and after a while the returns become negative. And whoever is left out after that is a hopeless case.

      This is how it actually works in practice (it's supposed to be satire, but, damn, it's way to accurate)

    5. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by OSDNBoss · · Score: 1

      You are a good case in point. The complexity you believe is added, is simplicity to others while the simplicity "for the rest of us that do understand" is complexity to the elderly. Why not design user interfaces that can accommodate both and be set through settings/preferences. A "full explanation" setting could be added either at the app level or at the device level which would include labels and step-by-step info for the elderly and once learned could be easily turned off! For those that already understand the full explanation setting could be left "off". Even though I'd leave it off for most apps, there are still some apps being developed that are poorly designed and very confusing in their simplicity -- would be good to have a "full explanation" setting for these.

    6. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Culture20 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The one thing I've noticed about "computer-stupid" people of any age group is that they're unwilling to click on anything unknown or just test something. It's like they've lost the capacity for experimental play and refuse to learn on their own.

    7. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dos is not exactly the most intuitive OS either. to use it, you have to learn a variety of commands, and in my opinion, the learning curve far exceeds that of any modern point and click OS. Yes, they can be complex, but that is because they can do so much. For instance, you can get far more simple image editing software then Photoshop, but they are less used, because they complexity of the user interface enables the Photoshop to perform complex tasks accurately. In short, if you want to be able to do more than one thing on something, you need more buttons, and that means that it will be more complex and there is currently no way to stop this.

    8. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by citylivin · · Score: 1

      I can easily make that simpler. Simply change the plus sign into a little picture of an alarm clock. Or they could change it to the words "add an alarm".

      Why would anyone naturally assume a plus symbol has anything to do with alarms? I wouldn't assume that, and I would only click it because I am trying to experiment and figure out what things do by clicking every button.

      Its stupid minimalist UI thats the problem. Designers trying to be more artistic than simple. I mean look at google chrome! You cant find anything because they have gone out of there way to hide everything of value (including the URL bar now!). Pretty soon there will be just one big button on everything that reads your mind and does exactly what you want. A designers dream perhaps, but a nightmare to anyone who values their sense of control. Microsoft has been trying to read users minds for years, and thats one of the reasons they are despised. Personally, I hate it when technology thinks for me. Mostly because technology is stupid!

      --
      As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
    9. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Mmmm. Points to you for being "right" - but - you're missing something too. I'm rather computer savvy, I'm aging, and looking at a display of an alarm clock, I would hesitate to press the "+" sign to "add an alarm". It's a generational thing, I would guess. I grew up "setting the alarm". Later, when alarm clocks and/or watches had multiple alarms available, I continued to "set the alarms". Add an alarm? The terminology leads me to think that I'm going to add a new clock, or in this case, add a new interface for another alarm clock. I don't want another alarm clock - I want to know how to "set" the one I see!

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    10. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Deep+Esophagus · · Score: 2

      Yes! About 20 years ago I was a code monkey for a small engineering firm, and the receptionist was forever having trouble with... oh, I can't remember what computer issue it was. So I took the "teach a man to fish..." concept to heart and tried to explain to her why her computer kept messing up and what she could do to fix it herself, and she interrupted me yelling "I don't want to know what's wrong, I just want it fixed!"

      And if I had a byte for every time I heard -- not just from novices but from tech support and developers -- "What would happen if I did this?" I'd have more storage space than Google. TRY IT AND SEE, fer cryin' out loud!

    11. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 1

      I think it's an issue of familiarity.

      Some elderly get comfortable doing things one specific way. By the time they're forced to change, things are completely unfamiliar. When nothing is familiar, they don't feel comfortable enough to just play around until they figure it out.

      In contrast, we use tech every day. Nothing seems entirely unfamiliar to us because we have a very gradual introduction into new things. We intimately know the old feature, so much that the new one feels obvious and with immediate benefit, allowing us to lock in quickly.

    12. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is easy to say this, but if the basics befuddle you, how do you know you will be able to undo any settings changes you make - if you start disabling services at startup without carefully noting which you adjust, it is hard to judge which ones change things. There are a lot of picture adjustments in modern TVs and without advance knowledge of how to reset to default settings, undoing changes can be a pain in the neck. While we are talking intuitive interfaces, I am utterly baffled why modern "Guide" screens where channel up/down frequently equates to paging up and down through the guide, but where channel up equates to a jump back of 10 or so channels.

    13. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by flaming+error · · Score: 1

      Simplicity is fine, but only if you can figure it out. An alarm clock is not supposed to be complicated. If a user can't figure out how to set the clock, then it's a UI fail.

      Even if it's shiny and cool.

    14. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by DrgnDancer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think it's more fear that they'll break something. Most of us with at least a reasonable understanding of computers have realized that for the most part it's "safe" to play with computer settings and tools. It's rare to screw something up so badly that it can't be fixed, and in large part computer interfaces are designed with either implicit or explicit "undo" options (worst case, exiting a document without saving will nearly always take you back to a "clean" document). Like the monk in the you-tube video your sibling posted though (and if you haven't watched it, it's hysterical), many non-technical users worry that they will damage either the computer or their data if they mess around with stuff.

      Personally I consider this attitude somewhat foolish (as I think do most people who fall into the "geek" category), but it's fairly common. Of course if you try to explain to the person that they're unlikely to hurt anything by playing around, they will immediately tell you that it's easy for you to say that, as you're an expert unlikely to hurt anything. It doesn't really occur to them that most of the expertise you or I have comes from a willingness to experiment.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    15. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by bigpet · · Score: 1

      I find your points for the alarm somehow valid but chrome is a browser. Most people use browser for extended periods of time. That's why they write the keyboard shortcuts next to the menu items. They want you to use the keyboard shortcuts. Because not learning shortcuts for a software that you often use is just a waste. I basically never use the menu of chrome anymore (except for setting options).
      And I didn't learn all shortcuts at once but naturally as I used a function for the 10th time and saw the keycombo next to it.
      So now I use CTRL + t , w , r, esc , tab , shift+tab, shift+n, j, s, d and of course f, x, c and v and F6. If you learn a shortcut every week, you'll quickly get faster.

    16. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm only 24 and I would never think of adding an alarm either, and probably wouldn't press a plus sign on a clock unless I was expecting it to show multiple time zones.

    17. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by StormCrow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Obligatory XKCD link: http://xkcd.com/627/

    18. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by flaming+error · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I absolutely agree, but the problem is a new user might not feel which experiments are harmless. They don't know if the wrong click will do something they don't want, nor whether they'll be able to figure out how to undo it or even if it can be undone. The whole computers/internet is magic to many people. They don't know if a misguided click will cost their privacy or void their warranty or ruin their hardware or break the internets. So they're left frustrated and stressed and cursing at their computer for being so unhelpful and at themselves for being so ignorant.

    19. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      Although I use a CLI on occasion, all I know of DOS is 'cd' and 'dir' - my first instinct would be to type 'help', and if that didn't work I'd probably try 'man' or 'manual'. Assuming one of those worked, I would then read the instructions and find out how to proceed. If not, I'd get out my phone and Google it, or ask somebody. That's exactly the same as what I would do with a new GUI program, except that I'm limited to clicking a finite number of random buttons rather than typing an infinite number of words.

      To me, that means the GUI is easier to start up on, but honestly there's very little in it either way - you don't know, you experiment first, and you ask if that doesn't solve your problem. If you can't learn that, you're a lost cause; if you can remember those couple of simple steps, you'll figure out 90% of the standard end-user problems far better than most. I honestly don't see how age or experience comes into it, beyond the fact that the latter speeds up the process by means of increased intuition gained from using similar systems.

      TL;DR If you can't use this, however old you may be, you probably shouldn't be trusted with complex electronics in the first place.

    20. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      I think it's more fear that they'll break something.

      I wonder if they had that same fear the first time they picked-up a hammer, a screwdriver, a knife, or a ball? Clearly not: children have no such fears. I think as people get older, if they are not vigilant to maintain everyday skills, they become afraid to experiment at all. So they stop learning.

    21. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Well it seems obvious that the feature was designed around an integrated calendar perspective. Its not just an alarm in this context, its a scheduling event on a larger scale. I totally get what you are saying, I'm simply adding that its not JUST an alarm clock, its a part of a calendaring and scheduling system.

      --
      Good-bye
    22. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by DrgnDancer · · Score: 1

      It's easy enough to change that button to "add an alarm" perhaps, but the "+" is used throughout the UI to add whatever is appropriate to the application in question. It adds contacts in the contact app, calendar entries in the calendar app, new notes in the note app, and new alarms in the alarm app (along with many other things). It's what's known as a "reusable element" and once you understand its function in one application it should be a relatively trivial to figure out its function later on. Rather than a million buttons in every app that say "Add a $whateverthefuckImightwannaaddhere" there's a "+" button. Would the other be easier? Maybe, in the case of the alarm app, but "Add a new Calendar Event" is probably a rather large button for a phone screen.

      The reusable element is perhaps introducing a small extra learning curve to the UI, but once you understand the element's function it's actually a far more elegant solution, and carries over between applications so you only need to learn the function once. In the long run it's saving brain real estate, though it might require a bit of fiddling in the short run.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    23. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by yarnosh · · Score: 1

      To be fair, it is possible to break things that way. So the approach is not necessarily unreasonable. Of course, there are plenty of things you could experiment with without much risk, but you can't always know what those things are, especially if you're technically illiterate to begin with. I think it comes down to how much time you're willing to invest in fixing stuff when your experimentation does break things. If you're like me, fixing things when I break them is half the fun. For others, it just keeps them from doing what they want to do.

    24. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Missing.Matter · · Score: 1

      This is usually a learned behavior. Usually these people used to click pretty much everything, and ran into a situation where something they did "broke" the computer. Either they removed a shortcut or deleted a file but whatever they did, they couldn't figure out a way to restore the computer to the way it was before. They probably ended up calling their nephew (in my case) to come in and fix it, and after that they would hardly touch it afraid they would "break" it again.

    25. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Chemisor · · Score: 3

      It only seems "simple" to you because you have seen phone clock interfaces before and know that you have to "add an alarm". To someone who has only used physical clocks that's a ridiculous idea. You don't add an alarm; you set it. On analog clocks you would have an extra hand that would be the physical embodiment of the alarm.

      A much more obvious thing to do would have been to use a an alarm icon (a bell is fairly well-known, a "jumping" alarm clock might be another) with a superimposed plus instead of just a plus. You might also write "Alarm" on it. That way it becomes clear that the button has something to do with alarms. A bare plus has no meaning at all.

    26. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by MoonBuggy · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's perhaps clearer if you see the screen in question. I don't use an iPhone myself, but I was interested to see what all the complaints are about, and as far as I can see this is what they're referring to, and the icon then leads to this. It's not a picture of a clock and a '+' symbol, it's a fairly clear list to which you are adding - the actual alarm setting screen has a clear 'Save' button presented with text. Very, very different to what I (and perhaps many others) envisaged from TFA's description (which was provided without any useful graphic, for some reason).

    27. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by clang_jangle · · Score: 1

      I think you're right. Reasonable people who have interest and aptitude can learn whatever interface they need to learn. Nowadays one gets the impression that most people hate computers, they want magic. I particularly loathe it when some user goes on and on trying to make sure I understand what it was they did wrong and why the result was unsatisfactory. After you tell me once, I can tell you what you need to do -- that's the important information the user needs to focus on. But so many otherwise intelligent people have to be told again and again and every single time you have to hear the same stupid story about what they did, what they expected to happen, what happened instead, and so forth. It's as if some people drop 50 IQ points just looking at a computer or smart phone.

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    28. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by penguin_dance · · Score: 1

      It would be better if instruction manuals were actually useful...

      I'm a long time computer user and not to the old fogie stage yet, but I wouldn't know that a + sign means to add an alarm either. And I continue to be disgusted by incorrect or missing information in instruction manuals. They seem to be more interested in putting them 10 different languages than making sure they are correct and understandable. I would bet that younger people are more willing to just "figure it out" while the first thing a more mature person would do would be to RTFM.

      I get irritated that people simply assume older people are dumb. My mother is in her 80s and uses a computer. But when we go to the doctors, you'd be amazed how many times the nurse starts talking to me or my spouse instead of her right off the bat, like she incapable of understanding. Mom usually sets them straight before I do. Maybe the designers should start studying if their designs actually make sense rather than assuming it's all a user problem.

      --
      If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
    29. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by ImprovOmega · · Score: 1

      I'm a programmer and a sysadmin and when I first started using iDevices (iPod touch, iPhone, iPad specifically) I found the user interfaces to be completely non-obvious. Now, having worked with them for a few months I find it simple enough, but that initial curve is actually fairly steep. Couple that with not wanting to learn new things anyway and no wonder the elderly aren't adopting it.

    30. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by ImprovOmega · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't even go that far. Sometimes it's not obvious what you should try clicking on because it's not even apparent that it's a button (I'm looking at YOU Office 2007 Office button of evilness).

    31. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by ook_boo · · Score: 1

      At a certain point, people stop focusing on their dreams and start focusing more on memories. And by the time they turn 50, it's memories of memories. So it isn't a "complexity" issue, it's what happens when people coast in life too much and let the synapses atrophy.

    32. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by bzipitidoo · · Score: 2

      Unsolvable? You shouldn't accept such a proposition.

      Interfaces are finite and enumerable. There is only just so much functionality in even the most powerful app. The essence of an interface can be captured and expressed with logic. And we have all kinds of tools that can handle logic. We've been doing this for software for years. The "interface" of a programming language is much more open ended and complicated than a mere user interface, and we've been reasoning about language for decades.

      Yes, bad interfaces are everywhere. That doesn't mean it's a hard problem. Just that people haven't put much thought into it. Game software typically has the best interfaces, and even that can be of spotty quality. Worst interfaces I've seen are in CAD software. Yeah, they can be even worse than the GIMP. Unbelievable how bad some of it is. They still seem to expect users to be able to draw precisely with the mouse. Why even allow such freehand? Should always use a snap grid, or some sort of intelligent positioning so you don't end up 0.00001 off, or get cramps trying to nudge the mouse pointer one pixel over.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    33. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by LambdaWolf · · Score: 1

      Obligatory XKCD link: http://xkcd.com/627/

      Obligatory XKCD counterpoint! http://xkcd.com/763/

      --
      "This algorithm runs in constant time. Come on, 2,147,483,648 is a constant..."
    34. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by peragrin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ah but language changes drastically every 10-20 years.

      There are more words in today's language for things that simply didn't exist 10 years ago let alone the number of words created for things that just didn't have names 70 years ago.

      70 years ago was 1941. Things like atoms were only suspected.(the atom bomb is less than 70 years old.) in 1953 came the double helix DNA. Transistors came in the 1960's.

      Stop and think you learned more words in grade school than your grandparents knew until you were almost born.

      The amount of knowledge that has to come with the understanding of those words while simple when first learning is huge. These are people who thought tv's in color was amazing, and that there was no need for more than one phone in a home, and that phone had to be spun to work right.

      UI's don't matter. The elderly will simply not use the devices. Soon enough they will move on and the new elderly will be a little more used to then. Advancements through attrition. it is ugly truth but nothing to get worried about.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    35. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      "Look, if I ask you what time it is, don't tell me how to build a clock!"

      (Attributed to Groucho Marx, from an silent-era film comedy short. He was lost, in a boat, in a storm, and wanted directions to the harbour. The harbour master was telling him how to plot a course over the radio. His boat was the Damfino. Sorry, I can't remember any more of the filmography, or the title.)

      But I've used that line many times in the 40 or so years I've been in the IT industry.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    36. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by markjhood2003 · · Score: 1

      I feel this way about social networking sites. As a software engineer I feel free to play with the interface on just about any program or device and try things out. On Facebook though, I worry about making a social error, blasting a personal message to the wrong people, or giving up more info than I want Facebook or its apps to have, and it tends to paralyze me. It's one of the few times I will ask somebody "what does this thing do?" or "how do you make it do that?". I guess that makes me "social-networking-stupid".

    37. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by blahplusplus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "that's like saying calculus is easy just because you know how to do it,"

      No it's not, many things are so easy already. I have grandparents that use their old age as an excuse not to learn new things. I really don't buy that old people are incompetent, when it comes to their own interests and things they like they sure do put in the effort.

    38. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll be very frank here:
      By the laws of nature, such people are supposed to die.
      This is not cruel. It is nature. Wait, I'll show you:

      "I don't want to eat! I just don't want to be hungry!", or
      "I don't want to breathe! I just don't want to die!"
      "I don't want to work! I just want to get money!"

      Well tough shit! We all want that. It's called optimizing efficiency. Cry me a river.
      But some stuff in necessary. If you (in this case that secretary) don't do them, you're not efficient, but lazy.

      Either you do the stuff required to reach the goal you want, or you don't reach the goal, and die.
      Simple as that, and rightfully so.

      That's what you should tell her.
      Please don't be an enabler for those who abuse others (e.g.: you) for their laziness. :)

    39. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Kjella · · Score: 2

      *blinks* Are we talking about the same DOS I used to use? Seriously? The only reason you could marginally call current OSs more complex to use is because they do so much, much more. For example this whole "multitasking" thing, pretty easy when there's just one app right (oh I know there was some exotic ways to do multitasking, but mostly you didn't have the RAM anyway).

      I remember my first cell phone.... a lot less complex than my iPhone, yes. But all it could do was call and send SMS - I don't even remember if it had an alarm clock but I guess it probably did - certainly not a scheduler. Now I have two sets of alarms that ring on weekdays, one set of gentle tones and one really nasty "get up NOW" alarm. More complex? Yes. Better? Yes.

      This is mostly just complaining that "it's different"... sure, whatever I'm sure the elderly struggled with learning cars too, you mean there's no reins, no whip and saying giddyup won't make it go, instead you get a wheel and pedals? Tough shit, paradigms change and old ways of doing things disappear. Computer literacy is the other literacy, there's only so far we can help someone who can't read.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    40. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      The one thing I've noticed about "computer-stupid" people of any age group is that they're unwilling to click on anything unknown or just test something. It's like they've lost the capacity for experimental play and refuse to learn on their own.

      It could also be that people are becoming more sophisticated, not less -- how much of our security habits and attitudes are being driven by fear of clicking a hyperlink that could lead to identity theft?

      People don't like their identities stolen. It's them.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    41. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "computer-stupid" people of any age group... unwilling to click on anything unknown

      After the 10th memo from the IT people about NOT clicking on attachments in e-mail, who can blame them?

    42. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not have Elderly mode and Young Whippersnapper mode. And Midlife Crisis mode with larger text would be good too. I mean its a friggin computer with a high resolution touch screen, It can probably allow the user to display or not display or display bigger text and not even keep it from playing Crysis.

    43. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I think a big part of the problem is people expect to use computers somehow with zero training or education. Computers are complex tools, and we don't expect this of any other complex tools.

      Can you imagine an airplane that you can hop in and start flying with no training? Of course not, it takes years of training to turn a person into a qualified pilot. Not only is there training, but there's education: pilots are educated on how planes work, the principles involved (not only aerodynamics, but how the engines work), how the air traffic control system is set up, etc. Then they're trained on how to actually operate the controls, make radio calls, talk to ATC, what to do in emergency conditions, etc.

      Why do people expect computers to be so easy to use that a complete moron, or someone who's lived in a rainforest hut his whole life, should be able to start using one right away?

    44. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by RobbieThe1st · · Score: 1

      Yea. That looks perfectly intuitive. There's a + next to "alarm"... what /else/ could it do?

    45. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by digitig · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If "it's not easy to get back again" then it's a fundamental design flaw that discourages experimentation, not "necessarily simple". And having the plus sign is an unnecessary complication -- tap the clock on my phone and it goes to the alarm setting menu with other configuration available from there. I'm sure the younger generation could cope with that too.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    46. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by OldSoldier · · Score: 1

      The original summary mentioned that clicking on the clock itself put the user into a clock-settings page from which it was hard to return to the original alarm screen. IMHO people of all ages would be more comfortable playing with settings and screens if the "maze of twisty little passages" had an easy route to return to the previous screen.

      Yea, when I'm older I might have clicked on the clock thinking I'm already IN the alarm setting and want to change the numbers of this alarm, and if I do that I might easily discover my mistake, but if I'm unable to return to the previous screen as easily as hitting a "back" button then... yea I'm going to be demotivated to play with new screens. I gotta choose right the first time or get lost trying to return to this screen.

    47. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by RobbieThe1st · · Score: 1

      CAD wise when I used Autocad I had no such problem. Yes, trying to freehand-position points just /doesn't work/, but you shouldn't be doing that: Enter your points via the CLI, or offset it from 0. Then use offset and snap functions to add more lines to your points. Unless you're just drawing a line that's "somewhat longer" than it needs to be(which will then be trimmed later), you shouldn't be freehanding it, though the functionality should be there.

      Also, snapping works so long as you're in school and need standard sizes, but often you need a lot more precision than you think. Still, those options are usually available by pressing ctrl or shift when moving the mouse...

    48. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's more fear that they'll break something.

      That's exactly it. I've worked with older folks, helping them with technology, and the reason they don't play around clicking random things is they feel they're going to either break something, change something and won't be able to get it back, or lose whatever they were in the middle of working on and have to start all over.

      And when you think about it, the old folks are right to be worried. Every person who is a "techno whiz" today started out playing around with technology and has gone through all those pains as a result. Every techno expert there is has at one time broken something and had to either figure out how to fix it themselves or call tech support. Every computer whiz has at one point changed a setting they didn't know how they changed, and had to do a lot of poking around to get it back. And every techie has lost work at some point and had to start over. It's how we learn. The pain and frustration reinforces our learning.

      The thing with old folks is they don't want to go through the pain and frustration. They want a shortcut to the learning process. They just want things to work. And I can't say I blame them. We really do put up with a lot of crap when it comes to technology and poor UI design. It's just easier when we're younger, I guess.

    49. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      My father is in his 70's now and has had no trouble making the transition. He never touched a PC until he retired. He loves his iPad now. My father in law is a few years older than my dad and he's extremely well versed in computers and modern technology. Certainly there are those who let the world pass them by, but it's hardly a forgone conclusion.

    50. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by icebrain · · Score: 1

      Worst interfaces I've seen are in CAD software. Yeah, they can be even worse than the GIMP. Unbelievable how bad some of it is. They still seem to expect users to be able to draw precisely with the mouse. Why even allow such freehand? Should always use a snap grid, or some sort of intelligent positioning so you don't end up 0.00001 off, or get cramps trying to nudge the mouse pointer one pixel over.

      That's why any decent CAD package (eg, Catia V5) allows you to constrain your sketch, so you just approximate the shape, add a constraint, and then set that constraint to exactly what you want it to be. No need to be super exactly precise freehand, just type the numbers in. Need to make a change? Just change the dimension.

      AutoCAD is a 1980s interface.

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    51. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      It could be any number of things. It's only intuitive because you know how to use iOS, much like the iOS on/off sliders. Why not just have the word "Add..." on that button? You've got "Edit" on the left, after all. Really an odd paradigm switch, from text to symbols.

    52. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by mikael_j · · Score: 1

      Press '+' to add an alarm? If we're talking on a bonafide computer or smartphone, sure. If it's on a typical clock radio I'd assume '+' means "wake me up in the middle of the night for no reason". Seriously, the main problem with user interfaces isn't consistency, it's device manufacturers who have no idea what a good user interface is...

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    53. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      And they can (and will) fry a machine from time to time. Only feasible solution is to set them up with something that can boot, nuke, and reinstall (e.g., a bootable Norton Ghost DVD that has their entire basic Windows install ready to go) on a computer that contains no information of value.

    54. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by demonlapin · · Score: 2

      To be fair, it's pretty obvious when a hammer is going to cause damage. 'rm -rf ~joe/*' and 'rm -rf ~joe /*' are pretty close to one another. And usually computers were first encountered at work - where people are paranoid about screwing something up.

    55. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Why not just have "Add" as a text label? As you say, context is clear; it's the switch from language to symbology that would throw people off.

    56. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by syousef · · Score: 1

      The one thing I've noticed about "computer-stupid" people of any age group is that they're unwilling to click on anything unknown or just test something. It's like they've lost the capacity for experimental play and refuse to learn on their own.

      The other thing I've noticed is that they'll play with a computer once, let it sit for a month or 2 and come back having forgotten what they learnt. It's as if they don't comprehend (or don't want to comprehend) that like any other skill it takes practice and regular re-enforcement to become proficient. They'd never take up golf, play or practice 6 times a year and then berate themselves for their golf not improving but they will do just that if you replace golf with computer skills. It pisses me off. Older generation is always going on about how this is the "me" generation and lazy then they pull shit like that.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    57. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by pspahn · · Score: 2

      Yes, you're entirely right, and it's not even about "learning" how to use a piece of software, it amounts to someone not being explicitly told to click on something, so they don't.

      I've watched my dad use a web browser. It's absolutely agonizing. He never updates anything (he still uses Quark 4) and just gets confused by the simplest of differences between one version and the next.

      Why doesn't he explore? Because, "that's not how I used to do it". He doesn't even read menus or anything, it's all just muscle memory where he clicks.

      It's took me months to condition him to using a web browser other than IE6. I tell him, just type your search in the bar at the top and hit enter. He still doesn't get it. He actually opens up IE, goes to google, selects the address bar contents, goes up to Edit, then Copy, then he'll go back to Chrome or FF or whatever and get confused because there's no Edit menu for him to choose Paste.

      I sometimes wonder who the mailman was.

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    58. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by IICV · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm rather computer savvy, I'm aging, and looking at a display of an alarm clock, I would hesitate to press the "+" sign to "add an alarm". It's a generational thing, I would guess.

      I agree that it's a generational thing, but I don't think it's one in the way you're describing; in fact, I think it has to do with the fact that you would hesitate.

      See, the older generations grew up with computers as these big, fragile things; you couldn't fuck around too much, otherwise something might break and it would be all your fault. The generation before that grew up with industrial and farm equipment that was literally dangerous to touch; poke the wrong thing, and you might not have a finger afterwards.

      People from those generations are afraid of exploring, because they might accidentally change something and break the computer or lose a finger.

      That's not how we do things in modern interface design. The goal is, basically, to make exploration have zero cost; as long as you don't change some state that's visible to you in the program, you can touch buttons all you want and explore the menu structure without any cost.

      So yeah, there is a difference - you would hesitate. Someone ten or twenty years younger wouldn't. That's pretty much all there is to it.

    59. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Faerunner · · Score: 2

      A commenter on TFA actually stated that one reason he sees the elderly in particular having problems with new tech is that the machines they grew up with were much easier to break (or they were TOLD it was easy to break) and they have the attitude of "don't touch it if you don't understand it". That being the case, they stare helplessly rather than explore - you or I would start pushing buttons at random, opening menus... they are going to look for something simply labeled, because otherwise they are afraid to touch.

      A simple solution, therefore, would be to encourage the elderly to explore their new tech devices before yelling for help... if they can't learn that, I would be selling them on a simpler device!

    60. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I told Grandma when I got her a computer: As long as you don't throw it around the place or pour water on it can be fixed with a little bit of time. Click on stuff, change things, do whatever you want.

      I showed her the help key, google, and how to turn it on and off.

    61. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as a 21 year old that hasn't really used an ios device for an extended period of time, it honestly took me two or three seconds to parse what i was looking at and realize that i probably want to press the "+". normally i wouldn't think twice about this, but i can kinda see where the article is coming from

      it's honestly kind of a busy screen, and on the busy screen one of the most important functions (adding an alarm) is shown only as a very small button in a kind of weird location that only reads "+". while functionally identical to you or me, i imagine the android alarm screen is much more accessible
      http://i.imgur.com/OjgUJ.png

    62. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The plus button is in the wrong place. It's as the top right, at part of the title bar. Hell, I'm in my early 30s, and when I look at the screen, I don't immediately get that I need to press the plus button to add an alarm. (I initially would assume it has to do with some menu functionality, or maximizing/minimizing/etc.)

      Where they should have put it is *under* the current alarms. You know, at the end of the list, where you're actually adding the alarm to.

    63. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah but it didnt used to be that way - monitors you could fry by altering the settings , same for hard drives. We dont encourage novices to randomly press buttons on heavy machinery or tools so why do we expoect them to do so on computers.

      Sides I dont think using a '+' to add an alarm is intuitive dragging the alarm hand on a analogue clock is probally more universally recognised

    64. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I don't have an iPhone and this description of "adding an alarm" seems extremely obtuse. I suspect the real reason younger people understand it is that they have a large and well connected peer group. So they say "how do I set an alarm" and someone nearby will tell them.

    65. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by w0mprat · · Score: 1

      Couldn't that also be interpreted as "necessarily simple"?

      Older generations don't get it not because of its complexity, but its simplicity. They might understand better if everything had a label and step-by-step info, but for the rest of us that do understand, this just adds complexity when it might not be needed.

      That might also be interpreted as "there is no substitute for plain English" in designing a graphical interface. In the quest to make things ever more simple, minimal and pretty, the complexity is merely moved elsewhere, to deciphering the metaphor. It's not really making things simpler, it's just shuffling things around for the sake of aesthetics. So is it really adding complexity if it makes it simpler?

      If there is a requirement of a learning curve in a UI, isn't it reasonable for the UI to provide the user with what they need to know? For most of us enthusiasts, admins, developers that troll /. we get a kick out of figuring things out in the absence of information. We just don't read the instruction manual. I think this cognitive bias reveals itself in how we design interfaces, we unwittingly make them a little puzzle to solve, and we feel we've failed if it is too simple. Truth is we can't suffer noobs, and we unintentionally scuttle their user experience.

      However unfortunately we represent about 2% of the human race, no wonder we're so hated by the other 98% who has to try get something done with what we've built.

      I purchased a iPod Touch and sent it to my aging parents living in the country, having faith in Apple that it would be "easy to use" and I wouldn't have to help them with it as I do with most other technology. Not so. They'd called me not long after turning on saying "It doesn't work, it's not doing anything it has an arrow and a symbol on it's screen and does nothing". I guessed that perhaps the iPod is completely unusable until plugged into iTunes, later I learn the first screen you see is an arrow pointing at a iTunes logo, apparently a little puzzle you need to solve to figure out what to do with it (buried several pages into the quick start guide with text too small for my parents to read, is a mention of having to download and install iTunes first). In pure hubris, apparently the UI designers felt no need to tell the user what to do in Plain Fucking English. Lacking the obvious "Please connect me to a computer with iTunes" message and actually include CD with the software on it laid a trap for people who were not previously familiar with such technology or with Apple products.

      Talking them through downloading and installing iTunes over a dial-up like rural internet connection was HELL. By the time I drove out there a couple of days later, they had gone to the local electronics shop and bought a $50 8gb mp3 player with a big colour screen, and filled it with music easily, having already been familiar with how to get files on to an external drive. Naturally I had some difficulty returning the iPod, despite local consumer law being on my side on this one.

      While the cry for Plain Fucking English is sometimes heeded, of course, there are problems with intelligible English in interfaces. Brings to mind your average error message. Half the time the developers aren't even sure what it was intended to mean.

      --
      After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
    66. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      People from those generations are afraid of exploring, because they might accidentally change something and break the computer or lose a finger.

      You're hilarious.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    67. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      This is learned behavior. They've broken the computer before and had to wait ages for the kids to visit and fix it for them. Younger people have not lived as long and so have had fewer opportunities to be burned.

    68. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never seen a phone-clock before seeing an image of the one in question. And while I don't consider the interface to be super-intuitive, it doesn't seem complex either--there aren't too many buttons to try.

      A bare hand on the analog clock has no meaning. I can't even envision how you would use it to indicate when the alarm should go off. If you wanted the alarm to go off at 1:30, would you move the hand half-way between 1 and 2? That doesn't seem very accurate on a small alarm clock. And it's not consistent with how the clock tells time. A more obvious thing to do would be to have two hands.

    69. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Interfaces are finite and enumerable.

      Practically, no. Even if I just gave you a list of ten buttons you could arrange them in 10! = 3 628 800 orders, never mind all the possible ways you can make them look and ways the interface could react. Might as well say that books are finite and enumerable, as even the longest book only contain so many letters.

      The essence of an interface can be captured and expressed with logic. And we have all kinds of tools that can handle logic.

      What you can't express is psychology. What does a person think when he sees this UI, how does he respond to it? Sure you can write a technically accurate documentation of what the UI does, it still won't make it a good interface.

      The "interface" of a programming language is much more open ended and complicated than a mere user interface, and we've been reasoning about language for decades. (...) Yes, bad interfaces are everywhere. That doesn't mean it's a hard problem.

      Really? So we've all agreed on the one optimal language then, since the solution is so trivial? And you think graphical complexity is less than language? Clearly you've never heard the saying that a picture is worth a thousand words. No, optimal communication is hard - we have information theory yes but humans don't work well on perfectly compressed data - it looks like random rubbish to us. And we're not built to spec, every human takes it in differently - with common patterns of course, but there's no single way that is optimal for everyone. Read a HCI book sometimes - it has good theories but you'll see it's a soft subject, you can't put an analyzer on an UI and get a quality score. What's the right number of tool buttons to show in a graphics editor? If you can prove me that, you're up for several Nobel prizes.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    70. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by flappinbooger · · Score: 0

      Why is an elderly person using an iPhone in the first place?

      --
      Flappinbooger isn't my real name
    71. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by RobbieThe1st · · Score: 1

      Erm... I don't have any iOS device, and have never used one(never will either). I use an n900, which has a completely different UI.

      It's just that I always associate the "+" symbol with "add"... which is fair, considering everyone in gradeschool knows that when you have a "+", it means "add".

    72. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Basically they've forgotten how to be a child. And such people get no slack from me.

    73. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so if software companies care about appealing to the enderly, they can add an option "YOUNG PUNKS" AND "ELDERLY" where young punks have glossy icons and the elderly options have UI layouts from 1992 where every icon has a label on it about 1/8th of the size of the screen.

    74. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by trentblase · · Score: 1

      This is it, end of thread. When I don't know what some ui element does, I push it to see. Usually, when my mom asks for help doing something on her computer, I don't really know the answer in advance. Instead, I explore the menu system very quickly until I see the right option and to her it looks like I knew what I was doing all along.

    75. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      It's not that old farts like me can't figure it out, it's that we have mastered the art of getting someone else to do our menial taskes. This old joke may enlighten you...

      Gradkid; "How do you have your tea, Granpa?"
      Grandpa; "I don't know........ask your Grandma".

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    76. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by rnturn · · Score: 1

      I suspect I'm roughly at the same level of experience as you (who knows, maybe more) and I would have wondered what the heck a "+" meant in relation to a clock. Would it have killed Apple to make that button read "Alarm" or "Alarms"? I'm guessing that using an actual word would have violated some official Apple Elegance Guide.

      I have the same complaint with Apple's interfaces as I grew to have about Windows: they're not nearly as intuitive as they seem to think they are. Years ago, I had the misfortune of having to work with some Mac plotting software (can't remember the name) and you had no menu to work with. You were expected to blindly click on things to see if a dialog box would pop up that allowed you modify axis settings, etc. (And there was no way to predefine the settings for a group of plots that had to have the same axes ranges, tick marks, etc. I never used it again and decided it would be far better and faster to brush up on my Calcomp programming instead.) Nowadays I'd would liken the experience to playing Myst.

      --
      CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
    77. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2

      Older generations don't get it not because of its complexity, but its simplicity.

      There is nothing "simple" about the example cited. A simple alarm clock app has exactly one control function, to set its single alarm. Multiple alarms? Neither necessary nor simple nor, for the vast majority of users, useful.

      It's just a poorly designed app, like the vast majority of technology out there. But for those who have become used to the brokenness -- or to one specific way of brokenness, like Apple's -- anything else seems "complicated".

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    78. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by wallsg · · Score: 1

      The one thing I've noticed about "computer-stupid" people of any age group is that they're unwilling to click on anything unknown or just test something. It's like they've lost the capacity for experimental play and refuse to learn on their own.

      That's my mother. She's afraid that she'll break something if she experiments.

      If it's a computer it just has to be complicated. How can you do anything without a class on how to use it?

    79. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2

      At a certain point, people stop focusing on their dreams and start focusing more on memories. And by the time they turn 50, it's memories of memories.

      Congratulations -- in a thread full of ageist bullshit, this tops the pile.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    80. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See, the older generations grew up with computers as these big, fragile things; you couldn't fuck around too much, otherwise something might break and it would be all your fault

      .

      Ha. The first computer I did word processing on, back in the days, never crashed. Sure, it was single-task, single-user, and you couldn't edit more than maybe 30 pages of text at a time, but it never crashed in more than 5 year of daily, intensive use. No matter what you typed, no matter how long you left it on, it never unexpectedly quit, it never froze, it never hanged the system by suddenly swapping everything to disk. It never lost text.

      Gee, I miss deterministic computers.

      Now get off my lawn.

    81. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude - have you ever used an analog alarm clock?

      I suppose you've really illustrated something here. I (and certainly anyone older than me) would have zero problem grokking the analog clock metaphor.

      Assuming you're being serious, that is exactly how you set an alarm clock for 1:30 - there is one small hand that you put halfway between one and two. No, it isn't very accurate, you get within 10 minutes or so of what you're aming for. And it's not inconsistent, just lower resolution - when the alarm rings, the hour hand will be right on top of the alarm hand.

      Some clocks get more resolution by adding a second hand (weird that the third hand is called the second hand), or even a 1/10th second hand in some specialized applications. A sundial (on the other hand) only has one "hand".

      This just demonstrates the frequent absurdity of calling a user interface "intuitive" - it all depends on your background.

    82. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 1

      "Nowadays one gets the impression that most people hate computers, they want magic."

      My take on that is that lots of people--not just older people--have computers because they have been sold on the idea by a family member or a friend. "You don't have email? You HAVE to have email. You'll love it." Or AIM or whatever the application it is. And so they get a computer so they can have email. But unlink you and me they aren't really interested in computers, they just want it to do something, and so they are not willing to expend much energy because it's not their hobby. And I can't really blame them.

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    83. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't believe it has anything to do with age, just with people. I am 67 (68 next month) and no there weren't any computers when I grew up. After my oldest son moved out I discovered that I had to take care of my computer myself. I quickly tired of the hassle of maintaining windows and with help from the forums installed linux. I have used debian and a couple of their derivatives, slackware and a couple of their derivatives, have tried fedora and ubuntu. I am a high school grad so have not studied computers. Am self taught because I wanted to learn. I help my youngest son, his ex-wife and a few other young people who grew up around computers. My wife and I use android based smart phones and love tinkering with them.
      Stop picking on the elderly, just give us credit for staying up with technology. We just add it to what we already know. When you have been where we have been and experienced what we have then you can talk. Some people, regardless of age, just don't want to learn.

      john

    84. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by ShoulderOfOrion · · Score: 1

      I'm not so sure it's a generational thing. IMO it's more of a personality thing.

      Do you push that unlabeled BIG RED BUTTON to see what it does? Or do you leave it the h*ll alone because you don't know what it might do?

      I'm an older generation now, but I still PUSH. Always have :-)

      The '+' is a stupid UI design, but I'd figure it out eventually because I PUSH. A lot of people of all ages wouldn't because they don't push. This UI discriminates against the latter, and that's stupid.

      My favorite are the designers who like to implement the PUSH and HOLD FOR 3 SECONDS power button, and don't spell it out somewhere. I'm a PUSH-er, not a HOLD-er. Arrgh.

    85. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by suppo · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I wonder how the GP will look back on his remark when he turns 50.

      --
      NON-geek Linux user since 1998
    86. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1

      I would expect it to advance the time. The concept of "adding an alarm" is not one I relate to. "Insert an alarm" is the way I expect to view it. Adding would add time to the existing alarm.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    87. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1

      That would be an offence agaist the equal opportunities act: if you use Englsish, only litterate English speakers can use it. If you use obscure, random graphics: no one can understand it. (This methodology was established in the early 1980's, before computers actually had GUIs),

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    88. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by suppo · · Score: 1

      Agreed. My average intelligence granddaughter, age 14, cannot tell time at all with an analog clock or watch. This whole thread assumes the elderly are somehow deficient for not intuitively understanding an unknown interface. Pot, meet kettle. (If you don't get that comment, my case is made.)

      --
      NON-geek Linux user since 1998
    89. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes it does. It means add... Where did you learn arithmetic?

    90. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1

      Darwin has the solution as usual: People like you tend to die from accidents involving farm machinery, or firearms, or your local equivalent.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    91. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      70 years ago was 1941. Things like atoms were only suspected.

      What do you mean by "only suspected", here? Mendeleev's periodic table, arranged by atomic number, was in 1869. The electron was discovered in 1897.

      Maybe you mean artificial atomic reactions?

      in 1953 came the double helix DNA.

      Yet DNA itself was known about since 1869, and it was known to have a regular structure in 1937. In 1943, it was clear that DNA carried genetic data.

      The double-helix model is tremendously important to biology, but not at all important to the fundamental ideas of DNA that makes it a household term today.

      These are people who thought tv's in color was amazing,

      I'm sorry, but they still are. I'm 24, and it still blows my mind how much we're living in the future. I often wish I could give Isaac Newton, or, say, Benjamin Franklin, a tour of our modern world -- and the TV is the first thing that comes to mind.

      UI's don't matter. The elderly will simply not use the devices.

      UIs absolutely do matter, but I don't agree with the article here -- modern UIs are generally decent, and the biggest thing the elderly lack is the understanding that it's OK to poke at them and play with them to figure out how they work. When the motivation is there, well, they're not likely to be the ones jailbreaking or programming or anything fancy, but my grandparents (the ones still alive) have all at least learned to use email, because that's really important to them -- keeping in touch.

      It's just that the bar is a bit higher -- if they have an alarm clock that works, and they don't already magically know how to use the iPhone alarm clock, they'll go with the one they already know how to use instead of actually trying to learn the new one for a minute or two.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    92. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Couldn't that also be interpreted as "necessarily simple"?

      Not by anybody who can actually speak English.

    93. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      I can.

      "You don't have a car? You HAVE to have a car. You'll love it. You can come visit us more often!" So they get a car so that they can come visit, but they aren't really interested in cars, they just want it to do something, and so they are not willing to expend much energy because it's not their hobby.

      So when they don't change the oil, or don't fill up the tank, or always drive in 1st or 2nd gear in an automatic, or hit the accelerator instead of the brake or vice versa, we should forgive them because it's not their hobby.

      I can't blame them for not wanting to expend energy, and for wanting computes to be magic machines which do what they want without them having to say a word. But I can blame them for not being willing to learn the most basic things about using and maintaining a computer, just like they have about a car, or a house, or...

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    94. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      Except that to get to the point where you can cause irreversible damage, you need to already be firmly in the power user camp. Your example involves a commandline, something no average user really needs to see, unless they are literally pasting commands someone has sent them.

      Even once you're in a commandline, if you know what that command does -- and if you don't, you really shouldn't be running it until you do -- but if you know what it does, you know that the -f option makes it pretty obvious that it's going to cause damage to something, and you'd better double-check where you're aiming.

      In GUIs, pretty nearly universally, anything you do that's dangerous either comes with a giant "are you sure" message or three which explains exactly what it's about to do and why it's dangerous, or an "undo" feature in case it didn't do what you expected. I tend to lean towards 'undo', since it works equally well for the novice and the experienced user -- as an experienced user, I don't want to have to click through an "are you sure" dialog when I know what I'm doing, but some confirmation that I did what I thought I did is helpful. As a newbie, the "undo" button serves the same function as the "are you sure" button. Gmail does this decently well.

      And as paranoid as I may be about screwing things up, there's no way I'm going to be able to learn anything without either very explicit instruction or license to experiment.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    95. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Yes, I get that from people that have used MS Windows for fifteen fucking years and still don't know how to resize windows or launch programs from the start window. I had to tell one receptionist that she could have two MS Excel spreadsheets open at the same time - she'd been using MS Excel since nineteen fucking ninety-two.
      They just do not want to learn how to do their jobs properly and are just there to serve the time and get the paycheck.

    96. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      You have to be joking or you grew up in some retarded place.

      I went to a normal school (OK, I was in the top stream) and we covered the basics around age 14.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    97. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by qbrick · · Score: 1

      I guess, the way a lot of older folks think is, if I can't be sure of the consequences of pushing this button, because I can't deduce the function from its icon, I definately wouldn't be able to revert what I have done either. That's quite wise actually.

    98. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simple:

      Ever generation has a TON of dumb people, including mine. These dumb people don't get brighter, they just get older. If they couldn't be bothered to stop watching snookie for two seconds to pick up a newspaper, they won't bother to pay attention to the technology around them as it changes. Anyone still writing a cheque at the grocery store is a great example of someone who time has passed them by. The rest of the world has already almost moved past credit cards and debit cards and they're still writing cheques, what are they going to do when we are all using near field communication and our smart phones to pay for things?

      The End.

    99. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by XFire35 · · Score: 1

      See, the older generations grew up with computers as these big, fragile things; you couldn't fuck around too much, otherwise something might break and it would be all your fault

      My grandmother is at times quite frightened when she uses her laptop in case she 'breaks it', there have been quite a few times where she's minimised something or Windows has displayed a pop-up of some type and she's concerned to do anything in cases things go wrong.

    100. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      F**k me!! This is /. right? Where 'computer savvy' people are always telling everyone not to click everything they see lest they get malware?!

    101. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It only seems "simple" to you because you have seen phone clock interfaces before and know that you have to "add an alarm". To someone who has only used physical clocks that's a ridiculous idea. You don't add an alarm; you set it. On analog clocks you would have an extra hand that would be the physical embodiment of the alarm.

      A much more obvious thing to do would have been to use a an alarm icon (a bell is fairly well-known, a "jumping" alarm clock might be another) with a superimposed plus instead of just a plus. You might also write "Alarm" on it. That way it becomes clear that the button has something to do with alarms. A bare plus has no meaning at all.

      Or it could just have written on it "Set an alarm for a new time", translated into the user's language.

    102. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hesitation is not necessarily a bad thing. Click here to install XP antivirus.

    103. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      For instance, you can get far more simple image editing software then Photoshop, but they are less used,

      You know that for a fact , do you?

      because they complexity of the user interface enables the Photoshop to perform complex tasks accurately.

      Most tasks aren't complex. Photoshop is total overkill if you just want to crop and resize your holiday snaps, remove the red eyes from party photos etc.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    104. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So there is a clock and a plus sign.... I would be pushing both of them just to see what they would do. How hard is that? Learn by doing?

    105. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only by having excessive time to experiment does one have the ability or desire to learn
      Overly complex designs

      Desire vs needs

      Overly designed , excessive functionality, cotly roads to nowhere create complexity for all but a small percentage of
      minority of users

      So the + sign saves a subset of users some "learning" time but
      Robs others who struugle with learning and ultimately, of "usage'time..

      Not good trade off overall

    106. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      Oversimplifying an interface frequently increases it's functional complexity. Jef Raskin documented this many, many years ago, but it's amazing how many people either don't know this principle, or don't care because simple interfaces are marketable.

      I used to drive fork trucks in a warehouse, and the old machines had a series of 3 levers on the control panel for moving the forks in different directions. Each lever had one function: lift, sideways, and tilt. The interface was easy to learn, accurate, and highly efficient. Then, we got a bunch of new machines where the 3 levers were replaced with a single lever with a mode button. By pushing the button, the machine would cycle through 3 different direction modes. Not only did this make the interface much harder to learn, but it was infuriating, slow, and in my opinion, dangerous because you could only move in one direction at a time, which made it difficult to balance loads correctly. As an added bonus, the mode helpfully reset to "lift" after moving the lever in any direction, so if you pulled on the lever to tilt the pallet backwards, and then pushed on the lever to tilt it a bit forward, the machine would actually tilt the pallet backwards, and then drop the pallet onto the floor.

      Why replace excellent, clear, usable controls with a confusing, modal interface? Well, it only had one lever and one button. That's way simpler than three levers, of course.

      Every time I try to use my answering machine, pick up a TV remote control, or use a new web browser, I feel like everything is moving towards one lever. It's absolutely horrible for usability, but the focus groups insist otherwise. You don't really need a maximize button, do you? That stuff is durned scary! Let's get rid of everything, including text lables, to improve the user experience.

    107. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Customers now must constantly upgrade tech because vendors rush
      Beta models and use customers time and money to learn what they should have tested
      In private trials in rush to deploy next upgrade cycle

      Who pays for this? Customers, while a execs cash out option chcks post quarterly earnings release

      People are getting tired of techs promise to solve imagined problems
      - making consumers do most of the effort --gaining some
      Perceived value to problems that were invented in the first place!

      Wake up

    108. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't matter that it's poorly designed...it's poorly designed no matter how old the user is.

      The difference is that you, as someone in your 30's, would hit the '+' button anyways just to see what it did and would then learn how to use it whereas an older user might not, irrespective of whether it was where it should be to make it intuitive. That's the biggest difference I've noticed between my generation (I'm your age) and my parent's generation...my generation explores computers with far less fear than my people in my parents' generation. Older people seem much more likely to need instructions on how to accomplish a task when it's not immediately obvious how it's accomplished.

      My personal belief is that this comes from years of being trained not to break things. With a physical item, if you use it incorrectly, you can break it in a way that either requires money to fix or is beyond being fixable, so it's generally a good idea to read instructions or otherwise learn how to use it without using the trial and error method. Computers are generally not like that and the best way to learn them is to try things and, when the results are not what you'd expect, figure out how to undo what you've done.

    109. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by clang_jangle · · Score: 1

      Cars are a great example -- you can't buy a new car that doesn't come equipped with $10k worth of pointless passive "safety" features, because the government knows most people can't drive so we must all pay the price to shield the incompetents from the consequences of their actions.

      That's what's happening now to the internet, the powers that be are trying to make it idiot-proof and criminal-proof. That, obviously, will severely limit the utility for those of us who are responsible and know what we are doing, but most people will not care because incompetent people are selfish as only the infantile can be.

      As someone pointed out elsewhere in this discussion, this is what comes of trying to "protect" people from the "cruelty" of nature. We keep morons alive by legislating to the lowest common denominator, encourage them to breed more morons, and before you know it we've achieved idiocracy.

      OK, I think the caffeine levels are sufficient now. Time to go get 'em.

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    110. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by starfire83 · · Score: 0

      This. This is what it is. I run into this all the time with older relatives, my parents, and colleagues (even ones my own age - 27). They don't know so they don't try because they think they might break it. I try to tell them to simply use curiosity, logic, and poke around a bit. If they genuinely can't figure it out after trying they can call me.

    111. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

      Rubbish. I will admit I find Apple's clock really unintuitive from a UI design perspective. But it hasn't got anything to do with how many "phone clock interfaces" you've seen before.
      It's just th basics of a digital GUI: There are buttons to press, and pressing them will usually bring up more information. With this simple behavior I can use all sorts of small apps that I've never seen before.

    112. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by MDillenbeck · · Score: 1

      Respectfully, I am going to have to disagree with you concerning problems with UIs being unsolvable - but I am familiar with the video you linked to and it is one of my favorites. The line at the end of the video - "Oh, we hadn't though about that." - highlights the key problem: traditionally, interface design and computer interaction was done by engineers and programmers.

      However, over the past 10-15 years, there has been a growing trend in Human Computer Interface (HCI) design (also known by several other acronyms). A variety of tools have been developed by incorporating multidisciplinary approaches - contextual interviews within the workplace to gain better understanding of how existing systems are used, usability evaluation to see how well a particular user can accomplish a specific task, cognitive modelling to evaluate the efficiency of the interface for a non-error generating expert user (not exactly the best model to use, especially since it reduces the user to a computer-like automaton), design ethnographies or cultural probes to gain insight into the values and needs of the users, experience prototyping to observe reactions of the user, and incorporation of low fidelity prototyping (such as paper prototyping) in tandem with large-volume ideation and testing at the earliest stages of computer interface development. These draw on sociology, cognitive psychology, industrial engineering, art and design, and computer science (of course).

      In the video, we saw an engineer make assumptions of what a user would know how to do - in HCI design, those assumptions are not made. Instead, they are based on data gathered through the various tools mentioned above. Modelling draws out what breakdowns exist in current or proposed systems, and these can be corrected before any code is hacked.

      As to diminishing returns - there I do agree. You cannot make an interface that will work with 100% of the users. This is why there is a slogan "there's an app for that" - the goal is not to make a single alarm clock app for your smartphone (although all the manufacturers seem to be trying to do that right now) - the goal is to have a set of alarm clock applications to choose from based on your target market. So instead of differentiating your smartphone by the hardware, you might be better off differentiating it by bundled default applications - maybe a "silver" edition has larger fonts and more explicit/verbal cues in the interface, while the "net shell" model might have more utilities for someone familiar with SSH, telnet, and a preference for CLIs over GUIs. You could have a "big hands" and "small hands" model that has the interface tweaked for different finger thickness, and another model dedicated to a younger crowd that has an entirely different way of interfacing. You make it so these apps are available to all phones, but only vary what is preloaded so you don't try to make the "one size fits all" design.

    113. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is exactly what I see with my parents. When they ask me how to do something, my answer is usually "I don't know, let me figure it out", or if it's on the phone, it usually goes something like this "Try clicking that button, what? no? Ok now try clicking that button, that did something good? Ok". Then they say, "well I thought it was that but I was worried to press it".

      They always worry that they will break something, but that is really hard to do. I told them they they can learn just by playing around with it, and that the only time they need to really stop and think is if there is a pop up message asking them if they are sure they want to delete something. Like you said, it is really hard to really break something bad.

      As a side note, the only thing that worries me is that it might make them more vulnerable to malware...

    114. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What new users are you talking about? Children don't seem to have a problem. All the old people who ask me dumb questions have been using computers, badly, for ten years or more.

    115. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      What country are you from? In the US, calculus is largely regarded as college-level work. Advanced Placement courses might see basic calculus in high school; you almost never see it even then before 11th grade (16 to 17 years old).

    116. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your POV is classic "I already understand it, so it's simple" type thinking. Nearly everyone uses this as a reason to keep things the way THEY like them. This is the POV we're essentially born with- "works for me!".

      You see this kind of fallacy- and that's what it is, fallacious thinking- everywhere. It serves the needs of people who don't have the skill or the inclination to make themselves clear to people who are not them. I suffered through 4 years of this kind of thing from my profs. Don't understand what I just said? It must be you (even if what I just said makes no sense). Ditto the computer geeks I work with now- I'll explain this is whatever words pop into my head and since I know what I mwant, you should to;

      If you ask me, not being able to to take on another POV is a form of being stupid.

    117. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      70 years ago was 1941. Things like atoms were only suspected. (the atom bomb is less than 70 years old.)

      Um, no. The modern conception of the atom (but not its internal structure) was well-known by the middle of the nineteenth century, having been first propounded by John Dalton in 1808. The internal structure of electrons, neutrons and protons was first sketched out by Rutherford in 1911, refined by Bohr in 1913 and improved to the current quantum model by Pauli and Schroedinger in 1925-1926. The atom bomb dates back to only 1945 but was the result of years of work, and the basic theory grounding it pre-dates it by decades.

    118. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe because the things crash, or make the lose control of what they want to do. Look at the broken WWW, click this link: site with popup or popunder or intersitial crap. Click that link: now the system is infected with malware. Now, onto the phones--Launch this app, app crash. Launch that app, application not responding.

      Yeah, okay, a lot does work but it's due to bad practices of releasing software early and patching later that is responsible for that, along with software that tries to control the user instead of the user controlling the software. If they do something wrong, the entire system is not robust enough so it breaks. Now they are afraid of breaking it again.

    119. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As I have got older. I used to think like you. But you know what I know there will be something new and shiny in a few months. But you know what? I do not fiddle with the settings much anymore. I really do not care anymore about it. Oh my desktops used to be tricked out. Every setting tweaked rotating backdrops, custom toolbars, etc... Now pretty standard. Its not that I am intimidated by it. I am irritated by it. Why should I have to tweak things to make it 'act like I want'. I dont give a flying f on the interface to get to the stuff I want. Which is the content...

      Every new OS comes and *many* of the settings are moved around or renamed. Is it better? Well I wouldnt say its better or worse. Just different. So in that effect it is a pain in the ass.

      Also as I age I notice I do not have the capacity to instantly remember a 30 step guide anymore. So yeah it needs to be written down. You will see this as you age too. It is part of getting older.

      On a side note is trying to show someone who has never used a program before is the worst. They expect you to know all the steps for some program you might have fiddled with 5 years ago. This has taught me over the years that people are impatient with computers. Anything that takes more than 30 seconds is 'wasting their time'. So they want a step by step guide. As they do not want to learn everything. They just 'want do this this one thing and THATS it'.

      But as I tell people I work with (and I do quite a bit of gui work) if you need a tutorial you failed. Let me tell you there are a *LOT* of bad gui's out there. Even ones people consider 'good'. Go throw in a 'new'/'renamed' thing and you mess up a lot of people. People who do not give a crap about how it works and just want to watch a movie.

    120. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > modern UIs are generally decent

      If they were, we would've have so many people (old AND young) who have problems with them...

      UI design is hard, and all too often badly done. It's crazy the number of interfaces that don't respect even the most BASIC UI design principles that were sometimes known before computers! (usability does not deal with computers only)

    121. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of the Fifth Element scene with the weapons dealer:

      Dealer's Associate: (walking away): "Did you tell them about the Red Button?"

      CUT TO:

      Customer Alien: "What's this Red Button for?" -- PUSH

      (Offscreen) BOOM!

      Some of us aren't just Old Farts, actually, we've seen the movie and know how it ends!

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    122. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by quacking+duck · · Score: 1

      It's just that I always associate the "+" symbol with "add"... which is fair, considering everyone in gradeschool knows that when you have a "+", it means "add".

      Don't worry, the Texas board of education is working to fix that.

    123. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Jonathan_S · · Score: 1

      It could be any number of things. It's only intuitive because you know how to use iOS, much like the iOS on/off sliders. Why not just have the word "Add..." on that button? You've got "Edit" on the left, after all. Really an odd paradigm switch, from text to symbols.

      For what it's worth, that picture only has the 'Edit' button because the user's already set one alarm. (The one for 5:02 am that is currently set to 'on'.)

      If no alarms are set you open the clock, clight on the alarm clock icon at the bottom of the screen (labeled 'alarm') and get a screen with only the '+' button on the top and some text in the middle saying "No Alarms".

      Since the only buttons on the screen are to change back to clock view, stopwatch, timer (all labeled icons) and '+', I think you, at least, would try the '+' button.

    124. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by egorF · · Score: 1

      You mean MSDOS? It worked in a real mode where all the memory is yours and you can trash it all the way you want - noone cares as there are no other applications running. Hence no crashes.

    125. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Well goddamn it, I'm undoing all of my mod points to post this, but your comment was too infuriating to pass up.

      When you go to a screen titled "Alarms" (yes, it has an 's' as in PLURAL) and you see a blank list and in the corner, the only thing on the screen is a +, how the HELL is it not obvious that you should probably push that to add something to that list of alarms? Did you not take first grade where they taught you that 1 + 1 = 2? This is NOT a matter of "complex design" (though amusingly, I get WAY more technologically incompetent people asking me how to use an iPhone than an Android phone), it's a matter of you not using common sense.

      You're right though - not all old people are dumb - it's just that many of them refuse to use any common sense or put more than .000001 seconds of thought and energy into something. My grandpa is 93 and started using computers when he was in his mid-sixties. He wasn't a tech person, he was a mechanic and then later on a minister. He used some common sense and put some time into learning and now he can do pretty much anything he wants. My other grandparents on the other hand are much younger yet can't figure out how to use a mouse even because they won't put the two seconds of effort into learning how to use it.

      I'm sorry, but any person on here saying "How should I know + means "add"?" should be smacked upside the head. What the hell do you think a plus sign means, in any application? Even in a goddamn calculator it still means ADD (or if you prefer the long version, ADDITION).

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    126. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      Cars are a great example -- you can't buy a new car that doesn't come equipped with $10k worth of pointless passive "safety" features, because the government knows most people can't drive so we must all pay the price to shield the incompetents from the consequences of their actions.

      If you're talking about things like airbags, those aren't just to protect people who can't drive, it's also to protect you from other people who can't drive. Not every accident you're in is your fault.

      I don't disagree here, though:

      That's what's happening now to the internet, the powers that be are trying to make it idiot-proof and criminal-proof.

      That's not really possible to do and have it in any way resemble the Internet that was so revolutionary, disruptive, and useful to begin with.

      I am curious which part you're talking about, though. The anti-phishing stuff is relatively harmless, for example. The idea that DPI for broad-scale monitoring and censorship is OK to protect us from child porn is terrifying.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    127. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      If they were, we would've have so many people (old AND young) who have problems with them...

      It couldn't possibly be the people that are the problem, could it?

      It's crazy the number of interfaces that don't respect even the most BASIC UI design principles that were sometimes known before computers!

      Sure, that's why I said "decent" and not "good." But I mean "decent" as in, while it's a skill that might be beyond most people, I'd imagine most Slashdotters can pick up most new GUIs in a matter of minutes, just by poking at different pieces to see what they do.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    128. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Multiple alarms are very useful to most people. If you want your alarm set for work Monday through Friday, you set an alarm for that. If you want another one for waking you up later on Saturday, set one for that. If you want one for waking your up for church or something on Sunday, set one for that - then you can forget about it and it'll always go off when it's supposed to every day.

      It's quite amusing how the Slashdot community likes to think of themselves as SO brilliant and superior and yet I'm seeing about 98% of the posts are people crying that they can't figure out how to set an alarm on a damn phone by using a little common sense and hitting the + button.

      I think anyone who can't figure out that + means "add" (same as it always has since first grade when you learned basic addition) should have their voting rights revoked. If you can't figure out something THAT simple, how the hell can you make an intelligent decision when it comes to electing politicians?

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    129. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by clang_jangle · · Score: 1

      I am curious which part you're talking about, though. The anti-phishing stuff is relatively harmless, for example. The idea that DPI for broad-scale monitoring and censorship is OK to protect us from child porn is terrifying.

      Yes, exactly what I mean. The tracking and eavesdropping and DPI and warrantless seizures to "protect" us all from the bad guys is going to be what turns it into just another corporate/government outlet, like cable TV or FM radio. We're already seeing the foundation laid for going from a wide-open www to a glorified version of AOL (or compuserve, minitel, etc), but with added "enforcement" and "protection" features. The worst of all possible worlds, IMO.

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    130. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by folderol · · Score: 1

      Looked pretty straightforward to me - much simpler than my 20 year old digital clock, and I'm not too far off 0x40.

    131. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by stewbacca · · Score: 2

      It's intuitive because Apple development standards use the + symbol consistently. Once you learn it once, it applies forever.

    132. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      You teach the old person that an iPhone can have several alarms set, then they can pick which one they want to use. In that instance, you are "adding" an alarm. I'm almost 50 and this isn't that difficult.

    133. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      I've always thought of it this way. A lot of people where pretty dumb when they were young, and now they are just old. My grandfather is 82, a retired Columbia law school professor, and a genius, regardless of his age. He doesn't use his age to prevent him from learning the tech he needs.

    134. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      ah but language changes drastically every 10-20 years

      Old people can't acquire new language?

    135. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by RogerWilco · · Score: 1

      It's just that there is only one button with no clear function labelled with [+]. A younger person presented with an interface with one button, even if not clear what it does, will simply push it to find out. An older person will probably ignore the unclear button and get stuck.

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
    136. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by RogerWilco · · Score: 1

      TL;DR If you can't use this, however old you may be,

      Where users often fail, not just older ones, is in the step. This diagram doesn't work if people are afraid to "break something".

      In part it is because in older mechanical tools, incorrect usage would break things. So people who grew up with tools like that are much more hesitant to go exploring at random.

      The other thing is that if you really have no experience with computers, then going exploring at random will cause things to break, because there are so many foreign concepts to master. Just the basics like a file system, with folders and disks and files are already quite an advanced concept.

      But it's still quite easy to click on random stuff and make your documents disappear. People with little experience with computers will do these things as they will misinterpret basic things that the UI is trying to communicate to them. And we often don't have enough difference between the amount of warning you get when doing "really dangerous" stuff, and "less dangerous" things.

      Changing the resolution, refresh rate or colour depth of the display would come with very serious warnings, while it would work fine in 99.9% of cases. And resolution, refresh rate and colour depth are already very advanced concepts to begin with. Things like that baffle most people, and gives them a sense that they could break things and should probably stay clear of tampering with things they don't fully understand.

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
    137. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by RogerWilco · · Score: 1

      certainly not a scheduler. Now I have two sets of alarms that ring on weekdays, one set of gentle tones and one really nasty "get up NOW" alarm. More complex? Yes. Better? Yes.

      It's not better if all you need is one alarm. Or if you were trained on mechanical devices that only had one alarm due to their mechanical limits.

      A lot is about managing expectations. And old people come with a different set of expectations than young people. If you are expecting a device to only have one alarm, and you can change it's time and turn it on/off, then the concept of having an unlimited list of alarms, with different properties, and that you can add/remove alarms is just not going to occur to you if there are not enough UI interface elements to help. I have to agree that the iPhone alarm interface is too much geared towards people who already have experience with devices that support "lists of alarms".

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
    138. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by RogerWilco · · Score: 1

      There are not really more words in the actively used language today, but different ones. Sure the total vocabulary of a language continually grows, but the active vocabulary is mostly constant. A lot of words also fall into disuse.

      I'm not a native English speaker, and one of my most funny moments was when I was driving though the country side with some Canadian friends, and pointed out a man using a scythe. This was a word they hadn't heard before and didn't know what it was. They even argued that it was not an English word and as a foreigner I was mixing things up. Until I asked them to tell me the word for the tool the Grim Reaper is wielding. They didn't know and I could convince them this was called a scythe and it was a valid English word.

      My anecdote is to illustrate that there are many words like scythe, that a lot of young people will not know, but older people will.

      Even fewer will know how to use one. This illustrates another important thing. Old tools could often make you lose a limb if used incorrectly. Therefore older people are much more hesitant to randomly try things, if they don't know and haven't been instructed on proper use.

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
    139. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by RogerWilco · · Score: 1

      I think UIs are all about managing expectation. They work if they show what the user expects. The problem comes with different users expecting different things.

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
    140. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by RogerWilco · · Score: 1

      I think the key word is expected. People have trouble with UIs if they don't do what they expect.

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
    141. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by RogerWilco · · Score: 1

      Because they're (relatively) cheap. Cheap things used to be simple.

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
    142. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by RogerWilco · · Score: 1

      I think your rm example shows exactly what the problem is. The line between relatively harmless and very destructive is often very thin and crossing it, doesn't give a lot more warnings all of a sudden. rm /* should give some kind of warning like: "this will remove important system files and make the systems inoperative, are you sure you want to continue?", while the rm ~/* should not.

      But older tools, like rm, don't have that level of sophistication, so make it too easy to break things without realising you're going to do something wrong.

      The least useful warning is "are you sure? [y/n]"

      The problem is that there is no clear sandbox. No demarcation between what is and is not dangerous to meddle with. The only other complex system most people know is a car. And there the distinction is clear. What's on the dashboard is ok, what's under the hood should only be messed with by an expert.

      The problem with computers is that the dashboard includes things that can make you lose files or create other problems.
      Next to that, it contains a lot of concepts that are not very obvious and confuse people easily.

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
    143. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Like I said, it's intuitive once you know how to use iOS.

    144. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by RogerWilco · · Score: 1

      What I also notice, is that it often has to do with the frequency at which we use things. A lot of things I use at least once a month, my mom uses once every 2-3 years. By then she has forgotten what she did last time and has to relearn.

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
    145. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Draek · · Score: 1

      And for that the only possible solution is for them to pick up a manual and read it from cover to cover. Or just assume they'll break up things eventually and take the appropiate measures (ask their savvy nephew to back up the data, for instance), either way there's nothing the programmer can do to solve the situation.

      As the phrase goes, you can't make something completely idiot-proof because when you think you've done it, the Universe goes and throws a better idiot at you. Sure, sure, it's ignorance and not idiocy but the principle is the same: there'll *always* be a way to mess something up, there'll *always* be someone for whom that isn't obvious at first, and so there'll *always* be someone screwing things up by accident and perpetuating the image of computers as "magical, dangerous devices". You can't change that, so you may as well take it as an universal law or whatever rather than a "problem" per se, because it being a problem implies it could be solved given enough ingenuity, and it very much can't.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    146. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Draek · · Score: 1

      Probably because you're maintaining the assumption of old analog clocks of one alarm per clock.

      Another poster showed screenshots of the dialogs in question, take a look at them and see if you can think of a better, more intuitive design for a device that can have more than one alarm and turn them on/off on an individual basis.

      As much as I generally despise Apple, not only I can't think of a way to improve their design now, the UI it originally ocurred to me when hearing upon the problem was markedly worse.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    147. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by RogerWilco · · Score: 1

      Because in the Dutch version it would have to be labelled "Toevoegen", in other languages maybe even longer words. As soon as you use a word instead of a symbol, you get into all kinds of nasty internationalization issues.

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
    148. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by RogerWilco · · Score: 1

      And so the problem in the article is that the users haven't learned the function of this element yet. That and they are expecting an alarm that needs setting, not a list of calendar type events. So they aren't looking for something to "Add a new event", but want to "change the alarm".

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
    149. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Draek · · Score: 1

      Alarms themselves are neither necessary nor, for the vast majority of users, useful. But some people do need them and some of them *also* need more than one, so I can't see why we should just aim to please one group but not the other.

      And for the record, I don't own any iToy whatsoever and I haven't used an alarm in at least a decade, not even a physical one let alone my freaking cellphone.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    150. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by digitig · · Score: 1

      Probably because you're maintaining the assumption of old analog clocks of one alarm per clock.

      No I'm not. Tap the clock on my phone and it lets me set multiple alarms, and enable or disable existing alarms. The real problem is not the plus sign, it's the "it's not easy to get back again" if you do the wrong thing, which is pretty near always bad design.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    151. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by RogerWilco · · Score: 1

      The problem with interfaces in Plain Fucking English is, that most of the world can't read it. So as soon as you go from symbols to words, you need to know the language of the person looking at the screen. Next to that internationalization brings all kinds of issues, as words with the same meaning have different length in other languages. This means that your UI elements either need to be big enough for the largest possible variant, or need to change size dynamically.
      Both options are a pain on a computer screen, even more on a smaller device like an MP3 player or smartphone.

      Plain Fucking English would work if our screens were much bigger.

      So Plain Fucking English isn't as easy as you might think. That an iPod doens't work without iTunes inexcusable though. But it would be an empty iPod, with no music on it.

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
    152. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I don't get it. Why is there a cross near the clock?

    153. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      Multiple alarms are very useful to most people. If you want your alarm set for work Monday through Friday, you set an alarm for that. If you want another one for waking you up later on Saturday, set one for that.

      Until your alarm goes off early on Memorial Day.

      On the other hand, adults who have been dealing with alarm clocks for 30 years or more ask the same question every night: "What time do I need to get up tomorrow morning?"

      That's how a basic alarm clock works. It does not make me consider what time I need to get up twelve Tuesdays from now. That's an overly complicated question to ask someone who just wants to use the device as a fscking alarm clock.

      If you want something with multiple alarms, fine, just don't use the alarm clock metaphor for it. It's fundamentally broken design to use a metaphier fundamentally different from the metaphrand.

      I think anyone who can't figure out that + means "add" (same as it always has since first grade when you learned basic addition) ...

      So the + on a Google Maps page means add a map? And that "Alice + Bob" in a heart graffiti means add Alice to Bob? And the red + on a first aid kit means add the kit to something?

      + can mean plus, and, increase, zoom in,more information (such as expanding a collapsed tree view), use an international dialing prefix...it is a highly overloaded symbol.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    154. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      It's intuitive because it's easy to figure it out. My 2 year old can use my iPhone because the interface allows for easy trial and error, building on consistent methodologies, leading to an intuitive interface.

    155. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, not every device follows the same standards. Some other device will have say "Add" and another will say "New Alarm" and another will have a picture of an alarm clock ringing. If people aren't using all these devices every day, they forget which nomenclature a device uses.

    156. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Provocateur · · Score: 1

      Or, in my case, I thought, well I *like* the sound of this alarm, do I need a different WAV or another chime.wav file with a futuristic sound to it?

      --
      WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
    157. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by datsa · · Score: 1
      15 years ago (not so long ago if you're 60), you had to worry about protecting your extremely fragile floppies (which were the main form of backup then). Technology is much more robust now, but plenty of people have legitimately been burned in the past.

      Also, you have training and experience what NOT to click that you're taking for granted.

    158. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Until your alarm goes off early on Memorial Day

      That's why there's this nifty feature where you can *GASP!* turn it off if you have a holiday. Shocking, isn't it? Who knew technology had advanced so far that you could turn off a repeating alarm?

      That's how a basic alarm clock works. It does not make me consider what time I need to get up twelve Tuesdays from now. That's an overly complicated question to ask someone who just wants to use the device as a fscking alarm clock.

      Neither does any phone alarm clock. It merely allows you the option of setting it to repeat on a certain schedule if you want it to. But your limited intelligence can't grasp that, just how it can't grasp that when there's only one goddamn button on the screen (a plus sign) that you should hit that button to add an alarm.

      + can mean plus, and, increase, zoom in,more information (such as expanding a collapsed tree view), use an international dialing prefix...it is a highly overloaded symbol.

      So what you're saying is that you're too stupid to grasp the concept of context. I'm sorry that you flunked out of elementary school and that you can't grasp that certain words / symbols have different meanings in different contexts - or that most of those have a default definition unless certain contexts are applied. Once again, this is not a design failure or an OS failure - this is a genetic failure on the part of the incompetent user who lacks the intelligence to operate anything more complicated than crayons.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    159. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 2

      I can't tell you how many times I have heard a beginner told that "you can't break something", and in 5 minutes they have. And by break, I mean make a change that only an expert user can undo.

      The inevitable response from the expert is "well, I didn't expect you to do that!"

    160. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      UK. Or rather England, Scotland has a rather, umm, different education system. Things like integration by parts, volumes of rotation, product rule are certainly taught at high school, given that I (vaguely) remember them and I didn't do maths at college level.

      That implies that the basics - integration/differentiation of simple functions like polynomials, and maybe trigonometric functions, is covered earlier, i.e GCSE, i.e below 16.

      He did say "not exposed to it until", which implies first contact.

      If you're being introduced to calculus at college I sincerely hope you're studying poetry or basket weaving.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    161. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by CtownNighrider · · Score: 1

      The screen in question isn't the entire clock app. It is a specific screen that is only for alarms. Here's how it works, you click the clock to go into the clock app, then you click the alarm key that brings you to the screen they're talking about. It is a list of alarms you have, at first its an empty list. on the top it says alarm in the middle with edit on the left and the plus sign on the right. If I didn't know how to add an alarm i would try each button and see which works. You're main complaint that an older person wouldn't know that the plus dealt with alarms doesn't make sense.

    162. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are unsolvable because the problem is not the UIs, it s the users; most people do not want to learn anything new or put any effort into understanding how things work. it used to be about age, because of fear of the new and stuff like that, now it s pandemic. it s like everyone turns into a woman when dealing with applications: users expect the app to read their thoughts, understand their wills and feelings, and fulfill their needs.
      This not to say one should not put any effort in developing better UIs, but that the more UIs get intuitive the more users get spoiled and dumb, and the complaining will never stop.

    163. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      The line between relatively harmless and very destructive is often very thin and crossing it, doesn't give a lot more warnings all of a sudden

      The line was really thick actually. To even get there, you had to drive to the store, buy a Linux book, read a few chapters of it, open the console, learn what command-lines and arguments are, how to type them in... an end-user doesn't "accidentally" type rm -rf *

      The command-line does not relate to this discussion. Elderly people do not use the command-line.

    164. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Quirkz · · Score: 1
      Yep, the description from the summary was confusing, and from what it said I thought I'd have issues with the interface. Then I opened the iPhone, looked at the blank screen with exactly one button to push anywhere in the window (that + button, directly next to the word 'alarms') and it seemed obvious that's the only thing you'd click.

      This may have been a bad example, though, as other iPhone screens have really confused me, despite my being pretty technical. For instance, trying to figure out how to remove unwanted contacts from the Messages screen is downright unintuitive. (Hint: if you click on the contact, it takes you to a page where all you can do is contact them. You have to be at the main messages page and then click edit, which you'd think might have something to do with editing a message, at which point all the contacts are given delete icons. I'd call this astoundingly confusing.) Or the camera settings, where many options are hidden by default (zoom) or disappear quickly (next/back/trash options in the photo roll) until you start tapping the main screen. I find that unintuitive, because I know tapping things is generally a select/point/act motion, and not a "pull up the menu" option. The zoom is particularly tough, because tapping the screen actually does change the camera's focus, while also turning on the zoom slider. If I don't want to change the focal point, I resist clicking, and I have to override that logic (or tell myself to tap again on what's already the focal point) to pull up the zoom slider.

      Those things are genuinely confusing to me. The clock alarm, though? It's the only button on the screen, and not confusing.

    165. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      That may be true for some people, but as the son of a farmer and the grandson of a farmer, I can assure you that there are a lot of people from those generations for whom this argument is completely non-applicable. Farm equipment that's broken needs to be fixed, often immediately, and there's nobody else to fix it by you. "I can't touch that, I might lose a finger" doesn't factor in. The only answer is "I've got to poke it until I get it working again."

    166. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      Actually, the + button is directly next to the word 'alarm" -- just like you'd want it. On an otherwise blank page, with nothing else to click. The summary makes this out much worse than it is.

    167. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      That is an iOS design choice, everything in the OS is designed that way.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    168. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Young people grew up with Google, how hard is it to type into almighty Google "set alarm iPhone". As a support tech, I see this every day, people don't think to type error messages into Google, that just couldn't possibly work. Whereas the younger generation grew up with Google, the older generation would use communication to find things out.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    169. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by laurelraven · · Score: 1

      It's only intuitive because you know how to use iOS

      Huh. I've never used iOS before, and by looking at that, I would assume pressing the + would add an alarm...but, no; it's only intuitive to people who've gotten used to the obviously backwards iOS that everyone complains has a difficult to understand user interface /sarcasm

      --
      RTFA is Known to the State of California to cause cancer.
    170. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by laurelraven · · Score: 1

      Old tools could often make you lose a limb if used incorrectly. Therefore older people are much more hesitant to randomly try things, if they don't know and haven't been instructed on proper use.

      I'm honestly at a loss here...we're saying it's a natural fear to cause serious bodily harm to oneself by a small electronic device such as a phone, which people poke and prod all day without any prior knowledge, because of experience with dangerous and dangerous looking, very large, sharp tools?

      I'm not trying to troll you here; that's just what it sounds like to me, and I honestly can't get behind that idea. I'm not saying it isn't correct, at its heart...just that I can't excuse that attitude for that reason.

      I'll buy, however, that there are still scary warnings all over the place (at least on the computer), and we techs are telling people NOT to just randomly click on things. So, we're confusing to ordinary, non-tech people: on the one hand, we call them stupid for clicking on everything, and when they stop clicking on things they don't understand, we call them stupid for not being able to figure it out. IT arrogance, in my opinion, is largely to blame for this attitude...people give up trying after being put down enough. So, without tech training to explain how all these various technologies work and work together, how do we teach people (older and younger alike) when it is okay to explore by clicking on things, and when it is not?

      --
      RTFA is Known to the State of California to cause cancer.
    171. Re:Unnecessarily complex? by bmxeroh · · Score: 1

      Ah Myst, the good old days of it taking 40 minutes to find anything in a new area. However, It would be more Myst like if there was a random collection of things of which only a few were clickable, and you had to click on it perfectly or else it didn't count.

      --
      Central Ohio Home Theater Installation - The Theater People
  2. Wait, so.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People don't understand that the plus sign stands for add?

    1. Re:Wait, so.. by X0563511 · · Score: 2

      .. and even if they didn't, they didn't even TRY the only other option, after finding the first did not work?

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    2. Re:Wait, so.. by Arcquist · · Score: 2

      I think this is where part of the disconnect is. I think younger users are comfortable with the fact that it's unlikely they're going to 'break' the device or get hurt if they just start randomly pushing buttons to see what they do. For many older users not used to computers doing random things was historically a good way to break things or hurt yourself so they're very hesitant to do so. When explaining things to older users I usually start with telling them there is really nothing they can do to break it and when in doubt just start trying random buttons to see what they do. Note I realize you can accidentally delete data and such but if they haven't been using a device before there really isn't anything on there to delete. If they truly manage to muck it up you can just reset it to defaults and they can start again with very little loss. These users aren't usually creating tons of content they just want to do simple things.

    3. Re:Wait, so.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why would they think that setting an alarm has anything to do with a mathematical operation? I think you're simply used to a specific GUI paradigm.

    4. Re:Wait, so.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never seen this iPhone clock, but no - I would not assume that it means ADD ALARM in that context. I would assume it meant ADD TIME (like the + on a real alarm clock that advances the hours). It is stupid to redefine that for no reason. If I already have some alarms set is there a minus (-) there too? That would probably be even worse as it would indicate that + and - were definitely for setting the clock.

    5. Re:Wait, so.. by Isaac-1 · · Score: 1

      I hate to admit it, but I think I may be getting old, I bought my first Android phone recently and still don't know how to do some seemingly simple stuff, I know it can be done as I have done some of it on accident, but no idea how, like getting icon views of all the application screens at once.

    6. Re:Wait, so.. by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      It sounds like they don't know that "add" includes "set."

      Granddaddy used to drive his car to the store, and couldn't understand that certifying a request to schedule an airshuttle pickup was just a simpler way of accomplishing the same goal. Old people are so stupid!

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    7. Re:Wait, so.. by The+Dawn+Of+Time · · Score: 1

      The summary describes a screen that does not exist in the iPhone alarm clock app, and the "+" button (not icon) is pretty clear in context, being right next to the word "Alarms" like it is.

    8. Re:Wait, so.. by hjf · · Score: 2

      In spanish, no. We use the word "agregar", as in "agregar una alarma" (add an alarm), but "sumar" as in "sumar 4 y 5" (add 4 and 5). Both are synonyms, but according to the context, we use one or the other.

      So no, a clock next to a plus sign doesn't really tell me much.

    9. Re:Wait, so.. by Xtravar · · Score: 1

      I was curious so I just checked this out.
      There are multiple tabs: World Clock, Alarm, Stopwatch, Timer.
      At the top of World Clock and Alarm, you have Edit and Add.
      Underneath, you have rows of clocks and alarms in each respective tab.

      So you actually add a clock in the world clock tab and add an alarm in the alarm tab. TFA is wrong or misleading.
      This makes sense because Cupertino is a default clock listed there, and obviously that is not my city. So I can watch the time of multiple cities. The presentation is pretty clear. Or not.

      --
      Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
    10. Re:Wait, so.. by chronokitsune3233 · · Score: 1

      That's a problem with the Spanish language... Just kidding. There is a difference between simple in theoretical usage and simple in actual usage, the latter being "intuitive." Obviously this is one example of simple in the theoretical. Let's face it: if many people don't know what it is, they will explore just to figure it out. If someone doesn't know and won't experiment, it is probably due to the fear of the unknown. This is a result of being unable to separate "safe exploration" with "unsafe exploration" in my opinion. For example, you might try microwaving some sort of food that is meant to be put in an oven to see if it'll cook faster or whatever. However, if you hear a strange noise in your home, you most likely wouldn't go exploring without some means of protection. The phone offers no protection from the unknown, a problem for those who need some sort of security guarantee that the phone won't suddenly go bad or take you completely away from where you want to go.

      --
      I have been a captive in America my entire life. Everybody and everything uses customary units instead of metric.
    11. Re:Wait, so.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you would be an idiot and/or an old person (TFS implies they're indistinguishable). One doesn't assume functionality, one RTFMs. If there is no FM and the program is not self-documenting (e.g. tooltips, context-sensitive help), then one purges it from one's system and goes on a nerdrage-fueled vendetta against the author, or at least posts a strongly-worded usenet flame.

      Then again, if you're using an iPhone, where from what I've seen most apps rely on icons scrutable only to the author, and AFAIK there is no standard location for installing user-readable docs (manpages, html or otherwise), and no standard self-documenting capabilities, I guess an uncharitable person might suggest that you deserve crappy alarm clock apps, and the author of them deserves whatever sort of rampage/tirade you can muster, so it's all good.

    12. Re:Wait, so.. by hjf · · Score: 1

      I don't think so. The problem is that the iPhone is "designed in California", by elitist industrial and UI designer. I have an Android phone. Do you know how to add an alarm? Click on the Bell button (that has "Alarm" text below it) and then the big fat button that *says* "Add an alarm".

      I'm used to europeans cars too. They have no text, just icons, and it's silly. It's weird for me to sit in an american car, where all buttons are labeled with text (and it makes so much more sense). With cars you're basically forced to read the manual, because some of the symbols are really abstract. Others are really "culture specific", like the blue snowflake that means "turn on the air conditioner". I learned that "kinda because" it was near the fan controls, so I figured red=hot, blue=cold. But I had no idea what a snowflake was. Where I live we don't get snow, so the "asterisk thingy", by itself, doesn't mean anything to me. I've never seen a snowflake, and neither have most of the people in my country.

    13. Re:Wait, so.. by sgbett · · Score: 1

      In English, we use the word 'add', as in "add an alarm", but "plus" as in "4 plus 5".

      Its not unreasonable to expect that words and symbols that are synonymous can be interchangeable in an abstract interface.

      Plus and Minus, Add and Remove, Create and Delete... they are all the same, with computers you have to learn this approximately *once* then you are set.

      The problem lies in the fact that people don't seem to learn, they just make the same mistakes, over, and over, and over...

      --
      Invaders must die
    14. Re:Wait, so.. by Mitchell314 · · Score: 1

      Rule #1 of computing: If you don't know how to do something, punt caution to the wind with steel-toed boots and randomly do stuff. You'd be surprised how many tech-savy peeps get most of their knowledge from mucking about with stuff they didn't initially know.

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    15. Re:Wait, so.. by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 1

      I think the problem has more to do with abstractions that people develop over their lifetimes. Recently there was an article on BBC about an Amazonian tribe that has concept of events happening in sequence but no abstract concept of time. Here we have people who grew up with clocks that could only have one alarm set, so for them clock = alarm (alarm clock). An abstract concept of an alarm and many instances of which that can be added to an existing clock is unknown and confusing to them.

      --
      US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
    16. Re:Wait, so.. by Isaac-1 · · Score: 1

      That is the exact problem with gesture based computing, trying to repeat that accidental slide thump to the upper left that got you the cool feature..

    17. Re:Wait, so.. by sgbett · · Score: 1

      That makes perfect sense. My train of thought is, how can you possibly set an alarm unless you first *have* an alarm! I guess it's the assumption that you already have an alarm that might be the problem.

      It remind me of when vcr's came out, and parents everywhere relied on their kids to set them. Then they invented video plus, total wtf to anyone who could operate a video... and yet...

      --
      Invaders must die
    18. Re:Wait, so.. by sgbett · · Score: 1

      "I have an Android phone."

      Ahh, that explains it then.

      Seriously though, you don't know what snow is? That's just silly. We don't suffer from hurricanes in the uk, but if some product - used a stylised hirrican icon to indicate something was really windy, I dont think it would b particularly hard to figure out...

      The thing is you have to set a bar for minimum expectations, usually the bar is set pretty low. People really need to have a think about how it reflects on them when they claim the bar isn't low enough.

      --
      Invaders must die
    19. Re:Wait, so.. by hjf · · Score: 1

      Yes. Snow is that white thing that appears in christmas postcards, all over the floor and houses. It doesn't look anything like a snowflake.

      Oh, you mean that snow is actually made of billions of those little asterisk looking thingies? I always thought it was just little white balls that fell from the sky.

      See? Where do you draw the line for "Minimum expectations"? MOST of the world doesn't get any snow - only high latitudes and mountain areas. Billions of people have never seen snow in real life. That's why I picked that particular example.

    20. Re:Wait, so.. by sgbett · · Score: 1

      Billions of people don't drive european cars. I'm going to put it out there that in most european countries, (ie the main market for european cars) there is a broadly similar level of education. That education will include - right round the age of 6 or 7 (so it can hardly be a difficult concept) some information about weather. Are you telling me honestly that the spanish curriculum doesn't include anything about snowflakes. See I was under the impression it was a staple of any sound science curriculum. If it isnt you guys are missing out, snowflakes are pretty interesting subject matter.

      --
      Invaders must die
    21. Re:Wait, so.. by hjf · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't know about the "spanish" curriculum, that would be from Spain, and I'm in Argentina. I don't remember studying snowflakes in elementary or high school.

      Not really sure about how schools in the UK are. Here, schools don't usually have labs (except maybe a computer lab), they have a tiny library, and the rest is just classrooms. Didactic material is subject to a child's imagination, except the huge geometry set the teacher has (my mom had to buy her own, to teach), and a world OR the country's map. No projectors, slides, videos, animals, etc.

      South america is a big market for European cars. If you take a look, all you will see will be VW, FIAT, Renault, Citroen, etc. And the European versions of Ford and Chevrolet. NO american cars here, except rare old (60s) exceptions, and a few Dodge Rams. And the odd japanese car too.

      Also, you miss the point about using symbols: if you need to have scientific background (even elementary school) to use the air conditioner function in your car's UI, then you're doing it all wrong.

    22. Re:Wait, so.. by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Most of what I've learned over the years had been at the cost of breaking something, when you get to the root of it. And yes, abusing your phone is a lot less dangerous than, say, a thresher.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    23. Re:Wait, so.. by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1

      Well, Duh, the problem si clar to everyone now: The concept of "adding an alarm" is a culture specific concept that is not supported by a large number of people. Even wehre people know it is possible to have more than one alarm,, may people do not relate to the concept of "adding" one, and moreover, in relation to closks, expect a + sign to advance the time, like wehat it normally does, and which they do not wish to do. (The lack of a - sign is normal, you have to go forward through the hwole day, by holding the key down - yes it is extremely stupid, but I think you will find it IS the normal way (eg in your BIOS).

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    24. Re:Wait, so.. by sgbett · · Score: 1

      Yeah sorry about the spain thing, I knew I was going to get tripped up by that!

      We'll have to agree to disagree. One mans intuitive is another mans obstacle. Thats the real problem with UI design, you cant reach 100% of the people, but you have to design for everyone.

      The Minority you don't reach will only ever consider a design that suits them. Sucks to be in the minority - but I would reiterate, once you've learnt the asterisk means AC (you could put AC on the button, or should that be AA for spanish, or maybe K for german cars!) you wouldn't then proceed to forget it when you switched car, or worse, every time you got out.

      Thats what people do with Computer systems, thats why tech support staff get so jaded.

      --
      Invaders must die
    25. Re:Wait, so.. by hjf · · Score: 1

      Yes and no. Many things you can discover by trial and error, others are a little more cryptic. For example, in my dad's old Renault 18, there was this symbol:

      (!) (P)

      What the hell does that mean? Oh, it means "Warning! Hand brake is on!" And that's one thing you may have no idea (especially women drivers -- just kidding). Yes, you will learn what it means in the end... but at risk of breaking your car. Why not just a simple text warning? "HANDBRAKE ENGAGED".

      Or a little "aladdin lamp"... meaning "oil" (do most people today know that these lamps worked on OIL?).

      I wonder if asian cars have the chinese characters instead of icons? Anyway, I'm a fan of descriptive text. I don't like to rely on icons alone. I guess europeans need to do that because of how many languages they have in such a (relatively) small area. But it shouldn't be *that* hard for manufacturers to be able to slide a dashboard template for different languages. I say "should", because it is hard to disassemble the dashboard.

    26. Re:Wait, so.. by RogerWilco · · Score: 1

      I have an iPhone. And there is no Add. There is [+]. Apparently you have used the iPhone enough to interpret that as Add. Next to that you also recognize that you are presented with a list of alarms. To someone new to the iOS interface, neither might be apparent. This is what TFA tries to point out.

      The problem is that they are trying to set an alarm before understanding the iOS interface, and thus don't realise they need to add an alarm instead of setting it.

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
    27. Re:Wait, so.. by RogerWilco · · Score: 1

      I think you exactly point out where the problem lies.

      The reason for icons, is that otherwise they would have to make lot's of different versions for different languages. Some countries in Europe even speak multiple languages. Next to that words with the same meaning have different sizes in different languages. This leads to issues with designing the UI, not just in cars, but on computers as well.
      For example, a lot of people here say to just use "Add" instead of the [+] that iOS uses, but in my native Dutch, it would become "Toevoegen", which would require a much larger button.

      The problem with symbols is that they are culture specific too, but designers often don't realise that.

      I've written programs for users in multiple countries, and getting internationalization right it very very hard. And We only had customers in some European countries.

      The other solution, that manufacturers would make a specific version for each culture and language is probably not feasible either.

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
    28. Re:Wait, so.. by RogerWilco · · Score: 1

      Seriously though, you don't know what snow is? That's just silly.

      I used to live in the tropics until I was nine, and have lived in the Netherlands since. And I can confirm that this is indeed something that would not be obvious. I knew the concept of snow, and that it turns things white and you can make snowmen out of it. What people didn't tell me, is that it consists of snowflakes, and more importantly, that it is cold.
      The first time it snowed after I moved to the Netherlands, and I picked some of it up, I was shocked how cold it was.

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
  3. Re:Fucker... by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 2

    Stepping on lawns also alienate the elderly.

  4. Slashdot? by Crasoose · · Score: 1

    In the back of my mind I still thought I was reading The Onion for this summary.

  5. stupid UI is stupid regardless of use age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i don't blame the elderly, there is no shortage of stupid UI, and with each new iteration they remove the help docs

  6. What? by DWMorse · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In rebuttal, I offer my personal anecdote: My mom has never had such an easy time using technology, than now in 2011, now that I've set her on iOS and soon, OSX. Just because the older generation doesn't find it intuitive doesn't mean they can't figure it out with a little tinkering, or at worst, very little Applecare phone support. To insinuate they can't set freaking alarms because they might accidentally push the wrong thing at first is insulting.

    --
    There's a spot in User Info for World of Warcraft account names? Really?
    1. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. My father turned 80 this year and has had no trouble whatsoever learning how to navigate the Mac GUI. My mother now has an iPhone and she gets along just fine.

    2. Re:What? by hellkyng · · Score: 1

      I totally agree and will add my own as well:

      My grandmother plays Wii like a champ, backs up her computer more frequently than most people, and has an Android phone. My grandfather doesn't recognize his own daughters anymore, but can still use an iPad...

    3. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm right with you. For as long as I can remember, my grandparents were obtuse and resistant to doing anything with personal computers; it wasn't until my grandfather died in 2007 that nan decided it was worth jumping in feet first because she saw the information out there second-hand, and I shared my iPhone with her.

      She died this January aged 92, owner of a Macbook, Macbook Pro, and two iPhones. She skyped, ichatted, browsed, took photos, emailed, played games and did damned near everything else I did except work (I'm a graphic artist) on the things - and with only a week or two worth of 'training' once she'd decided she could do it herself. The difference between her "computers are so complex!" and "omg this is amazing!" phases was all in her attitude.

      And if someone's attitude is all that's holding them back from using technology, it ain't the technology that's alienating them.

    4. Re:What? by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      In rebuttal, I offer my personal anecdote: My mom has never had such an easy time using technology, than now in 2011, now that I've set her on iOS and soon, OSX. Just because the older generation doesn't find it intuitive doesn't mean they can't figure it out with a little tinkering, or at worst, very little Applecare phone support. To insinuate they can't set freaking alarms because they might accidentally push the wrong thing at first is insulting.

      Of course, not every elderly person has somebody to "set them up" on iOS or OS X. Would you mother been as successful with this if she had to do it by herself, with no help from her son? If not, then your rebuttal falls short of the mark.

      Face it, this is a serious issue for software developers. If iPhone sales are going to be limited to the young, well, that market is already saturated and the declining birthrate doesn't bode well. Apple needs to expand it's market to those people who are current users and that means the elderly. If, for whatever reason, they find the interface confusing, then it won't sell.

      The challenge will be to redesign the interface so new users adopt it but not to alienate the current installed base.

    5. Re:What? by DWMorse · · Score: 1

      My "setting up with" entailed "Happy Mothers Day / Birthday! Sorry I can't be there but here's your gift." So, yes.

      --
      There's a spot in User Info for World of Warcraft account names? Really?
    6. Re:What? by syousef · · Score: 1

      In rebuttal, I offer my personal anecdote: My mom has never had such an easy time using technology, than now in 2011, now that I've set her on iOS and soon, OSX. Just because the older generation doesn't find it intuitive doesn't mean they can't figure it out with a little tinkering, or at worst, very little Applecare phone support. To insinuate they can't set freaking alarms because they might accidentally push the wrong thing at first is insulting.

      It's got NOTHING to do with which idiotic "modern" operating system you use. They ALL stink. Your mother could have learnt WIndows or Linux just as easily. Rampant fanboyism and brand loyalty does nothing but make you both victims.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    7. Re:What? by houghi · · Score: 1

      I see it with my own parents. A cell phone is a challenge for my dad and my mom does not even touch the thing and panics when it goes off.

      I even bought her one made specially for elderly people. Just seconds after I explained her how to pick up (took about 30 minutes) I said I would be calling her. Phone rings and she asks me "What should I do now?". I say: Press the big green button and she looks at the phone and asks "Where? What? How?"

      How the phone looks? http://www.flashgsm.ro/uploads/poza_mare/5121_Emporia_V29_Talk_Premium_1.jpg

      She is able to use a normal landline. Yet I was unable to explain the difference between the usage of a landline phone and a cell phone. Between the real picking up of the phone and the virtual picking up by pressing a button. And no, a slider won't work either.

      What I think is happening is that young people are not afraid to make a mistake. That is the best way to learn. The older we get, the more afraid we become to make mistakes. And very old people will be scared of being called senile if they make mistakes, so better do nothing then make a mistake.

      Perhaps the ability to learn becomes less over time. No idea. Could be an interesting study. Kids learn languages very fast. The older you get, the harder it is. Perhaps that is happening with all thing we need to learn.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    8. Re:What? by rednip · · Score: 1

      I'm a software engineer, and it took me a little time to 'get' the '+' button iOS uses everywhere, no one noticed as I had the original iPhone. I had no one to ask, as an often early tech adapter, I'm used to it. The people tested are amongst the last adapters with the least peer interaction with the technology, also it's sort of like stacking the deck as a certain percentage of the elderly 'start with' cognition problems.

      --
      The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
    9. Re:What? by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      backs up her computer more frequently than most people,

      So...she's done it once?

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    10. Re:What? by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      Despite your outrage, your statement actually agrees with what they are saying.

      Just because the older generation doesn't find it intuitive doesn't mean they can't figure it out with a little tinkering, or at worst, very little Applecare phone support.

      Exactly their point - the older generation certainly can figure it out, they just have to choose to do so. Many of them don't.

      To insinuate they can't set freaking alarms because they might accidentally push the wrong thing at first is insulting.

      I'm unclear why that is insulting, but the truth often is. I've taught older people to use computers all the time, and my experience is consistent with what people are saying here. They ask you how to do X. There are 3 buttons. You click the first one... that isn't it so you hit escape. You click the second one... nope.. hit escape. You click the third one and they say "oh, there it is! You are a computer genius!" I have mastered the ability to do a mental facepalm while keeping a straight face.

  7. Admit it... by Bieeanda · · Score: 1
    How many people here would take one look at that UI and assume that the + meant 'mod this up'?

    But seriously, why a plus sign inside a square? Why not an oblong marked ALARM?

    1. Re:Admit it... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Or simply the picture of a bell? You know, of the type which was used on digital alarm clocks since ... well, I think, basically since they exist.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    2. Re:Admit it... by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Sometimes a word is worth a thousand pictures. Changing the "+" to "Add Alarm" probably would have solved the problem.

    3. Re:Admit it... by Jiro · · Score: 1

      Because if you use the word "alarm" you have to make a different version of the clock for each country you sell it in that speaks a different language.

      It's the same reason why everything with an on/off switch has "1" and "0" or icons, not the words "on" and "off".

    4. Re:Admit it... by jet_silver · · Score: 1

      Exactly. English words are consistent for English-speaking people. Icons have no such standard, and having to memorize the functions represented by icons when they are application-specific (take a look at Solidworks 2011 if you want to see some examples) is an unnecessary hurdle.

    5. Re:Admit it... by Tackhead · · Score: 1

      But seriously, why a plus sign inside a square? Why not an oblong marked ALARM?

      Because if you replace all the words (and menu options) with pictures, you don't have to pay a team of translators any money to localize the product for non-English-speaking markets.

      You make a claim like "menus confuse people", take the menus off, and claim that you're saving screen real estate. It sounds trendy, because desktop monitors are now down to 1080 vertical pixels, and all the sexy gadgets are tablets and phones with even less resolution. Scrap the status bar, nobody needs to know what their web browser is doing. Scrap the URL bar, nobody needs to know where their web browser is. Scrap the menu bar itself, nobody needs more options. Options just confuse people and take up real estate that could be better filled with more pretty pictures!

      But what it's really about is saving money.

    6. Re:Admit it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But seriously, why a plus sign inside a square? Why not an oblong marked ALARM?

      Because if you replace all the words (and menu options) with pictures, you don't have to pay a team of translators any money to localize the product for non-English-speaking markets.

      You do anyway; there's lots of other text in the UI... the word "alarm" for example.

    7. Re:Admit it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And added how much to localization? How many more characters is the German for 'Add Alarm' vs the English? How much real-estate on a 4" screen would that be in German?

    8. Re:Admit it... by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      Because if you use the word "alarm" you have to make a different version of the clock for each country you sell it in that speaks a different language.

      It's the same reason why everything with an on/off switch has "1" and "0" or icons, not the words "on" and "off".

      Just as the other text for apps in an iPhone or Android phone appear in the native language the phone is set for, wouldn't the word "Alarm" also do that? However, you really wouldn't need the word "alarm" anyway. A picture of a bell or an icon that actually looks like an alarm clock would probably suffice.

    9. Re:Admit it... by yarnosh · · Score: 1

      If you push a button labeled "Alarm," you will set off an alarm, obviously.

    10. Re:Admit it... by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      Your snarking at web browser design misses that all of these things already existed in non-icon form, so you're not saving money in that path, you're costing money. Also, any application that is accessible to the visually impaired includes localized strings anyway. And really, the iPhone has "+" at the top right, but it already has "Edit" at the top left, so it's really just a marginal cost.

      The real cost savings come from rapidly implementing entirely new features, because you do not have to design and maintain a highly scaleable layout, especially in a size-constrained device like a phone. That in turn means you can generally fit more shit on the screen at once and still have plenty of visual whitespace in the worst-case.

    11. Re:Admit it... by tepples · · Score: 1

      Just as the other text for apps in an iPhone or Android phone appear in the native language the phone is set for, wouldn't the word "Alarm" also do that?

      The application chooses the string from a list with one entry for each language; it doesn't machine translate (I hope). You'd still need to add a string for every locale where you distribute your application.

    12. Re:Admit it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it's a common metaphor, used throughout iOS and Mac OS X. You're given a list of stuff, and if you want to add to it, there's a + button below it (on OS X) or above it (on iPhone). In fact, the + button is almost always in the top right on iPhone, and it's not confusing at all what to do there *once you learn the metaphor*. The iPhone is ridiculously simple: to get out of anything you may have done that you didn't want to? Press the one button on the front of the device. To get around inside the thing, just tap on something. If you see a list that you want to add stuff to, hit the plus. If you see a list of stuff that you want to modify, hit the edit button. You don't need to say *what* you're adding or editing, you already tapped "Alarm" to get to this list of alarms, and the only thing visible (assuming you have no current alarms) is the navigation mechanism at the bottom (World Clock, Alarm, Stopwatch, Timer) that you've already interacted with, a mostly empty screen that says "No Alarms", and a button with a plus sign on it in the same place every other button with a plus sign on it is.

      Is it immediately obvious, the first time you pick up an iPhone, what to do with it? No. Is the UI consistent enough that in general you only need to explain the metaphors once and then they're generally useful throughout the entire OS? Yes.

    13. Re:Admit it... by turtledawn · · Score: 1

      Embarrassing admission: I didn't realize the symbol on the on/off buttons was a 1 intersecting a 0 until I was in my twenties. I thought it was representing a toggle switch of the type you'd find on a really basic breadboard and got annoyed at the inconsistency of the orientation of the switch relative to how you pressed the button!

      --
      Uh, "if it looks roughly mouse-shaped according to my infra-red sensitive pit, eat it"? --Chris Burke 09-08-10
    14. Re:Admit it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For me this has been the big change in ui design over the last few years. People use icons to convey information rather than text. This means that a certain amount of guesswork (admittedly, for some people not very much) has to go into interpreting the icon before it becomes familiar. Without wanting to open a can of worms, the ribbon interface is a good example of this, as well as the new Windows 7 taskbar - neither of which I particularly like.

    15. Re:Admit it... by Veggiesama · · Score: 1

      Wow I didn't know that either until just now. I just thought it was a goofy symbol, like a finger coming down to press a circular button. Awesome.

    16. Re:Admit it... by RogerWilco · · Score: 1

      Until you want to sell your phone to someone who's not a native English speaker, or *gasp* lives in a different country.

      The you get into all kinds of internationalization issues. If you have a button big enough for "Add Alarm" (already a challenge on a smartphone), then is it big enough for "Wekker toevoegen" as well?

      This is non-trivial. Apple tried to avoid it by using symbols wherever they could. But as someone else pointed out, that gives new problems, for example in Spanish, where "+" means "sum" not "add".

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
    17. Re:Admit it... by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Apple tried to avoid it by using symbols wherever they could. But as someone else pointed out, that gives new problems, for example in Spanish, where "+" means "sum" not "add".

      Exactly!

      See, the problem you run into is that "Add Alarm" and "Wekker toevoegen" are going to take up different amounts of space. Thus, you may have to redesign your interface for different languages. At least in the Apple realm, this is relatively easy to do (localized nib files). So the buttons may not appear in the same places or there may be other interface issues that have to be solved. But they are solvable.

      Conversely, putting in a bunch of pictures makes the developer's life easier by basically saying, "I'm going to come up with a brand new language that you're going to have to learn if you want to use my software." Then he/she sits there and scratches their head and says, "Gee, I can't understand why these stupid people can't use my software!" or "Gosh, why do people in the Netherlands buy my competitor's software instead of mine?"

      Take a look at the Control Panel in this picture of the original Macintosh desktop. Notice how there's no text. Notice how you have almost no idea what half the controls do. Now look at the same set of controls for System 6.0.8. Which one do you think is easier to understand?

      But, yes, this meant that Apple had to hire people to localize the text. On the other hand, that created a better experience for people using the system. If your goal is to keep expenses down and you don't care about usability, then by all means--use obtuse symbols and expect your users to figure it out. If you want software that people might actually want to buy, spend the time, effort, and money to localize it.

  8. The U.K. Acadmic Is An by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Idiot.

    Grandma shouldn't have to worry about the OPERATING SYSTEM.

    Stupid Brits.

    Yours In Akademgorodok,
    Kilgore Trout

  9. Separate version for the elderly? by Daetrin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is there some way to make such things simple enough for the elderly without detracting from the functionality for younger people? iPhones are far from the only thing that the elderly have trouble with, but it doesn't seem wise to tailor everything in the world to cater specifically to them. If designers can't find a way to make a device useable by both the young and the old without compromising on the usability for either group then there really ought to be two separate devices. I've certainly seen enough infomercials to know there's certainly a large market of elderly people out there you can market to directly.

    I'm certainly sympathetic since i plan to be elderly myself one day, but i'd like to hope when that day arrives i'll either try to learn how to use whatever new-fangled thing the kids are into, or use alternative devices/software/whatever that fits my needs. (Kind of like how the first thing i do after installing Windows 7 is make extensive modifications to give it a "Windows Classic" theme.)

    --
    This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    1. Re:Separate version for the elderly? by spaceplanesfan · · Score: 0

      Its just a matter of assholeness.
      These elderly peoples just don't want to admit that thay need to learn a bit and thats it.
      They think they are older and thus smarter that us, and that they know everything.
      Really that is the case.

    2. Re:Separate version for the elderly? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      Is there some way to make such things simple enough for the elderly without detracting from the functionality for younger people?

      Giant buttons?

      Seriously, there are many levels of devices o the market, from that Ladybug phone with big buttons and a simple contacts list, up to Androids and iPhones, buy the one that is right for you. My 72 year old mom does quite fine with a Android phone, though she says it does "too much". My father the Luddite doesn't ow a cell phone.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    3. Re:Separate version for the elderly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Berke Breathed had it right when he introduced the Apricot computer to Bloom County. You could allocate the computer resources depending on the needs of the user.

    4. Re:Separate version for the elderly? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Its just a matter of assholeness.
      These elderly peoples just don't want to admit that thay need to learn a bit and thats it.
      They think they are older and thus smarter that us, and that they know everything.

      While that is an assholelish way to put it, I think you are correct in a general sense.

      It isn't a case of people thinking they are smarter than anyone else, but more of being set in their ways with a reluctance to explore. The iphone alarm clock user-interface isn't any easier for "young" people to use, there is nothing about it that inherently caters to a particular age group. If it had justin bieber or maybe an ed hardy logo on it, then it might reasonable to call it age-specific.

      Rather, its a case of just having the patience to poke at it and see what happens. And that reluctance to explore, be it fear of breaking something or lack of patience for the extra work required seems to become more common as people age - after all the phrase "set in their ways" isn't one typically applied to youths.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    5. Re:Separate version for the elderly? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      I agree that it's a matter of mindset, but it's not assholeness. I notice this all the time: young people and kids will go through every button and menu, try everything out, when they get their hands on a new device. Middle aged people like myself still like to tinker a bit but we're not as curious anymore. Once the device more or less performs as we expect it to, we'll leave it alone. And the elderly might be somewhat afraid to tinker with new tech.

      When we got our grandma a VCR, she kept asking us to program the timer to record her favourite shows. She said she "would never understand something that complex"... so we just sat her down and took her through the motions, manual in hand. 15 minutes later she was amazed at how easy it turned out to be. The thing that had kept her from using her VCR wasn't a crap interface, it was fear to try.

      Of course there are some awfully designed interfaces out there, but they are awful to everyone (Siemens microwave department, are you reading this?!). And don't get me started on the quality of manuals these days...

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    6. Re:Separate version for the elderly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't own a cell phone and don't really need one. I don't like it much when people get on me about not owning one. The big point is that as long as the older methods of doing things don't break, I think the elderly who are having trouble adapting simply won't have too. I have a land line for phone calls and I can text people via the Internet. No biggie. Find out what feature set the elderly are most interested in and support that.

    7. Re:Separate version for the elderly? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      No. Elderly people want what they are used to. They are not used to computers, simple or complex. There's nothing wrong with giving Grandpa a stand alone alarm clock, he already knows how to use it. The ultimate solution for this problem is attrition. Eventually everyone alive will have grown up with computers.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    8. Re:Separate version for the elderly? by screwzloos · · Score: 1

      It's interesting trying to imagine how we, as relatively tech-savvy generation x slashdotter types (yes, I'm generalizing), will function around new technology when we're older. I'm already old enough that some of this new-fangled stuff doesn't appeal to me, like smartphones or Facebook or Twitter - but that's because I find them useless and intrusive. Will that somehow eventually devolve into me not being able to figure out the TV remote?

      I suppose it goes the other way, too. When we're older, how many people will be left that know how to set the timing on a small block Chevy? I'm sure more of our parents know about that than we do.

    9. Re:Separate version for the elderly? by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      Rather, its a case of just having the patience to poke at it and see what happens. And that reluctance to explore, be it fear of breaking something or lack of patience for the extra work required seems to become more common as people age - after all the phrase "set in their ways" isn't one typically applied to youths.

      You don't really mean that, do you? If somebody borrowed your phone, do your really want them just poking buttons and icons to see what happens? Probably not. How about your computer? Do you want somebody to just start clicking on things to see what happens? What about your car. If you purchased one of those hybrids that half to have things done certain ways, are you going to lend it to somebody and tell them just to poke around and figure it out? No, of course not.

      So, if you aren't willing to do that with your stuff, why would a manufacture be encourage to do it?

    10. Re:Separate version for the elderly? by Chemisor · · Score: 2

      Draw a picture of a bell under the +. That will be enough.

    11. Re:Separate version for the elderly? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      If somebody borrowed your phone, do your really want them just poking buttons and icons to see what happens?

      That's a specious and thus information-free comparison. This isn't about how people treat borrowed equipment, its about learning to use stuff you own.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    12. Re:Separate version for the elderly? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Will that somehow eventually devolve into me not being able to figure out the TV remote?

      Well, I'm sure that some "clever" TV designer will at some point notice that "everyone" has a smartphone, and therefore instead of a regular remote will provide a TV remote app for your phone. Bad luck if you happen to only own a standard phone ...

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    13. Re:Separate version for the elderly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there some way to make such things simple enough for the elderly without detracting from the functionality for younger people? iPhones are far from the only thing that the elderly have trouble with, but it doesn't seem wise to tailor everything in the world to cater specifically to them. If designers can't find a way to make a device useable by both the young and the old without compromising on the usability for either group then there really ought to be two separate devices. I've certainly seen enough infomercials to know there's certainly a large market of elderly people out there you can market to directly.

      I'm certainly sympathetic since i plan to be elderly myself one day, but i'd like to hope when that day arrives i'll either try to learn how to use whatever new-fangled thing the kids are into, or use alternative devices/software/whatever that fits my needs. (Kind of like how the first thing i do after installing Windows 7 is make extensive modifications to give it a "Windows Classic" theme.)

      And eventually when you can no longer set "Windows Classic" on Windows 12 or something, you'll be confused and won't understand how kids use these newfangled things.

    14. Re:Separate version for the elderly? by demonlapin · · Score: 2

      Elderly people are still people. Give them a reason to learn something, and they will. I've seen it mentioned several times that the Kindle has been a massive success in the senior citizen crowd, in no small part because every book becomes a large-print book that they don't have to find their reading glasses for. Or consider the reaction of people now in their late 60s to, say, the Internet. It was a maybe thing, until they realized that it meant they could actually have relationships with their grandchildren regardless of where they live.

    15. Re:Separate version for the elderly? by demonlapin · · Score: 2

      Smartphones don't appeal to you? Or they're overpriced for what you get?

      As far as I'm concerned, smartphones are magic incarnate. If you had told people thirty years ago that the average person would be able to carry a device weighing under 5 ounces (140 g) that would be able to show video, talk to any phone in the country, search the world's libraries automatically, give you the news, send instantly-transmitted messages to anywhere on earth, with unlimited phone number lookups and the ability (once you found a place you wanted to go) to direct you to the front door of the shop you're looking for (and allow you to see it before you get there), all while you walk around, or even while you drive at full speed on the freeway, I for one would never have believed it possible.

    16. Re:Separate version for the elderly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Odd... Whenever I install Windows 7 I restart the system with a Linux install disk and set up a dual-boot. Then I quickly forget about Windows... Unless I can't get WinE to work.

    17. Re:Separate version for the elderly? by screwzloos · · Score: 1

      I don't value any of those things in a mobile platform. I don't even carry a regular phone. What's wrong with taking care of that stuff at home, and actually taking a break from the mindless tech noise in favor of being engaged in your immediate surroundings when you go out?

      Then next time you're in a city restaurant or coffee shop, take a look around at any of the groups of people under thirty. There's a pretty good chance that none of them are talking to one another, because they're all too busy playing games or texting elsewhere. I don't want any part of that. The benefit simply doesn't outweigh the cost to me, and it's not because of the money.

      Doing all those things you mentioned at full speed on the freeway is an entirely separate problem.

  10. Soylent Green by Moof123 · · Score: 0

    Simple solution to you impending Social Security/Medicare woes AND the elderly's tech frustrations.

    World hunger problem? Solved.

  11. "Smart" phones are very hard for some people by nysus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Just a couple of weeks ago, I was sitting next to a gentleman, 55 to 60 years old, who was having a great deal of trouble performing what most of us would consider the most basic of functions such as how to add a new city to the iPhone's built-in weather feature. He had just purchased the phone and so I helped him through the process. It was quite an eye-opener for me. He had not even figured out how to appropriately tap on the screen (he was pressing on it as if it were a mechanical button and so his touches never registered). He was constantly misspelling with they keyboard, could not figure out how to correct a mistake. It took him about a dozen efforts and maybe about 3 minutes before he successfully typed in Boston.

    I would estimate he would need a one-on-one training of at least a few hours in duration before he could being to use some of the other iPhone's most basic features.

    --

    ---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.

    1. Re:"Smart" phones are very hard for some people by uniquename72 · · Score: 1

      No interface on earth is instantly usable for people who don't have a baseline competency in similar interfaces.

      My great grandmother -- born in 1911 -- never learned to drive a car in her life. Is it because car interfaces are poorly designed, or because she just didn't care enough to bother learning? Considering millions of people her age had no problem with it, I'd argue the latter.

    2. Re:"Smart" phones are very hard for some people by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      he was pressing on it as if it were a mechanical button and so his touches never registered

      It's pretty amazing how frequently this happens. Even with buttons that are obviously just electric switches, old people will mash down as hard as they can, as if the force they apply is correlated to the success of the operation. Maybe they're reminded of old typewriters, where you actually did have to mash down on the keys to make it work.

    3. Re:"Smart" phones are very hard for some people by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 1

      ...Considering millions of people her age had no problem with it, I'd argue the latter.

      I'm not sure about that...from what I've seen of elderly drivers it very well could be a bad interface. Every time I've almost been run off the road on my motorcycle it's been an old person. In fairness though the last one (4 days ago) was texting and driving so at least they have one interface down reasonably well.

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    4. Re:"Smart" phones are very hard for some people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just a couple of weeks ago, I was sitting next to a gentleman, 55 to 60 years old, who was having a great deal of trouble performing what most of us would consider the most basic of functions such as how to add a new city to the iPhone's built-in weather feature. He had just purchased the phone and so I helped him through the process. It was quite an eye-opener for me. He had not even figured out how to appropriately tap on the screen (he was pressing on it as if it were a mechanical button and so his touches never registered). He was constantly misspelling with they keyboard, could not figure out how to correct a mistake. It took him about a dozen efforts and maybe about 3 minutes before he successfully typed in Boston.

      I would estimate he would need a one-on-one training of at least a few hours in duration before he could being to use some of the other iPhone's most basic features.

      Coinciding almost exactly on my 40th birthday, I could no longer read anything without reading glasses. Bigger fonts and greater contrast between background and text help. Also, try pressing or gesturing when your hands are shaky.

    5. Re:"Smart" phones are very hard for some people by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      he was pressing on it as if it were a mechanical button

      That is very insightful, since the entire point of a touch screen is to look and act like a mechanical button. Obviously it doesn't, but perhaps most of us have adapted to the screens and understand that. I remember the first time I used a microwave with those non-tactile buttons and I hated it.

      It took him about a dozen efforts and maybe about 3 minutes before he successfully typed in Boston.

      THAT might have as much to do with the keyboard as his learning curve on the touch screen.

    6. Re:"Smart" phones are very hard for some people by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Well, just wait until in 40 years you try to use the then new input devices (whatever they will be) in the style you are used from your touch screen, and wonder why they don't work ...

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    7. Re:"Smart" phones are very hard for some people by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Even with buttons that are obviously just electric switches, old people will mash down as hard as they can, as if the force they apply is correlated to the success of the operation.

      Sometimes it is. Switches have metal contacts in them. Often there is a wiping action built into the mechanism. And the metal contacts corrode. So the wiping action helps keep the switch functioning properly if the button is pressed vigorously.

      This is still the case in many, many electric switches.

    8. Re:"Smart" phones are very hard for some people by Phasma+Felis · · Score: 1

      No interface on earth is instantly usable for people who don't have a baseline competency in similar interfaces.

      Very true.

      To a good designer, this implies "...so make sure there's a training option to teach baseline competency."

      To a bad designer--or worse yet, an engineer who thinks he's a designer--it implies "...so they must be stupid and unteachable and I don't want their money."

    9. Re:"Smart" phones are very hard for some people by Jonner · · Score: 1

      This reminds me of how so many people supposedly couldn't program their VCRs many years ago. My grandfather claimed he couldn't even though he had a VCR with on-screen programming, which was much easier to use than just the front display. However, I think his problem is mainly impatience. He never takes the time to learn a technology he isn't already familiar with. I've also tried to help him use his email better several times, but he always struggled with basic things like managing folders. AFAIK, he still prints every email he gets, deletes it immediately puts the printout in a drawer or file somewhere.

      I'm sure the average iPhone app is far easier to use than the typical VCR from 20 years ago, but that doesn't mean everyone will be able to use it without experimentation or training. Despite claims to the contrary, there is no such thing as an intuitive interface. Obviously, an interface that's similar to something one has used before will be easier to get used to than a totally alien one, but it's impossible to design an interface that is equally familiar to everyone. If someone can't figure out how to use an iPhone app, I tend to think they should either get some training or go back to a "dumb" phone.

    10. Re:"Smart" phones are very hard for some people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was constantly misspelling with they keyboard, could not figure out how to correct a mistake.

      Ahh, the irony!

    11. Re:"Smart" phones are very hard for some people by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of my first experience with an iPod.

      The first iPod I tried was (if I remember correctly) the 3rd generation. It had the newfangled touch wheel, and was the first to have the face buttons were removed in favor of the single button inside the wheel. It took me about five minutes to figure out that I couldn't push the icons printed on the wheel to move up and down through the menus. I had to twirl my thumb in a circular direction. Five minutes of pushing with absolutely no response, before I realized that the seamless buttons weren't buttons at all. I thought it worked like a microwave control panel, where the buttons were flush to the case. I felt pretty damn stupid.

      Once I figured it out, though, I was aghast at how slow and inefficient it was to navigate. Rather than having a dedicated "back" button, complete with a text label, the iPod menu had a back option at the top. So, on a properly designed device, I could just push "back", but on the iPod, I had to scroll to the top, select the "back" menu option, and then push the wheel button to activate going back to the previous menu. I was disgusted at how complicated the interface was. It was visually so simple, but the functionality was unnecessarily complex.

      At the time, I had already been using computers for over 10 years, having started on a C-64, grown up on the Amiga, and later moved to both DOS and Windows, and used Macs in college. I've used OS/2, BeOS, RiscOS, dozens of Linux distros, and many other weird OSes nobody has ever heard of. I have experience with many, many interfaces across multiple architectures. I also use TV remote controls, light switches, microwaves, door handles, and have a manual transmission in my car. Yet, the iPod interface was not at all obvious.

      Since then, I've constantly wondered why the iPod is considered the pinnacle of design. It's complex, clumsy, and for anyone who's used a computer or a microwave, unintuitive. The first iPod, not designed by Apple, was well designed and obvious. Apple messed up future revisions when they restyled it so the buttons still looked like buttons, but they didn't perform that function, while simultaneously getting rid of the buttons that actually did useful stuff.

      Does one seriously have to un-learn everything about computers to use an application device? I don't see anyone else complaining.

    12. Re:"Smart" phones are very hard for some people by Skadet · · Score: 1

      There's no wheel-style iPod that lacks the four buttons: Menu, FF, REW, Play/pause. You press the Menu button to go back. http://support.apple.com/kb/ht1353

    13. Re:"Smart" phones are very hard for some people by RogerWilco · · Score: 1

      I think it also has to do with older people having poorer eyesight, less mobility in their neck and thus not as easily able to look over their shoulder, and modern cars blocking much more of your view in the name of safety. (well really old cars were even worse).

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
  12. stuff that really matters to include disarmament+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    mandatory care of our untech savvy young & old, and even being nicer to/not killing anybody & everybody else world wide. our rulers said as much on ahab the arab tv last night, oddly enough

  13. Field of vision sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I help my 82-year-old dad out every day on his computer. He has used them in business since the 80's and old CRT 80x24 text interfaces worked much better for these geezers.

    I got him a huge 27" widescreen which really helps him read the text, but windows are so big, the menus might as well be in a different country from the minimize/maximize/close and it takes forever to get his eyes from the center of a window to a status display at the bottom.

    What many older people need is less options or someway to put all your affordances in one central location.

    I think more UI designers need cataracts, macular degeneration, and to be hit over the head with a rubber mallet, before they can understand what old people go through. Hit me with a rubber mallet while you are at it.

    1. Re:Field of vision sucks by Jonner · · Score: 1

      If the problem is that the 82-year-old gentlemen has a narrow field of view, perhaps you should haven't gotten a 27" monitor. You can make the text as big as you want on any size screen.

    2. Re:Field of vision sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And colorblindness.

    3. Re:Field of vision sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So get him an old PC and install an X-less Linux distro with tons of console stuff. You can even write him a menu system as a shell script so he just has to press "e" for email, etc.

  14. problem is the manner of learning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Once someone sees that the plus sign adds an alarm, then they'll know the plus sign adds an alarm. You only have to figure it out once.

    I'm not elderly, but I'm old-ish (63) and I watch people my age struggle with very simple things because rather than learn the underlying concepts, they learn by rote. They learn "the second icon from the left does this". They don't bother to learn what the computer is really doing. Use words like "filesystem" and their eye glaze over. But without basic understanding of the technology, everything on the screen is going to be "magic" - if you don't understand the whys and wherefores, there is no hope of ever accomplishing anything but rote memorization.

    I'd say about 90% of the time, they are perfectly well able to understand what's happening if they want - they just don't want to. You can't fix "don't want to learn". The ones who value learning, who don't have a culture of shutting of their brains and refusing to ever think, do just fine.

    Of course this doesn't apply once certain disabilities like Alzheimer's enter the picture - that's a different problem and one no UI is going to fix.

    1. Re:problem is the manner of learning by Eugenia+Loli · · Score: 1

      Fully agreed. All the elderly family I have in Greece have feature phones, but they learn by habit: press some numbers, press the green button, then the red. Nothing else. They don't even know how to program their TV, someone else has to set it up for them the first time, and then they remember by habit that button with a 3 on it, is "News channel", for example. They don't want to learn how things really work. I tried. I tried with my mom, I tried to explain her the logic, but she prefers to write down on a paper which button does what, and then press these blindly, without understanding what's really going on.

      So the problem really is "I don't want to learn", not that iOS is too difficult to use. Especially iOS, is not.

    2. Re:problem is the manner of learning by DrgnDancer · · Score: 2

      Even more to the point, once they figure out that the plus sign adds application appropriate things, the knowledge should carry over. As I said in an earlier post, the "+" is a widely reused element in the UI, It adds contacts int eh contact app, events in the calendar app, cities in the weather app... All in all the default Apple applications have a very consistent UI. Once you understand how one of them works, you're a long way toward understanding all of them (a UI which many third party apps also adopt). I think the article's point would be more valid if, only in this one place, the plus sign added alarms; and either didn't appear or performed some significantly different function elsewhere.

      Apple's UI isn't always completely intuitive, but that's a nearly impossible goal; especially on such a small screen. Instead it's very unified and consistent. It might take you a minute to figure out what the plus sign does the first time, but it will continue to do what you expect thereafter, all over the place.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    3. Re:problem is the manner of learning by Jonner · · Score: 1

      Once someone sees that the plus sign adds an alarm, then they'll know the plus sign adds an alarm. You only have to figure it out once.

      I'm not elderly, but I'm old-ish (63) and I watch people my age struggle with very simple things because rather than learn the underlying concepts, they learn by rote. They learn "the second icon from the left does this". They don't bother to learn what the computer is really doing. Use words like "filesystem" and their eye glaze over. But without basic understanding of the technology, everything on the screen is going to be "magic" - if you don't understand the whys and wherefores, there is no hope of ever accomplishing anything but rote memorization.

      I'd say about 90% of the time, they are perfectly well able to understand what's happening if they want - they just don't want to. You can't fix "don't want to learn". The ones who value learning, who don't have a culture of shutting of their brains and refusing to ever think, do just fine.

      Of course this doesn't apply once certain disabilities like Alzheimer's enter the picture - that's a different problem and one no UI is going to fix.

      I couldn't agree more. Metaphors only go so far. At some point, understanding of what's really going on is necessary. I've tried to help my grandfather (who is now in his 80s) use such things as VCRs and email several times and the main obstacle for him is impatience. He won't spend the time necessary to learn something totally different from what he's used to. AFAIK, he's still printing out each email he receives and deleting them from the inbox because he can't manage folders and searching old messages.

    4. Re:problem is the manner of learning by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      Use words like "filesystem" and their eye glaze over.

      Could you please explain to me why it is my mother spent years as a business manager and could navigate a room full of files but cannot understand the concept of hierarchical file folders? How can someone use the dewey decimal system but glaze over at "file system" -- there's nothing technical about it. Is it not simply common organizational skills?

      If I could get past this hurdle in a users' understand it would be great because so many times I get a question that amounts to "just go find the file and do X" but the idea of "finding the file" is alien to them. But I could tell them to go get their 1978 tax return and they would know the room, file drawer, and folder it is in and have it for me in a few minutes.

  15. get off my lawn! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Today's tech alienates me, and I'm not even elderly! I am annoyed not because I don't understand how to operate the tech, but instead because I hate how society has embraced 'technology' as some panacea. Spell check is okay, but learn how to spell. Constantly talking on your mobile phone -- learn to be alone with your thoughts. CGI-laden movies -- where'd the plot go? Automatic parallel parking -- good grief, you shouldn't be allowed to drive.

  16. Self help. by TemperedAlchemist · · Score: 2

    These things do come with manuals.

    1. Re:Self help. by tepples · · Score: 2

      These things do come with manuals.

      More and more lately, these are electronic manuals, and you already have to know how to navigate the device in order to read the manual.

    2. Re:Self help. by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Not hardly. Which iPhone app comes with a manual?

      No, don't tell us there is a 'help function.' If it exists at all it's hidden under yet another cryptic button on the display.

    3. Re:Self help. by Iceykitsune · · Score: 1

      not anymore.

      --
      GENERATION 24: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social exper
    4. Re:Self help. by fermat1313 · · Score: 1

      These things do come with manuals.

      Manuals yes, but there is almost a complete lack of context-sensitive help on modern devices. How hard would it be to have a ? button with help on using the functions of whatever interface you are using?

      The trend is going that way with desktop applications too. 10 years ago, context-sensitive help with a button press or click was very common. Now, it's almost completely disappeared. Sure you can hit F1, but that almost always takes you to the table of contents of the help system (or more frequently, to the HTML manual on their website. Try using that offline.)

      Bring back context-sensitive help with a clear interface to get it, and you'll see a greater number of people who can figure your "simplified" interface without tearing their hair out.

  17. IMO necessarily complex by yacwroy · · Score: 2

    Computers function in a different way to physical objects.

    Making people accept this is far, far simpler than trying to force every computer idea into a real-world analog.

    Stop treating a computer like a car or bike - you can't learn it in a week and you'll be spending a lot of your life using one so get it right. Even if you're old you can learn (and it'll do your mind good too).

    Everyone can name ways that an application should be simpler. Trouble is, ask 100 people and you'll get 100 different answers, many of which will be mutually exclusive.

    --
    You agree with me.
  18. Only today's tech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So? How is this any different from yesterday's tech?

    Technology has always been aimed at the young-to-midle aged. It's been a problem for a long time. It wasn't any better back when we had PalmPilots instead of iPads, or when "programming your VCR" was a Thing.

  19. Its not just the elderly by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Its most anyone that isn't tech-savvy.

    What ever happened to interfaces deigned for a *user*, not a techie ( like we had with the newton for example )?

    The interfaces should adapt to us, not the other way around.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Its not just the elderly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ( like we had with the newton for example )?

      +1 Funny. The newton is certainly an example of a commercially successful product that we all want to model, isn't it?

    2. Re:Its not just the elderly by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      If you design a system, "us"=="techie".
      What you need is usability studies with people who are not technical.
      We generally sit one of our admins in front of the system and ask her to do certain things. For consumer products, the designers should probably do that with their parents or grandparents.

    3. Re:Its not just the elderly by Sardak · · Score: 1

      Its most anyone that isn't tech-savvy.

      What ever happened to interfaces deigned for a *user*, not a techie ( like we had with the newton for example )?

      I'm in my (late) 20s, so not even elderly yet, and I've been writing code for computers since I was 6. The example in the summary of a plus icon for setting an alarm is just plain unintuitive. It's been a while since I've had to write anything with a GUI, but I'm pretty sure that was a relatively important aspect of interface design.

    4. Re:Its not just the elderly by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      The design was successful, as it was the price point and being ahead of its time is what caused it to move slowly.

      Remember too, that it was still being sold until Jobs came back. It was never actually a failure, the plug was pulled prematurely.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    5. Re:Its not just the elderly by Jonner · · Score: 1

      The interfaces should adapt to us, not the other way around.

      So what's an example of a user interface that successfully adapts to the user? I submit the car as one of the must successful user interfaces ever. Do cars adapt to users or the other way around? I had to learn how to turn the steering wheel smoothly, apply throttle and brake and clutch smoothly.

      Another example is the standard phone interface. For many decades, it was a dial. Gradually, that was replaced with the 3x3 dialpad which is still displayed on my Android phone. Neither adapts to the user, but the dialpad is still used on smartphones because that's what people are used to. Of course, I can also search my contacts textually or by voice, those are not standard interfaces, so there always has to be the dialpad to fall back on.

  20. So they learn..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kids nowadays aren't magically born with some sort of intrinsic understanding of how to use technology, they just pick it up as they go along and after say 10 or 15 years they can use it with the proficiency you'd expect from someone who's been doing something for over a decade.

    I know 3 people in their 70's who sit at their PC's and check their e-mail over their broadband connection on a daily basis, one of them had me round his house a few days ago to hook up an internet connected PVR. Provided they can see the icons and read the fonts there is absolutely nothing from stopping the elderly from learning to use any piece of tech they choose save for their own preconceptions.

  21. Thumbs Up by Sideswiped · · Score: 1

    How many people here would take one look at that UI and assume that the + meant 'mod this up'?

    But seriously, why a plus sign inside a square? Why not an oblong marked ALARM?

    The "+" has an association with numbers and your mod points affect a post's score. A thumbs up/down may have conveyed this more clearly , but then you run into issues with cultural interruptions of hand gestures(go ahead, thumbs up a middle eastern).

  22. Inconsistency / changes create problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Things constantly change with technology. Something that you learned yesterday doesn't work the same today because something has changed. The options to move the menu bar or the lack of a file menu on every program. That is what makes things hard to use. When a user can always go to file -> print things are easy. When users open Microsoft Office and find no consistent user interface then they have to learn something new. Learning gets harder as you get older. Changing things around is not helping. Apple and Microsoft are the main problem. They make really bad changes. They say it is faster or better yet they fail to take into consideration that differences between interfaces makes take 3x as long as it otherwise would and waste serious time in learning. Design once and keep it that. We had 10 plus years of file -> prints. Now we had no good reason to change that. Before we had square screens which were bigger vertically and worked well. While the wide screen is less expensive to produce you gain an extra extra pound due to the need for a larger screen than with the older square screen laptops. Things are not getting better. They are getting worse. We went from the Palm m5xx to handhelds with black screens that worked amazingly well. Turned on instantly, never crashed, and did what they were designed to do well. Then Microsoft released an OS and out came clunky handhelds with color screens that lost data because of battery issues, were thick, and took for ever to start-up. Not to mention slow even though they had a faster CPU. Microsoft may have disappeared from the land scape although phones have retained that clunky generic OS (Android) without any solid utilities to do anything well, thick, and only brought a few new unnecessary features. About the only thing a phone does better is it lets you talk to other people and surf the web. Something that could have probably been achieved with an M500 design. Maybe things will slightly improve with dual-core processors in phones. The CPU speed is not the problem though. It is bad design.

  23. Don't get one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The elderly got along fine without any portable phones at all before every whipper-snapper started throwing thier i-phones all up in everyones faces. What i dont understand is why the elderly get these new fangled devices and then whine about how hard it is to use them. Either Learn how to use the technology or dont use it at all. Im sure the elderly would live happier lives if they didnt have to stress about stupid little gadgets they don't really need.

  24. Really? They cant figure out the iphone? by ya+really · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It has one of the most intuitive user interfaces ever. So much that even the noobiest of tech/computer users can figure it out. Perhaps if they can't understand how the amazingly easy to use the iphone UI is, they need a dummies book or one of these

    1. Re:Really? They cant figure out the iphone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I currently have an iPhone 4 and it has one of the most unfriendly interfaces I have ever used. My older PalmTreo (Palm OS) phone was many times more intuitive to use than the iPhone, but the it is no longer supported so I needed to change, what an expensive mistake. Although there are many applications for the iPhone, I despise the fact that I have to use that ugly and unfriendly piece of software that Apple supplies to have to install anything and that I have to have a Windows machine to do it on. I do IT for a living and interfaces in general are getting worse. I put my inlaws (80+) on Linux machines because I seldom get a call about something getting screwed, unlike when they were using Windows machines. Enough rant... The interfaces are user-friendly if you are 13, but not 30+.

    2. Re:Really? They cant figure out the iphone? by LongearedBat · · Score: 1

      Spoken like a true non-dumb user who can't see from others' perspectives.

      I think the sensible thing would be to ask some "dummies" for advice on what makes more sense to them, rather than second guessing. In a sense, ask "domain experts who are experts in being dumb users".

      And with proper UI/business layer separation, it's possible to "skin" different UI's for different user types. Not suitable for most applications, but for basic use applications, it might be exactly the right thing to do.

  25. RTFM by Sprouticus · · Score: 1

    If you can read, you can use tech. Read the manual. Google it. look up a video on youtube. Or just ask someone.

    there is no excuse for ignorance. In tech or anything else. Saying that older people have some special disadvantage is just a load of crap.

    1. Re:RTFM by tepples · · Score: 1

      If you can read, you can use tech. Read the manual.

      Even if you can sound out words, that doesn't mean you can comprehend what the words mean once put together.

      Google it.

      "Where's the Google? Is it this box [the URL bar] or that box [the search bar]? Do I use spaces? Do I need to use capital letters?"

      Or just ask someone.

      That's what she ends up doing: asking me to demonstrate and then immediately forgetting what I showed her.

    2. Re:RTFM by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      I don't know what kind of manual comes with an iPhone, but the one that came with my Android phone was useless.
      OTOH, the manual that came with my Canon point-and-shoot camera is exhausting to read, explaining every single action and its possible outcomes. I want a tl;dr version.

  26. EXACTLY by lawnboy5-O · · Score: 2

    It's about a new "language" for them to learn - not that it escapes them intellectually. And, its NEVER been easier then now, and I expect it will get easier moving forward. But, the brit has a point - it is still way less than optimum; partly because who fuck is TEACHING them.

    I spent three - two hour secessions with mom (70+) and now she is cutting movies, playing solitaire and emailing like anybody else, with attachments, particularly word docs, Printmaker docs, and photos. not bad. not at all bad. still struggles a little in some areas but doing well with Mac OS X and iOS on her iPod. and My dad likes Win 7 - and is very proficient with web surfing and online trading - same age as mom. Neither of them are college grads. Neither of them can work the dvd / vcr optimally - or use the dreaded cable interface for channel surfing. My dad is a machinist - wicked smart, never graduated high school, but owned a company for 38 years with ensuing patents and more... and put three boys through top US four year institutions. My mom knows more vocabulary than yours, period. Never went to college, worked as a paralegal for 40 years - brilliant women. We cant honestly be putting people down because they fail(ed) at something, are we? Are learning curves only for children? Is inspiration only for the youth? Does the only credibility these days come with PhD's and they the only assholes the get to use the microphone?

    So to me - its about preference and how well you were taught and inspired. Seems like old hat.

    AND I would guess you want to pay attention to this elderly class of folks as technology evolves at a radioactive pace - they are hitting 70 years old at a clip of TEN THOUSAND PER DAY.

  27. true for a whole century. by evilWurst · · Score: 1

    At the risk of invoking Plato's rant about youth: this isn't very new. The last couple waves of technology befuddled new users too. Remember all the VCRs permanently blinking 12:00 in the 1980s, followed by microwaves doing the same in the 1990s? And that's just sticking to old jokes about digital clocks. But I'm sure most of us who're old enough, or knew others who were old enough, have heard a wealth of similar things about devices of the same decades... and similar things about cars dating to several decades before that (not even the maintenance issues, but even simple operation issues like finding the lights and wipers on different models, or driving a manual shift vehicle at all).

    Some of these even apply in the other timewise direction; today's youth would not find many devices from the 1960s intuitive at first contact either. Record players and typewriters (and adding machines) come to mind as things one might have trouble using without instruction, especially if they weren't already set up and ready to use.

    1. Re:true for a whole century. by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      I disagree. I think things have gotten dramatically easier.

      I can learn Android or iOS in about 3 minutes. It would take me a good hour or two to program a VCR.

      Navigating my Home Theater Receiver's menus is an effort in rage inducing frustration. Why? Because it is limited 640x480 and it is designed by someone who loathes the user--or so I assume. If it was HD and like Windows Phone 7 or iOS it would be easy and obvious.

    2. Re:true for a whole century. by squeegee_boy · · Score: 1

      I made the display on my PVR blink "12:00." Just 'cuz.

  28. Well... by creat3d · · Score: 1

    I think the elderly are keeping tech evolution a giant step back... then again, I can't ask, in good conscience, for them to be ignored as I'm sure 50 years from now I'll be glad to use them new-fangled holographic systems without scratching my head too much....

    --
    Grammar nazis are to this community what excrements are to gold.
    1. Re:Well... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      I think the elderly are keeping tech evolution a giant step back... then again, I can't ask, in good conscience, for them to be ignored as I'm sure 50 years from now I'll be glad to use them new-fangled holographic systems without scratching my head too much....

      But scratching your head at the right place will be a key to interacting with those holographic systems. You may find it unintuitive, but the young people around you will tell you that it's completely intuitive, and you're just unwilling to learn.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    2. Re:Well... by creat3d · · Score: 1

      I think I'm gonna build a moat around my lawn, just in case...

      --
      Grammar nazis are to this community what excrements are to gold.
  29. Why don't they try instead of acting helpless? by ZackSchil · · Score: 1

    The problem is that the elderly stopped learning new things for too long so the tools atrophied. A young person with a brand new smart phone would come in with a clear head and immediately start mentally mapping out functionality and figuring out, maybe not even at a concious level, all the underlying metaphors. They quickly intuit the best way to tap the screen. They figure out how to back out of things and start pressing buttons to see what everything does.

    Being old doesnt prevent you from doing any of this. I've seen plenty of old people who never lost that spark to explore and learn who have no trouble with this stuff. Maybe they're not as sharp and it takes a bit longer to learn, but they get it. I don't think we should be dumbing things down for people who don't try to help themselves.

    1. Re:Why don't they try instead of acting helpless? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, if you don't "dumb things down", you limit your market by so much that your product never takes off -- the market gets eaten by the company that DOES dumb things down.

      If only we could come up with a way to make it so all the money went to people with that "spark to explore"...

    2. Re:Why don't they try instead of acting helpless? by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      >Being old doesnt prevent you from doing any of this
      It does if you're halfway down the road to Alzheimer's.

  30. Plus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly. The plus sign is a way too recent invention to be a common concept for a user interface.

  31. That clock would be confusing even for me by owlstead · · Score: 1

    That's just basic bad design. I would (and have) done the same thing with some alarm widgets. Actually, you would be surprised how many alarms are badly designed - probably because anybody can program a simple clock. Why the heck would you want to change the clock design by tapping it? Is that the main functionality of the clock? The clock change function should be in the menu somewhere. And if it rings, I expect to see a great big bell or button which I can hit to switch it off. Preferably I should be able to shout at it as well.

    We of course understand computers and programmers. So we don't get in a fit, think for a second and hit the back button or something similar.

  32. i am 36 by drolli · · Score: 4, Interesting

    and i am alienated by todays user interfaces. What alienates me most is that showing the keybinding seem to be a thing of the past and pure text menus are not possible to turn on.I like a simple alphabetically sorted list to start apps, which would take less space and not be as weird as having 9 screenful of badly designed, stupidly copied or sometime identical icons. And sorry on the most alarm clocks on smartphones you could instead of the plus easily write "add/set alarm" - no lack of space there.

    1. Re:i am 36 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up. It's like the change of networking from XP to Vista/7. Instead of just double clicking on the network icon down beside the clock, I have to click through several windows just to change a setting.
      Why can't UI designers just learn to keep it simple and organised. There is such a thing as hierarchy of elements, but there's also the importance of getting to your goal in the least time.

    2. Re:i am 36 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I agree the interface GUI = Generally Unintelligible Interface ... both the iPhone and the Android are very hard for the new users due to the lack of using WORDS this is why we stopped using hieroglyphics ! :-) The next message makes good points too. The designers are not capable of understanding people who don't already know the ins and outs. It is not an age issue IMHO

    3. Re:i am 36 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The menu bar on the alarm screen already says "Alarm", there's no need to be redundant. If you have a "+" button next to the heading "Alarm", isn't that kind of obvious?

    4. Re:i am 36 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Linux community is having similar problems with the new Unity interface that Canonical came out with. Took me less than an hour and I was using it better than I could with a menu system. Menu systems are large, clunky and unintuitive and take too much time to navigate.. This is why they are starting to make their way out the door. It's easier to have icons that you place yourself that you know what the function of it or a search menu for the application that you want. Yeah, you have to know how to spell... Unless you're a 3rd grader, that's not an issue.

    5. Re:i am 36 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not alienated by them; you just don't like them. There's a difference.

    6. Re:i am 36 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want stuff like this then stop buying Apple shit. I know Windows Phone gets a bad rep here but the UI is much cleaner and simpler. It still has a few little stupidities like the unassosiated plus icons as complained about in the OP but usability wise they are way ahead.

    7. Re:i am 36 by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      No, it's not an age issue - it's an intelligence issue. While they may not know all the ins and outs instantly, anyone with a fully functioning brain can pick up most technology and use it for its basic functionality instantly with no training. Why? Because the interfaces rely on common fucking sense. Though sadly, I read reports a good decade or two ago about how Mr. Common F. Sense had died.....

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    8. Re:i am 36 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interestingly enough, on my Galaxy S / Android phone, creating an alarm is done by tapping a rather large line sporting a '+' sign and the text 'Create alarm', so the solution seems to be to just switch the elderly over to Android. ;)

  33. it's not an older/younger thing by roc97007 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not an older/younger thing, it's entirely an "unnecessarily complicated or obscure" thing. Sure, younger people have more experience with enigmatic interfaces, and are more likely to keep trying without getting frustrated, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the interface in question appeals to young folk. For instance, a "set alarm" button would be more immediately understood regardless of age, or (and this point is completely missed) degree of geekiness.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    1. Re:it's not an older/younger thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not an older/younger thing, it's entirely an "unnecessarily complicated or obscure" thing. Sure, younger people have more experience with enigmatic interfaces

      That's it, really. The difference is not that younger people are brighter than old people; the difference is that (some?) old people have an almost paranoical fear of trying to solve problems like these. Click on a random button to see what it does? Open a menu? Look for an option? But just think about what might happen! Maybe the phone will self-destruct, or call muggers to your house, or empty your bank account automatically.

      I'm exaggerating, but you get the idea.

    2. Re:it's not an older/younger thing by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      I disagree. Example: I've been a geek since before AlGore invented the internet, but I have learned to defer to my daughter for obscure Android questions. Not because I'm afraid to push buttons -- quite the contrary -- but because I no longer have the patience to struggle with badly thought-out interfaces. She'll do a recursive journey down each menu path looking for obscure settings, usually while watching TV, where I'll either blow it off or look it up on Android Central, or ask her. This has absolutely nothing to do with being "scared" of the interface. It has to do with not wanting to invest in the time to figure out where the designer haphazardly pasted a feature, or (in this case) the function of various unmarked buttons.

      Remember, correlation is not causation. That some people have anxiety about obscure interfaces, and that they tend to be "old" (whatever that means in this context), doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that a well-designed interface would incite fear in the elderly merely because they aren't familiar with it. The actual cause, in my opinion, is more likely to be that the examples -- cute trendy buttons that don't advertise their true purpose -- are indicative of bad design.

      Hell, my mother -- in her seventies -- called me not long ago, said she had a computer problem she couldn't figure out. When the usual stuff didn't solve it, she booted from the cd and was rooting around in the recovery console. That takes more guts than possessed by most non-geeks of any age.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    3. Re:it's not an older/younger thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's my point exactly. This isn't Video Game Universe. Your appliance should not be a problem to be solved--it should do its job with as little fuss as possible.

  34. My parents by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

    Both gone now, but vastly different in use of tech. I don't believe my mom ever used a PC, but my dad was a UNIX and MS Office instructor up until a few months before he passed at 81. I remember my son, at age 4, trying to teach my mom how to use MSPaint.

    In 2050, when you whippersnappers are 70 and 80, all the 'kids' will be ragging on you geezers about how you don't 'get' the new-fangled brain-silicon interface, with the 3DHD corneal implants.

    1. Re:My parents by Carnivore · · Score: 1

      In 2050, when you whippersnappers are 70 and 80, all the 'kids' will be ragging on you geezers about how you don't 'get' the new-fangled brain-silicon interface, with the 3DHD corneal implants.

      You know, I don't think so. My mom said something similar to me when I got frustrated with my grandmother's inability to understand the Apple IIGS's "learn to use a mouse" game. I've thought about it and I have decided that the increased pace of technological development has set us up to maintain plasticity in a way that the old people of today don't have.

      I don't think that we'll have the opportunity to get so set in our ways that we won't understand the tech of the day, whatever day that is.

      On another note, I have an ongoing problem with getting my mom to understand files and directories. For some reason, for her, the metaphor does not work at all. My dad has set her up with one directory into which she puts all of her files, which she uses. She uses good filenames, so she can find stuff later. Using folders to organise her stuff just doesn't occur to her. Does anyone have an idea of how I can help her understand?

    2. Re:My parents by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Start with file. Explain that a "file" is something you could staple together if it were printed. A directory contains either files or directories, so the next step is to put them in manila folders in a filing cabinet. All the tax files go in one folder, labeled "Taxes". The folders labeled "Taxes" and "Insurance" and "Bank Statements" all go in the top drawer of the filing cabinet, which is labeled "Financial".

      If she can't get that, why worry? She can find her stuff, and that's all that matters.

    3. Re:My parents by JimFive · · Score: 1

      She uses good filenames, so she can find stuff later. Using folders to organise her stuff just doesn't occur to her. Does anyone have an idea of how I can help her understand?

      First, you say she uses good file names so she can find stuff. Presumably that means she uses names like "LetterToAnnApril2011AboutCat.doc" If so then her directory structure is built in: Letter\ToAnn\April2011\AboutCat.doc If you can explain to her why the Structure with the folders is better then she will use it.

      The fundamental question is "What is the Benefit to her?" The main benefit of a folder structure for the end user is "Find stuff", if she can already find stuff then does it really matter?

      The historic reason for a folder structure for the user was to get around limitations of the computer. When you can't have more than 255 files in a directory then you have to have a directory structure. From the point of view of someone who does projects having a folder for each project makes sense. But from the view of someone who only uses documents, what is the benefit?

      Why do you think your mother's system needs to be fixed?
      --
      JimFive

      --
      Please stop using the word theory when you mean hypothesis.
  35. Unnecessary hassle. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's like they've lost the capacity for experimental play and refuse to learn on their own.

    Becuase just-learn-by-trial-and-error-computer-stupids is what modern industrial design has resorted to. Oh, but it looks "cool" in some trite way, so they got that going for them.

    Crap like inscrutable icons appeal to people who get a warm, fuzzy feeling for belonging to the in-crowd that understands their meaning. Doubly so when they get to pat themselves on the back for being experimentally playful.

    1. Re:Unnecessary hassle. by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      The specific memories I'm referring to are from fifteen years ago when I was teaching a "this is a mouse, this is a keyboard" class. People wouldnt explore the (then) text-based menus in the various word processors we showed them. It was baffling to me.

  36. Payback time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't complain! You've got overwhelming representation at the polls, we happily troll by with our gadgets.

  37. Bad example by EdwinFreed · · Score: 2

    Maybe he's using a custom clock app or something, but on my iPhone the built in clock app has four clearly labeled mode setting buttons at the bottom: "World Clock", "Alarm", "Stopwatch", and "Timer". Pressing the one called "Alarm" to set an alarm seems, well, obvious, and when you do that you get a screen saying "no alarms" and exactly one "+" button you can press, so unless you simply freeze up at that point I don't see how this can be so confusing. In particular, no clock face is displayed at this point so there is no possibility of, "Pressing the clock image takes you through to choices about how the clock is displayed, and it's not easy to get back again."

    If you want to criticize the alarm and calendar stuff on the iPhone, a better place to start is the spinning dial thing used to enter times. (Which is what comes up once you press "+".) A lot of people dislike this and find it hard to use. I don't find it difficult personally, but I have to admit I'd prefer a numeric keypad.

    1. Re:Bad example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention that this behaviour is consistent between apps on the iPhone, so you only have to learn what it means once - in pretty much every app, if there's something to be added to a list, there's a "+" button in the top right.

      That said, I've had to help dozens of people who seemingly can't see the common "Back" arrow in the top left of apps with multi-level menus. Nevermind that the transitions between menus are animated to make the directional cue obvious...

    2. Re:Bad example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe he's using a custom clock app or something, but on my iPhone the built in clock app has four clearly labeled mode setting buttons at the bottom: "World Clock", "Alarm", "Stopwatch", and "Timer". Pressing the one called "Alarm" to set an alarm seems, well, obvious, and when you do that you get a screen saying "no alarms" and exactly one "+" button you can press, so unless you simply freeze up at that point I don't see how this can be so confusing. In particular, no clock face is displayed at this point so there is no possibility of, "Pressing the clock image takes you through to choices about how the clock is displayed, and it's not easy to get back again."

      If you want to criticize the alarm and calendar stuff on the iPhone, a better place to start is the spinning dial thing used to enter times. (Which is what comes up once you press "+".) A lot of people dislike this and find it hard to use. I don't find it difficult personally, but I have to admit I'd prefer a numeric keypad.

      The point is that instead of having a default alarm which is "off" to start with, and the + to add more, they jsut have the plus. Which in a lot of current UI's is used to indicate that you want to see more menu options or expand a tree of items, or otherwise add to an existing item. The use of it as "create a new sub entity" IS rather unique in this case. The point being, there's plenty of real estate to get rid of the plus and change it to "add alarm" instead of assuming the user is just going to poke everything on the screen until things work.
      It has nothing to do with age, it's about UI designers trying to be clever, trendy, or cool instead of going with what is simple and obvious to everybody. Or at least, what should be.

  38. tiny type by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tiny type. Hard to read.

  39. Cute and clever by MpVpRb · · Score: 1

    Designers tend to like cute and clever. Sometimes this results in interfaces that are incomprehensible. Apple is the worst offender. It has nothing to do with age.

  40. The nature of tech requires adaptation & learn by bADlOGIN · · Score: 2

    These are two things that the elderly stereotypically are not accustomed to and have not had as a constant requirement throughout their lives. I suspect this will be recognized as a generational issue. The elderly of tomorrow who are today's Gen-X, Gen-Y & Millennial adults will not have this problem. We've been born into a culture that will mow you down if you don't keep yourself up to date.

    --
    *** Sigs are a stupid waste of bandwidth.
  41. My dad smashed the Ninendo in 1988 by retroworks · · Score: 2

    He had mastered Mario Brothers using a cheat code we installed for him, but could not rescue the princess in level 5. He finally became enraged, ripped the little gray Nintendo box from the TV plugs, and smashed it to the ground. Ok, that was a long time ago, but he's not going near my laptop.

    --
    Gently reply
  42. Not inability by Strichopher · · Score: 1

    I work Tech Support and am confronted with this reality on a day by day basis. Nine times out of Ten it is an unwillingness to learn. To experiment and discover the answer. Unless it's a cute old Grandma, and then my opinion is that she shouldn't be bothered with that kind of thing.

    1. Re:Not inability by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      I work tech support and I agree the UIs are too complicated quite often. Have you ever tried to navigate television using a digital cable box? Those things are ridiculously unintuitive and difficult, and keep in mind we're talking about an appliance that is literally targeted towards the least intelligent section of the consumer market.

  43. Change for change's sake by Fractal+Dice · · Score: 1

    Once you've released your UI, it's game over. Go away and design something else please. My experience in family tech support is that patches that try to tweak the UI inevitably result in long angry rants over the phone as if I was the one who decided to "mess it up".

  44. No, its merely something different by perpenso · · Score: 1

    Couldn't that also be interpreted as "necessarily simple"? Older generations don't get it not because of its complexity, but its simplicity. They might understand better if everything had a label and step-by-step info, but for the rest of us that do understand, this just adds complexity when it might not be needed.

    Age has little to do with it. Once a person, young or old, has seen it done once or twice they get it. Its really nothing more than younger people were the early iPhone/iPod touch adopters, or early adopters of computers that used similar user interface widgets. If you hand an iPhone to an older person today its more likely to be something new and different, just like it was for a younger person five or so years ago.

  45. The iphone alarm clock is not like a regular alarm by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

    Computers have this concept of things being n-ary instead of single or double. Ex: Most real alarm clocks have 2 alarms - so there is either a switch with 2 positions, or 2 sets of buttons. So you might have on1, off1, on2, off2, etc. But a computer alarm might have a max of 2 million alarms, so instead you have the concept of adding or removing an alarm.

    This concept frustrates computer illiterate people all the time. It happens on cameras, thermostats, televisions, etc. Remember when remote controls had a dial with a "tick" for each station? Now there are too many stations for that. Cameras had a switch with 4 ISO settings: ISO 100, 200, 400, 800. Now my camera has a dozen ISO settings. etc. etc.

  46. CD Player Controls by DigitaLunatiC · · Score: 1

    The elderly can't even handle most CD players, I really don't think design has anything to do with it. They're unwilling to attempt to use things, so they just ask for help.

    My grandmother had no music in her car for over a month because she put a CD in upside down and never bothered to press the eject button. It didn't work, so she assumed it was broken and didn't think it was worth getting fixed.

    My fiancee's grandmother constantly asks how to make her standalone CD player... play. Never, has she put a CD in and pressed the double-sized button in the center that says "Play" under a big single forward arrow. However, she can work a cassette player that has identical buttons (with slightly different text on FF/RW instead of Skip and the like).

    In the case of "adding an alarm" and how terribly confusing that must be: if there's only one button, press it. Also, isn't this exactly the market Samsung makes the Jitterbug for?

  47. It's easy to blame the elderly... by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

    It's easy to blame the elderly. Most of the posts on this topic are doing just that. However, if Apple wants to blame the elderly because they can't figure out iOS, that's fine. I'm sure Samsung or HTC or somebody will be more than happy to sell them a phone running Android that is configured to meet the needs of the purchaser.

    When Apple was pretty much the only smart phone around, they could come out with whatever interface they wanted and uses had to adapt to it. That is no longer the case. And, since the elderly are the last large demographic to market smart phones to, whoever caters to their needs, whether real or perceived, will be the one selling phones.

    Simple and intuitive are not synonymous.

    1. Re:It's easy to blame the elderly... by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      You've obviously never used an iPhone and thus, don't understand how retarded these people are for getting confused by this screen. While I've owned both an iPhone and an Android phone and can say that Android is much more intuitive (especially since it has a goddamn BACK button), this is still a matter of people just needed to be smacked upside the head and told "use your damn brain".

      Here is a picture of the offending app http://callstyle.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/snap-alarm.jpg

      When you first go to it, that list of alarms is blank so you only have the + button. When there's only the one button, WTF else do you think you're going to hit to set an alarm?

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    2. Re:It's easy to blame the elderly... by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      You've obviously never used an iPhone and thus, don't understand how retarded these people are for getting confused by this screen. While I've owned both an iPhone and an Android phone and can say that Android is much more intuitive (especially since it has a goddamn BACK button), this is still a matter of people just needed to be smacked upside the head and told "use your damn brain".

      Here is a picture of the offending app http://callstyle.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/snap-alarm.jpg

      When you first go to it, that list of alarms is blank so you only have the + button. When there's only the one button, WTF else do you think you're going to hit to set an alarm?

      Well, if Apple were to take your approach and tell people they are too dumb to use their phone, it would be time to dump Apple's stock. It doesn't matter if the elderly people you are referring to are "retarded" or not. It doesn't matter that they are getting confused by the screen. What does matter, at least to Apple, is that a significant portion of the market they are wanting to expand into thinks their phone is not intuitive or simple.

      Now Apple can do something about it or they can claim their phone is only for young, smart people and let Google and Microsoft take over the market share from them.

    3. Re:It's easy to blame the elderly... by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      So Apple should make a product that their core potential customer base (those with functioning brains) will abandon just to get to that small portion of idiots and elderly who want a smartphone? There are many companies who refuse to do that - Bentley for example will let you customize the crap out of their cars. However, if you want something extremely tacky, Bentley will flat out tell you "Sorry, but we don't do that - you should buy a different type of car". It's called having standards and not lowering the quality of your brand to appeal to a few more customers who are beneath you.

      It's funny that you mention Android and MS - Android uses the same multiple alarm system (though for the real idiots, they do have "add alarm" next to the plus sign). The problem isn't the OS - the problem is (to quote Green Day) American idiots who can't use some common sense and instead bitch that they were forced to expend a tiny bit of energy and brain activity to try to do something.

      You may want to live in a society where things are constantly being dumbed down more and more. I prefer to live in a society where people are expected to use their goddamn brain.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
  48. Ubuntu Ambiance Theme by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

    1px wide window borders -- for someone with shaky hands these are nearly IMPOSSIBLE to resize (most windows don't include the drag handle).

    Nearly all the other non shitty (high contrast) themes it comes with also have 1px wide borders. I get that the border area is destined for a clean look, but does the look have to be tied to the usability? Can't an invisible area around the window provide the drag handle features in a size not dependent on the pixel count of the border? The bug report response says, "no". (I know about the menu option for resize, but that's not a real solution).

    I was glad to see shaky-hand assist in the form of Gnome's "drag n drop" threshold -- My neighbor and grandma love this feature; It keeps them from accidentally duplicating or moving files while trying to click them.

    The move to Unity further alienates the elderly people in my life -- My grandma is willing to learn a new paradigm, but my neighbor switched to Linux expressly because of the "confusing" new Vista / Win7 UI features. Looks like we'll be "upgrading" to Debian + XFC at this rate.

    Meanwhile I wrote a script that uses compiz window positioning to provide the side-by-side window resizing shortcut for them (similar to Win7) -- they would still rather grab the edges of the damn window, and it's very painful to watch them try.

    I used to live near the flagship What-a-Burger fast-food restaurant (near their headquarters in Corpus Christi, TX) they have/had free WIFI, and at least 10-15 elderly people meet there in the mornings to chat and do crosswords, check their e-mail, etc over coffee/breakfast. At first I was surprised to be joining conversations with them about the latest computer malware and new websites, applications, privacy policies -- even games, but then I realized: That's how I'll be in the not too distant future, and I have no intention of loosing touch with the world either.

    Many elderly people want to participate in today's technology -- They can still learn, you don't have to dumb things down, just add tool-tips or other hints -- It really doesn't take much time to make most apps' UI friendly for them -- Configurable text size, scrolling areas, (full app zoom & panning at worse), instead of a simple static layout -- My programs have a "seniors" mode, that has also come in handy for a Muscular Dystrophy afflicted associate of mine.

    P.S. Many elderly people grew up in a time when a button, knob or lever did exactly one thing. The volume knob changes volume, power button turns things on/off -- Some of today's car radios toggle between clock / tune / power / input / on knob push, and spin to change options, software "innovation" can produce less intuitive interfaces. "Soft" buttons that change function depending on what's on the screen are a common source of confusion, in my experience. I've even seen outdoor lighting that toggles between: On, Off, Timed, Off (depending on the number of times you flip the switch) -- confusing to no end for some.

    With touch screens & other GUIs: Making the on screen controls visually and/or spatially distinct can help to mitigate the "single function knob" confusion -- (eg: change the color of the UI element depending on its function)

    1. Re:Ubuntu Ambiance Theme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (1) Not as discoverable, but your window manager probably supports [alt]+right-click+drag for resizing windows. No need to grab edges if you don't want to. (2) Ubuntu + XFCE works fine. No need to switch distros.

    2. Re:Ubuntu Ambiance Theme by RogerWilco · · Score: 1

      With touch screens & other GUIs: Making the on screen controls visually and/or spatially distinct can help to mitigate the "single function knob" confusion -- (eg: change the color of the UI element depending on its function)

      I think that this is one of the big advantages that iOS and similar interfaces have over the traditional computer interfaces. They can get much closer to the "Single Function knob" paradigm, because each application can completely redefine the UI. The current limitation is screen size.

      But I see it as a step in the right direction.

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
  49. my 82 yr old dad loves the iPad by romanval · · Score: 1

    in fact, the iPad is the only computer he can actually use. When he wants to browse today's newspaper.... I placed a shortcut to the newspaper website on the home screen, tell him to touch it, and *bang*, there's today's news. He can't use a mouse because of disabilities (arthritis has locked up his right hand).. Besides, the whole WIMP interface is lost on him. But he sure knows how to 'click' an onscreen button, and double-tap to zoom-in on a web page. That's all he needs.


    Oh and the whole thing about setting the iOS alarm clock is just stupid. (Besides being retired and not having to follow any kind of schedule, he knows how to use a real-world alarm clock.)

  50. frames of reference and intuitive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Intuitive is not the same as having common points of reference. User interfaces that are truly intuitive are used, joyfully, by the older crowd. If, however, the interface is relying on knowledge of a common frame of reference/experience that older people do not, they fail.

    Examples:
    Touchscreens and touchscreen navigation. Growing up, older people were trained NOT to touch their expensive screens because it would make them dirty and damage them. A simple arrow or other visual queue on the screen is often enough. That or a quick demo from someone. People who develop truly intuitive interfaces have no trouble with the older crowd.

    Response times. In a mechanical world, pushing a lever or flipping a switch often had immediate results, even if it was just a grinding/whirring as the machine began its larger process. When an older person presses a button and does not get some type of immediate feedback, they generally assume that button press failed. They tend to then repeatedly press or hold down a button. Makes sense in the mechanical world they grew up in, as physical buttons often "catch". Can be extremely problematic in a digital system which queues commands.

    Experimentation. The mechanical generation is less likely to experiment or tinker with processes they do not at all understand. This is wise when it comes to machinery. If you cannot figure out basic mechanical processes involved by looking at it, generally you shouldn't take apart expensive machinery. You are likely to do severe damage to the machine or your body. The older generation generally does well at research, adaptation, and experimentation with machinery. They've been taught what they can safely fiddle with and cannot. They have no such experience base for modern electronics and software. When was the last time you changed your oil yourself? Adjusted the timing on your vehicle? BTW, the same generally holds true for electronics. If you don't have at least a basic understanding of operating systems, electronics hardware, and electrical safety, you aren't going to be able to safely experiment with your electrical devices.

    The younger generation isn't superior and weren't born with this knowledge. They learned much of it in school and through their peer groups. The author is just pointing out that what one generation sees as "simple" doesn't necessarily mean that it really is inherently simple to understand. My Dad memorized log tables in school. He can do all sorts of "simple" calculations in his head that the younger generation needs to go find a log table or a calculator to answer.

  51. Article is wrong by KewlPC · · Score: 1

    The built-in alarm clock app in iOS works nothing like the article describes.

    The use of a "+" button to mean "add [something]" is used throughout iOS. You don't use the "+" button to adjust an existing alarm, BTW. The alarm clock app initially has no alarms set, so you use the "+" button to add one (which then automatically takes you to a screen where you can set the alarm). If you want to change an alarm, you press the clearly labeled "Edit" button.

  52. My English is better than your... by tepples · · Score: 1, Informative

    And sorry on the most alarm clocks on smartphones you could instead of the plus easily write "add/set alarm"

    Would it be "set alarm" or "ampaci lau croni"? Adding an icon means the developer doesn't need to add as many strings to an application's localization database.

    1. Re:My English is better than your... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what message catalogs are for.

    2. Re:My English is better than your... by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Unless your app has no language at all, you're going to have to hire a translator. Hiring a minimally competent translator for one hour will cover every single word in your app. What is that, $40/language?

    3. Re:My English is better than your... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      the developer doesn't need to add as many strings to an application's localization database.

      Yes they do. I don't speak Icon.

    4. Re:My English is better than your... by B1ackDragon · · Score: 1

      In addition, the list of alarms has the general "list of stuff" UI on the iphone. Having a consistent UI for certain types of tasks (adding something to a list) aids in learning to use the UI; once someone learns to add an item to one list they'll transfer that knowledge to new situations (won't they?!). Though I'll admit that "Add" may be better than "+" in these cases (though you again run into localization issues, but since it's a general UI item Apple could probably handle that system wide).

      It's a tricky trade off: UI concepts should be consistent and generalizable, but also as descriptive as possible. These are at odds at times.

      --
      The snow doesn't give a soft white damn whom it touches. -- ee cummings
    5. Re:My English is better than your... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And sorry on the most alarm clocks on smartphones you could instead of the plus easily write "add/set alarm"

      Would it be "set alarm" or "ampaci lau croni"? Adding an icon means the developer doesn't need to add as many strings to an application's localization database.

      I have to totally disagree with this. Taking "universal" pictures from various makes of cars as an example, I remember trying to figure out what some of the goofy-as-fuck pictures on buttons of BMWs or some Japanese cars meant. I'd have a better chance recognizing the damn word in German than deciphering the two parallel lines or whatever.

    6. Re:My English is better than your... by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      I hear this argument all the time and it is silly. I don't believe that the cost of translating the word "add" into 145 languages is even a blip on the radar of costs. I work for a company that will spend weeks arguing over how to differentiate the icon for "dispense 4ml of hydrochloric acid into the vial" from the icon for "dispense 4ml of potassium hydroxide into the vial" when the chemical symbols are the same in all languages anyway! Just to avoid text!

  53. When is a phone just a phone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It annoyed me no end that I had to read the manual to learn that it was necessary to push and hold the red Off switch, to turn on my phone.
    Right out of the box, intuitive interface fail.

    The Next/Back buttons are backwards for those who learned to read from right to left and no amount of experimentation would show me how to simply touch in a number and call rather than make a listing in my address book and then use the listing to call--I had to read the manual for that too.
    The button labels are too small to read if you aren't nearsighted from staring too long at the screen so experimentation would be totally random.

    Then there were the messed up phone calls where opening the phone did not lead to listening to my incoming call, but pushing the green (lift handset) button disconnected the call.

    All I wanted was to enter a number and make a connection, or answer the phone and talk to my caller. All the "bonus" features are unnecessary bloatware.
    OK, now all you folks who think your UI is so easy to understand are thinking, braindead granny but I am no technopeasant. Electrical & Computer Engineer with experience in UI design (among many other things) and compassion for the folks who just want to use their hardware, not have it use them. The manual should not be three times the size of the device and rendered in super tiny print.

    1. Re:When is a phone just a phone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Edit:/Correction . . . learned to read from left to right (as in English)

    2. Re:When is a phone just a phone? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      That is the core of the issue, young developers working in a vacuum, making UI that makes sense to them but not a normal person. Thus we have your bad cell phone UI and thus we have Ubuntu Unity. It is scary the same problems are starting to crop up in vehicles, where bad UI can cause the machine to be damaged or someone to be maimed or worse.

    3. Re:When is a phone just a phone? by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      It is scary the same problems are starting to crop up in vehicles, where bad UI can cause the machine to be damaged or someone to be maimed or worse.

      Especially since, according to some of the pundits upthread, the withit younger generation will happily push buttons at random just to see what happens.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  54. Adding alarms--why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The iPhone Alarm Clock comes with several alarms set up. You don't need to keep adding new ones unless your life is incredibly complex. You just touch the Edit button to change thee time on the alarms you already have.

  55. Not only elderly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am 41 years old and I use computers on a daily basis since I was a teenager, privately and professionally. And I am pissed off by the user interface.

    I mostly use the console on a graphical screen, which gives me the least headache.

    Since a few days I use squeeze and KDE 4.4.5. I am really impressed - not only did they port many idiotic things over from KDE 3.5, no they made it even worse. I didn't think that might be possible...

    Oh, I use KDE since over a decade now. It's horrible, but I didn't find any other desktop system, which was so much better that a migration over to that desktop would have been a benefit.

    Same with applications: full of functionality, which gives the user the impression to be excessively stupid, where it is mostly bad design.

    cb

    1. Re:Not only elderly by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      I hate the majority of icons, they pander to the illiterate or mentally retarded. I can read 20x as fast as I can figure out some badly drawn and poorly chosen figure.

    2. Re:Not only elderly by RogerWilco · · Score: 1

      But then that would need to be translated into X languages. And have have controls that adjust to the size of the words in different languages.
      Internationalization is what makes icons so attractive. And of course that you can fit more in a small space, of known size, so use pixels for something else.

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
    3. Re:Not only elderly by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      cell phones do X languages anyway, yours probably has 8 or more to choose. I don't think words take more space than the usual big ugly icons in my phone

  56. Re:The nature of tech requires adaptation & le by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " The elderly of tomorrow who are today's Gen-X, Gen-Y & Millennial adults will not have this problem. We've been born into a culture that will mow you down if you don't keep yourself up to date."

    Pftt-lawnmowers! Get off my green , self-mowing nanotube lawn, you geezer! :o

  57. Expectations by jklovanc · · Score: 1

    Whenever approaching something new, one has expectations on how things will go. If the expectation is that new technology is "hard and complex" one's subconscious will work to make that true. Most elderly people are under the impression that technology=complex.

    The statement that a user interface should be intuitive to someone with 0 experience is stupid. If someone has no experience working with something they will transfer experience from something similar. My advice to low experience users; read the manual.

    I hate article like the one referred to; heavy on what is wrong and very light on what to do about it. It is very easy to point at issues but the magic is in solving them.

  58. Sometimes a picture isn't worth a thousand words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I remember old Windows 3.x and 95 applications that had a toolbar full of icons, but I sure as hell couldn't tell what most of those icons were meant to do. Usually I had to hover over it and read the tooltip popup to find out what it did. Office 2003 was a lot like this as well. When GUIs came into vogue perhaps application designers/programmers felt pressured to "iconize" everything, but some things are just more efficient written out as text.

  59. Self-Solving Problem by SEE · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They're elderly, so all we have to do is wait them out.

    1. Re:Self-Solving Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then you will be the problem. But then again, every generation thinks they are different ...

    2. Re:Self-Solving Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a long enough timeline we are all dead

    3. Re:Self-Solving Problem by coliva · · Score: 1

      By the time you've waited them out, you are elderly and a younger generation is asking why you can't do what they've grown up on.

    4. Re:Self-Solving Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What happens when WE are the elderly? Will the new youth follow the example we set?

    5. Re:Self-Solving Problem by SEE · · Score: 1

      Hell, no. We'll raise 'em better than that, with discipline instead of Dr. Spock.

  60. Agreed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tech designers must adapt to what we've learned about the limitations of the elderly.

    It just shows how primitive and incomplete our technology is that it can't cope with the elderly.

    1. Re:Agreed! by PPH · · Score: 1

      It just shows how primitive and incomplete our technology is that it can't cope with the elderly.

      Frankly, I'm surprised. Logan's Run was released in 1976 and we haven't made any progress toward that vision of society.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  61. Re:Unnecessarily complex? Youbetcha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why the heck is the "add" button just a small thingy, and the whole rest of that clock a link to something THAT SHOULD NO BE THERE (changing its appearance) ...

    If you want to make sure a line of events is followed *than make sure that those choices are the **easiest** thing to select* (and no further distracting options are present).

    But than again, in this "lets make all things generic" I can even (in Windows) *create* a folder when I should actually just *select* a document to be handled. Why ? No idea. Flawed by design is more like it.

  62. Re:The nature of tech requires adaptation & le by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mod this +1 Prophetic. You'll check this back in 50 years and be like, WOW this "bADIOGIN" guy gets it. Now, what the hell is with that "handle"? They called them that, right?

  63. Also 36 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I find most modern interfaces to be overly precious -- as if someone designer is trying to draw your attention to their cleverness and mastery of trendy design conventions rather making things as easily understood and executable as possible.

    Its just a damn alarm clock. I don't need to be impressed by design. I need to be alerted at a specified time.

  64. Fanbois by tbird81 · · Score: 1

    I see. The interface is too cool for old people to use. It's not poor design and form over function.

  65. Re:The nature of tech requires adaptation & le by tachin1 · · Score: 1

    You definitely underestimate the issue at hand, Older people are accustomed to doing things one way, this will still be true in 30 years, so when a new way of doing things comes along, we will fall out of step because we will become stubborn and cling, like elderly people to our set ways.

    --
    I'm always right, except when i'm not.
  66. So dumb down computing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because someone is so stupid they cant figure out what to click and there are only two choices.

    If your to stupid to work a computer too bad.

    1. Re:So dumb down computing by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      A plus sign and a clock may look like one choice to a person. Instead, they words "add clock" would have been a much better choice. Icons should be removed from most GUI and replaced with words, which are much clearer and can be comprehended faster by the literate.

  67. Really Bad Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Nah, the problem as I see it is that there is a lot of really bad UI design out there. And the horror is that this is being considered the standard against which to measure usability. If I compare something like a TV set remote to a computer I am struck by the limited number of choices and the immediacy of the response. On the other hand, my wife has been struggling with an application that as a response to 'print' asks if one wants to delete all previous alert messages.. WTF! If you respond 'yes' then it pops up a print dialog box... not the best or clearest. But there is so much of this kind of stuff. And what makes me crazy is to read responses from folks who's idea of growing up with computers is being around for the last decade or two... heck, when I got interested in computers there were debates about binary vs BCD arithmetic for scientific vs business applications and mercury delay lines were the state of the art. After over half a century of development we still seem to be struggling with problems of building tools that the user actually wants to use, not just the guy who hacked the code.

  68. I'm not quite elderly by reboot246 · · Score: 1

    Only 58, but my eyes are getting worse as time goes on. My biggest problem is web sites that display in flash. Text about 5 points!?! Can't resize that crap. If I can't read it, I just ignore that site and move on somewhere else.

    I propose we institute the death penalty for anybody who has their text and background in colors that are nearly the same. Contrast, people, contrast!

    Oh, and get the fuck off my lawn!!!
    And take your pooping dog with you!!!

  69. Before commenting . . . . by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 2

    Before commenting, please read "Design of Everyday Things" by Norman.

    Please.

    --
    I am not a crackpot.
  70. Features are Becoming More Abstract by jubei · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think that your comment illustrates a large part of the problem. Non technical people cannot imagine what features a program could have, since the features are becoming more and more abstracted from real-life metaphors.

    With older alarms, there were either 1 or a fixed number of alarms. You could see them and interact with them. With the newer alarm app, you can have an infinite number of alarms, and they don't exist until you tell the program to create them.

    You aren't "setting the alarm", you are creating an instruction for the program to behave like an alarm. This is a concept that is very foreign to someone used to being able to relate to computer concepts to physical objects.

    1. Re:Features are Becoming More Abstract by RogerWilco · · Score: 1

      Yes, I think you're right. The problem is the concept of creating alarms. It's a degree of freedom that the developers put in most modern OSses, that are counter intuitive to someone who grew up with mechanical tools, because those have a limited number of choices due to their nature.

      The "older" users aren't expecting a list of alarms and are thus not recognizing it as such.

      Next to that it the hesitation to explore interface elements that have no clear function, like another poster points out. So the [+] button instead of an [Add alarm] button makes matters worse on iOS. It's an interface element that Apple could have designed better.

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
  71. Iconography needs to be localised, too. by Rozzin · · Score: 2

    Adding an icon means the developer doesn't need to add as many strings to an application's localization database.

    It sounds good..., but anyone not familiar with whatever `universal' iconography the designer chose would disagree.

    The whole `office desk' metaphor, for example, is completely lost on people who've never either experienced an actual office-like setting (with desks, file-folders, documents, etc.) or been trained on the metaphor itself. Red means `something bad' in America, `something good' in China, and nothing in particular to the 10% of people worldwide who just can't see it. For a blind user interacting via a screen-reader, custom text is likely to be infinitely better than custom icons.

    Sometimes none of these things matter, sometimes they all do. Sometiimes your users are literally illiterate, and any kind of iconography is more learnable than textual labels, but that's also a minority case.

    Of course, if what you meant was `not localising is a way of cheaping-out', I'll agree with that.

    --
    -rozzin.
  72. UI Arrogance by anchovy_chekov · · Score: 2

    I think there's a basic misunderstanding on the part of "designers" who go for cuteness (or technically correct but user-experience dumb) when designing interfaces. There's also the problem of over-representation of 20-30 year old, white, male points of view (just, that old chestnut).

    My parents are having to sort out getting digital TV set-top boxes for their home, as the analogue signal is all but gone. My mother goes in to try and get some help understanding how the thing they bought works and cops a flurry of attitude from the young male who literally says to her face "I can't stand it when people say they're not tech-savvy. It's not hard". Dad goes in, "Sure sir, how can I help you?".

    Having dealt with developers (and been a developer) for almost 20 years, I see this kind of dickwad mentality everywhere: the user doesn't know what he/she wants. Really? Trying talking their language.

  73. now you both have to learn a third language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    which has no glossary, no symbolic standardization, and has thousands of dialects, each based on the whim of the developer. Great way to push the work back on to the user instead of handling it in the code.

    Also, try supporting these apps over the phone some time. "I see a thing that looks like a piece of beige poop on top of a red cone, is that it?" (in this case the user was referring to a tiny icon of a person superimposed on a meaningless circular blue icon background, the person's head was the 'beige poop' and the red cone was the torso.)

  74. Today's Tech and the Elderly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Me, I'm 83 and I've found the perfect tool for people of my age.
    It's Debian sid with KDE 4.6, updated weekly with the smxi script.
    Smooth, fast, flexible, attractive and a delight to use, with newsfeed (Google), e-mail (Gmail), stock charting (Qtstalker) and management, music (moc), videos (VLC), correspondence (LibreOffice), browsing (Google Chrome) and an occasional game.
    I loaded a working system on my 3-year-old box in about 3 minutes, using Aptosid and spent a little while running smxi to update and improve it, before quickly adding a few extra programmes with apt-get and easily setting up my preferences.
    What's to complain about? Who said Linux wasn't ready for the desktop?

  75. I don't get most of the iPhone interface either. by suso · · Score: 1

    Like a lot of people here, I've been using computers since I was 4 (1980). I have used practically every interface there has been save a few. I'm 35 now and honestly I can say that a lot of menus and buttons on the iPhone are not obvious. For instance, if I want to see details about a call without actually making a call or if I want to delete a message or stop a program and restart it, how was I supposed to know that clicking on the main button twice would do that. Or that clicking on edit in the list would allow me to delete a message instead of edit a new one. Or that in order to view the details of a call I was supposed to press my 15mm wide finger exactly over a button 4mm wide and that putting it anywhere else on that line would call that person back. And what the hell can I do within a video in order to see the menu so that I can turn down the volume? Still haven't reliably figured that out.

    I think what happens is the interface people like to create interfaces that they think are so slick that they can get off too at night, but its not necessarily something that makes sense based on what people already know. You can't just change everything and hope its discoverable. Discoverability is based just as much on people's experience as it is on common sense. Then again, I'm a Linux zealot fanboy, what good is my opinion, right?

  76. As opposed to yesterday's tech? by C0R1D4N · · Score: 1

    Historically setting VCRs has been a piece of cake! I'm 26 I don't know how to use a fax machine, or ANYTHING steam-powered. It's not an issue unique to 2011.

    1. Re:As opposed to yesterday's tech? by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      I have to admit I never managed to successfully set a VCR! My last failed attempt to do so was when I was about 27 (mid 90s) so often these are not age issues but a matter of what constitutes an intuitive interface to a particular individual. The VCR setting interface just did not work for me, but that doesn't man I'm stupid and I certainly wasn't old at the time. I do know how to use a fax machine, but having recently customized the settings on the fax machine using the four button key pad and the limited number of character LCD screen I can unashamedly confirm that it was frustrating and not at all easy.

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
  77. Re:The nature of tech requires adaptation & le by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suspect this will be recognized as a generational issue.

    Generation has nothing to do with it. The standard of most user interfaces is simply abysmal. Inconsistency everywhere. Candy substituting for function everywhere. Truthiness instead of actual user design, testing and analysis everywhere. Many so-called industrial designers should be shot.

    The classic example is the VCR, where more than 2/3 of the public could not set a timed recording despite the fact that the VCR was supposedly designed for them. Hundreds of millions of virtually useless VCR's - incredible! The software on the iPad is simply the best of a very bad lot.

  78. Wrong, wrong, wrong by Dracos · · Score: 2

    The problem for anyone who finds it "difficult" to use a piece of technology has nothing to do with the interface, but rather with their fear of the technology itself, or fear of "messing something up" or "not doing it right". It's a confidence issue, not comprehension.

    If very small children can pick up a Nintendo DS or a LeapFrog device and use it with little instruction, then it stands to reason that, all things being equal, the elderly should be able to use a cell phone just as easily, if for no other reason than they learned how to read decades ago. Blaming the UI is absurd.

    1. Re:Wrong, wrong, wrong by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      I partly agree but mostly disagree. There are and have been in the past many instances of obtuse crappy interfaces. You can't always blame the user if the interface is not intuitive to them.

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    2. Re:Wrong, wrong, wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *Defending* the UI is absurd. I've gotten lost (requiring exits or restarts) in interfaces many times by trying to intuitively navigate my way through. This is with medium/large PC apps as well as portable devices. The fact is that UI design is often not given the priority it should be and is handed off to someone not capable of competently accomplishing the task.

      Hell, even Slashdot has problems: I can't submit this reply by clicking a "Submit" button; I have to click "Preview" to get a submit button. That's as bad as a crappy Windows OS making me click "Start" to shut down.

      And get off my lawn!

    3. Re:Wrong, wrong, wrong by sunderland56 · · Score: 1

      If very small children can pick up a Nintendo DS or a LeapFrog device and use it with little instruction, then it stands to reason that, all things being equal, the elderly should be able to use a cell phone just as easily

      No, it stands to reason that the elderly should be able to use a DS or LeapFrog just as easily. The UI of something like a LeapFrog is designed for its target audience - a 5 year old - and so it is made simple. The UI of a smartphone is also aimed at its target - a 25 year old geek - and may not be usable by non-geeks.

      For instance, take the "twistie" UI element on Apple OSes. (The rotating triangle element that expands/collapses other UI elements). Even extremely tech-savvy people often do not understand that one - because (a) it is very non-standard (every other OS uses + and -); and (b) it is non-intuitive (there are no rotating triangles in real life; it is not an analogy for some real-world element).

    4. Re:Wrong, wrong, wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem for anyone who finds it "difficult" to use a piece of technology has nothing to do with the interface, but rather with their fear of the technology itself, or fear of "messing something up" or "not doing it right". It's a confidence issue, not comprehension.

      Blaming the UI is absurd.

      Sorry, but you're wrong, wrong, wrong!

      I'm nearly 71 and have been in the technical part of the computer business (both hardware and software) for over 50 years (I started in 1958). One of the major issues I have and have had, is the increasing amount of skill needed to navigate User Interfaces. They have gotten to the point that if you haven't had experience using something, it's completely non-intuitive. Over the years I've designed user interfaces, written code for them, and published research on them. As I became less interested, I eventually stopped. To bad other developers don't bother to learn something about how people work before they code a UI up. To be cool, obscure, or just geeky seems to be more important than providing a usable product.

      I will say there is a good deal of truth to the idea that desire has a great deal to do with learning how to use an application. Nevertheless, most applications are not intuitive to any extent. My wife, for example, has a requirement to use Word, she hates it. I spent years learning how to document software using Word, and I hate it. Most things have become automated to the point of uselessness. e.g., If I change a font in a highlighted paragraph, I do not want it changed in every paragraph of the same style. My daughter has an Android phone, which she can navigate easily, and I find it completely frustrating, and it's not because I'm afraid to try things out. It's because the application UI's are poorly designed. Yes, if you need or want to learn something you can, no matter how crappy it is. But, in my not so humble opinion, it's much better to not have to put up with the crap at all.

  79. People don't want computers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They want to do specific things, and unfortunately the things they want to do, require computers. The people complaining that computers are too complicated are the same people who would complain about the lack of features on a non smart phone. Say someone made a simple computer that just allowed internet access and email in one simple to use program, it would sell a huge amount of units, and the next update would add a few extra features. There would be DEMAND that this device should do more things, like make telephone calls, or have a facebook widgit. Alarm clocks, calendars, MP3 player etc. Until it became a regular smartphone. People would not be happy that their simple to use, but simply designed device could not do the same things as regular computers or smart phones.

    What they're asking for is a class of products that grows with them, even though they are not early adopters.

    The answer is the same as it is for everyone else. Whether you're a sysadmin, or currently residing in an assisted living home. RTFM!!!

  80. Re:The nature of tech requires adaptation & le by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

    Wrong.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  81. Microsoft Ribbon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used computers since C64 and I get lost easily when using Microsoft's ribbon interface and much prefer menu driven GUIs. I bet someone who started with Ribbon GUI would laugh at me and think I'm stupid for having a hard time.

  82. simple is hard by johnrpenner · · Score: 1

    there is no conspiracy - simple is hard, and the elderly have a harder time learning the new (as computers essentially are). sometimes you just cant teach an old dog new tricks. :->

    "Anyone can make the simple complicated. Creativity is making the complicated simple". (Charles Mingus)

  83. Speaking of bad UI... by eclectechie · · Score: 1

    ...I can't adjust the comment level slider on Slashdot on my brand new HTC Incredible 2.

    --
    "The empty vessel makes the greatest sound." -- William Shakespeare; Henry V, 4. 4
  84. Not ageism, just stupid design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why should it be more intuitive to young people to "add an alarm"? Someone designed an app around their own poor mental model of what the program should do, and apparently that model is so contaminated by writing piss-poor "apps" that they can't think beyond CRUD.

  85. Another point of view by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is that they've learned through "experimental play" with badly-designed UIs that they can completely trash their data by just clicking stuff. Get the sync prefs wrong - say g'bye to your entire contacts file on your smart phone. Or experiment with the sharing prefs on iTunes and go quietly nutz trying to get all the computers in your house to just simply use the same frickin media folder so anybody can just hear the music without hassle. Some of the common UIs are way, way more complicated than they need to be. If you're coming to them from a span of experience that includes vacuum tubes, and maybe from when antibiotics were kinda new miracles, it's a problem. You'll grok this as you age - starting somewhere around 50-55, if you're at all self-evaluative.

  86. Buttons = not buttons by Compaqt · · Score: 1

    This. There was a time when buttons where buttons. Then, somewhere (was it during or after the time of Internet Explorer 4?), someone got the idea that it would be cool to not have "buttons" per se, but rather just draw a bunch of pictures on the screen.

    You're supposed to "know" that they are buttons, and they change color, pop up, or do something else when you hover over them.

    This all, of course, has more to do with the ego gratification of program managers on a particular project than actual benefit for users (old and newb).

    --
    I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
  87. Nostalgia for Palm UI guidelines by pruss · · Score: 1

    This makes me nostalgic for classic Palm UI style: avoid icon buttons, use oblongs with text inside instead, because that will make it easier for the novice user to know what button does what. (Though there were a lot of third-party Palm apps that broke these rules by having confusing icons.)

  88. Oh, come ON!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just set the text according to the locale setting for the device.

    A "+" icon is laziness on the part of the developer, especially in environments that don't provide mousover (etc) help. As for electrical items, I/O on an electrical switch is just a confirmation on a physical device with an unambiguous purpose; unlike a "+" icon that may well have different actions depending on context.
       

  89. Being old sux.. by doccus · · Score: 1

    I would have commented earlier but i couldn't figure out how to start the keyboard.....

  90. Re:I don't get most of the iPhone interface either by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
    My mother (now 85) has been using computers since the 1960's and recently asked us to take away her PC and give her a Mac again.

    Now get off my lawn.

    --
    Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  91. Aaahh... by cyberfin · · Score: 1

    "A UK academic has blamed..." That's the story, right there. Enough said. :)

    --
    "I'm taking this loop off." - Jack O'Neill
  92. I want your users... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

    ...mine, to the extent that I have users, don't even do that much. You've just described exactly what the Bugzilla form typically asks for, and what other bug-reporting systems ask for. Most users just say "It's broken!" Seriously. If I'm lucky, I get "I can't do X."

    What I then train them to do is to start by telling me, at the very least, what happened. What was the error message? If there wasn't one, what did it do that you didn't want, or not do that you did? And what was the situation that caused this?

    While I really would prefer users who are able to tell me exactly as much information as I need, or at least not take it personally when I cut them off with their story, I'd much rather have too much information than too little.

    My favorite example of too little information is from a friend who actually worked in IT, in academia. He once had a professor walk in, put a laptop on his desk, say "Fix it," and walk out. Seriously, these people manage to get PhDs and can't figure out that in order to fix anything, we need to know what's broken -- because with behavior like that, I'd feel perfectly justified by "fixing it" by wiping the OS and installing Linux. (I'd never actually do it, but I'd sure as hell be tempted.)

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    1. Re:I want your users... by clang_jangle · · Score: 1

      But I'm not even talking about something being broken, this is what I have to go through when all that's needed from them is, "excuse me, could you tell me again -- how do I do X?". Instead I get this long, drawn-out, drama-laden story that usually goes something like this: "You know, I was surfing the web and I saw the cutest picture and wanted to send it in my email. So I highlighted some of the the text and the picture from the web page, and right clicked and selected 'copy'. Then I went to paste it in the email but NO PICTURES APPEARED!!! I mean, my god, isn't that just so stupid? It's perfectly logical that when I copy and paste something...". On and on, you get the idea. These people are less teachable than my 11 year old dog, and what they want is someone to magically make the computer work to suit their delusions of how it "should" work. When they finally stop whining and bitching and I tell them how to copy the jpg and put it in the email then they basically erase what I just told them from their brain by repeating the same stupid story again (unconscious self-indoctrination), then try to find validation by insisting I agree that the way it works is "stupid", and that it *should* work like they think it should work, that would be only plain, common sense, and so on. Then they go back to work, and have the same exact problem with the same exact story within 4 or 5 days. And these are perfectly sensible people so long as they're not dealing with any tech.

      It's really exasperating sometimes. I'm extremely patient and indulgent with them, and always keep my good humor -- but it's an act, they make me crazy! I hate having to support perpetual n00bs...

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    2. Re:I want your users... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      this is what I have to go through when all that's needed from them is, "excuse me, could you tell me again -- how do I do X?".

      Even here, as exasperating as it is when that's all you really need, having the story gives me at least one thing that most users don't tell me, especially in online forums -- it gives you their actual goal.

      For example, suppose someone asks me how to run Internet Explorer on Linux or a Mac. Knowing why they wanted to run it will go a long way towards making them happy. For example, if they didn't know what a web browser is or that other, better ones exist, introduce them to Firefox. If they're trying to use an IE-only website, you're going to want to know both that this is their goal, and which website -- will a simple user-agent hack work, would a different website help, or do you really need to help them set up IE under Wine or a VM?

      I suppose for in-person support, it helps a lot if they start with a simple question like that, because it's still going to be faster for me to ask a few questions than to get their whole life story. But on any sort of Internet forum, giving at least some motivation is going to dramatically reduce the number of messages you have to send back and forth.

      It seems to be especially bad with programming, because by the time someone asks for help, they've got a very specific question -- for example, "When I try to connect to Excel from Ruby, this library gives me this error. Help!" And this is one of those lucky questions where there's at least one obvious guess you could make about what their goal is, and what a better way to solve it might be -- for example, "Do you really need it to connect to Excel? Try this entirely other library which just knows how to read and write Excel files." Given that Ruby is used so often for web development, it'd be irresponsible not to ask that question -- you don't want people installing Excel on their webservers if they really don't need it.

      I don't have any ready examples right now, but far too often, you have a question where it's not obvious what they're actually trying to do, but it's fairly obvious that whatever it is, they're going about it in the worst possible way. And again, I see this a lot in programming -- they'll submit a tiny code snippet, either because they're being helpful or because they don't want to share their whole project, but even if that snippet is executable, it's not always obvious what it is they're actually trying to do.

      I suppose another way to get lucky is to find that their question has a simple answer, even if it's a bad idea. For example, "How do i read an entire file into a string?" You could ask them why they need to do that, or you could give them the one-liner that does that. I try to do both -- give them the snippet first, then ask them if they really need to do that, and if maybe reading the file line-by-line, seeking byte-by-byte, or mmapping might be better options.

      I'm extremely patient and indulgent with them, and always keep my good humor -- but it's an act, they make me crazy!

      That's why, as patient as I am, I'm still going to provide at least some sort of psychological sting to try to make sure they don't do it again. If this is a problem I've solved over and over, I train them to write this shit down in such a way that the next time it happens, they can find it in their notes instead of talking to me. If they say "It's broken," I might point out that this is like telling a doctor "It hurts," and that they might need to be a bit more specific.

      I try not to be mean, and I don't think my approach would be tolerated if I did support for a living, but anyone who knows me personally and has asked me for help has learned at least one or two things that help them not ask me for help anymore.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    3. Re:I want your users... by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      I once got an email with the subject line and body consisting entirely of the word "help." When I replied asking, "How can I help you?" the follow up was a simple "I can't send email."

      At that point, trying not to sound too snarky, I replied, "It looks like you just did," and never heard anything else about the matter.

  93. IRL example by zmollusc · · Score: 1

    I have seen a very similar UI on my car dashboard. There is a clock and a solitary button to press, naturally the button advances the clock in order to set the time. Equally naturally, one sometimes presses the button unintentionally and has to go 'all around the clock' to set it to the right time again.
    Even this is more intuitive than the 'plus sign to add an alarm' as you have a thing and a control. Press the control and it alters the thing. In the fine summary, there is a thing and a control, press the control and get a pop-up that allows you to set up an event only loosely connected with the thing.

    --
    They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
  94. Unnecessarily Danger? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it? How would your philosophy fair in say the middle of a modern manufacturing plant?

  95. Re:The nature of tech requires adaptation & le by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And troll the crap out of you just for grins...

  96. Young Befuddled by Ridiculously Simple Interfaces by ShoulderOfOrion · · Score: 1

    I had a great laugh the first time my 10-year-old niece tried to make a phone call using the old rotary phone in my Mom's house (which still works by the way). She kept trying to push the indented 'buttons' instead of leaving her finger inside the hole, rotating the dial to the right, and then releasing it, waiting for it to stop moving,before repeating the procedure with the next phone digit.When I explained the process to her, she got frustrated and impatient and used her Mom's cell instead.

    What's wrong with the youth of today? They just don't get it.

    On a related note, I just finished watching an old Outer Limits episode--filmed in 1963 with a storyline set in 2030--where the occupants of the futuristic house were chatting over a LIVE VIDEOPHONE (now that's futuristic!), the size of an IBM XT, with the exact same rotary dial as the user interface.

    No wonder the generations hate each other.

  97. We have seen the same thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...since some cool dude discovered how to make fire, we've seen it when the steam engine was invented... and later when it got wheels...then someone invented the telegraph and then the telephone... and the car... and television... and cellular phone. ...and every time there were someone claiming that the new technology is too complex to comprehend by some elderly people.

  98. Bad user interface design is everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why didn't they just use a button that said 'Add alarm'? Because that would be too easy for the latte sipping dickheads who think they're clever because they make their user interfaces 'look nice'. The triumph of form over function.

    Good user interface design is easy - all you have to do is drop your ego and find out what your users want, and implement it, no matter what YOU think about it. Sadly, ever since the dawn of WIMP, idiots have been ruining the user interface for millions of users.

  99. This only scraches the surface... by cardpuncher · · Score: 1

    I've just taken away my parents' PVR which was bought because their favourite TV programmes usually ran past their bed times - they never used it. The first major hurdle is that it required one set of glasses to see the legend on the remote control and a different set of glasses to read the menu on the TV. Not really a problem for navigating the TV - you remember eventually where the "channel up" and "channel down" buttons are, but the PVR interface actually required identifying speciific buttons for specific tasks (not just up/down/left/right/fire) in response to on-screen menus, so a non-starter. The PVR remote had two very similar red buttons - one for record and one the red teletext button - no end of confusion there, especially when you're trying to offer advice over the phone - and a selection of buttons with curious legends that could only be explained by reference to the handbook. Like other digital receivers it would pop up message occasionally about new channels or new firmware being available - but not in a way that explained what this might mean or what should be done. The UI was sluggish and so when they did press the right buttons often nothing would happen for a while, so they'd press the button again and suddently they'd get two keypresses registered and be confused about what had happened. The EPG was slow and awkward to navigate with no obvious way to go directly to a specific day or time so it was inconvenient to set up a recording of a programme for a few days hence.

    You probably have electronic devices with similar issues and get along with them just fine. The real difference is that (some) elderly people don't actually see sufficient benefit in the device to put up with the poor implementation - they've lived long enough without them not to be in thrall to the technology. If it's easier to buy a cheap analogue travel alarm clock, stay up a bit later for the end of the TV programme or wait for it to come out on DVD then they will. It's not worth their effort to wrestle with technology for a marginal return.

    The problem is not with old people - it's the rest of us who are prepared to accept poor usability because the gadget is shiny and will perform a neat trick if you learn how to treat it right.The problem won't go away because the current generation has grown up with technology - the stuff they grew up with is going to look quaint and bizarre in a few decades.

    1. Re:This only scraches the surface... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is not with old people - it's the rest of us who are prepared to accept poor usability because the gadget is shiny and will perform a neat trick if you learn how to treat it right.

      that comment is so spot-on, it almost makes me want to register a handle just so I can mod it up.

      but I'm in my 40s and don't want to wrestle with the /. interface :p

  100. "Add alarm" is programmer's speak. by master_p · · Score: 1

    The term "add alarm" is programmer's speak: an alarm object is added to a collection of alarms. No wonder people unfamiliar with programming cannot interpret the term correctly.

  101. Not jst old people by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

    EVERYONE I have passed my iPhone too for the first time has used their fingernails, and when it didn't work just pushed harder. Even after explaining that they need to use the flesh on their finger they almost instantly forget or ignore my advice.

  102. Wrong advice by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

    There are simply so many different functions and possible paths of accomplishing things with computers that manuals will rarely be helpful. In fact, this is what much of the problem is. People are being uncreative and expect to be given instructions about how to do something rather that learn the functionality of the software and solve the problem themselves.

  103. Generational Delta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As if the human race could evolve in a single generation (or even two)...

    Look at cinema for an analogous situation.

    When it first began metaphors such montage, fade-to-black, and extreme close-up did not exist.

    When they were first introduced, they caused some confusion but eventually they became part of a broadly understood cinema-graphic meta-language.

    The meta-language of UI is still evolving and evolving rapidly.

    For that reason, failure to provide a useful guide to the nuanced features of an app is just that; a failure.

    And it's not a failure by user.
     

  104. my 60 year old parents can't even work the tv by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bought them a sony 32" lcd tv, they can't understand the concept of selecting inputs. I get calls that the dvd player don't work, how many times can I explain input to them. lol! The remote for them is overwhelming, all these buttons to press, so they press them all in frustration.

  105. old ms paint windows 7 by fishingmachine · · Score: 1

    googling this will get you millions of results because oversimplifying things can make them actually more complicated for people who understand the original and dont need giant shiny buttons to do things they previously could do with a click or 2 instead of 6 or 12. if you are going to simplify do exactly that. dont make original options much more difficult to for people that can understand language and simple photo editing options.

  106. my mother doesn't even understand the mouse and cu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    click there. no, there. with the tip of the arrow. the very tip. yes. ok, hover it over that word. now click it. the left button. you moved it again. keep it on the word, don't move it, click it. you highlighted it. just click anywhere. ok now put it on the word and click. no you were moving it again.
    and that is why my mom can't check her email.

  107. Re:The nature of tech requires adaptation & le by Veggiesama · · Score: 1

    I disagree, because young people who use computers today are constantly learning new ways of doing things. If they don't figure out the underlying concepts, then it becomes challenging to learn something new. It's actually more expedient to figure out how a tree-like file system works (even if they wouldn't call it as such) rather than memorize what a folder icon looks like and where it will temporarily take them in the system. They have been learning how to learn for quite some time.

    The evidence I point to are the older folks on Slashdot who still keep up with the latest tech updates. It's possible they may have some difficulty adapting (that's just how aging works), but they force themselves to learn the underlying concepts and not simply memorize interfaces.

    As long as I don't fall into a simple pattern, hopefully I too will stay as sharp in my autumn years.

  108. Just a poor choice of icon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instead of a "+" to add an alarm, use a bell icon. Oldies aren't responsible for your lousy choice of task button icons.

  109. Why should I care? by Zenin · · Score: 1

    How about this: Send Grandma to a Computers 101 class. I'm sure there's some local senior's club or jr college that offers classes. That really is the best solution, because there is NO POSSIBLE WAY any UI design is going to be able to make up for lacking an entire lifetime of computer experience and training.

    This is a simple training issue, not a UI issue. Pretending it's a UI issue will result in nothing but a fast race to the bottom.

    --
    My /. uid is better then your /. uid
  110. I've fallen and I can't get up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Interesting to me was that this commentary took on an "us" vs "them" tone, and the fact that noone seemed to realize that older people (not "the elderly") often find that, as our energy wanes, WE often prioritize things differently than "the youngerly" who are not "afraid to explore" in otherwords, dive in not really concerned with how it will work, cuz y'all think you have all the time in the world and energy to scoot around the obstacles or backtrack if it doesn't work the first time. Which is actually true. Enjoy. If I feel it is a waste of my time to fk around with an iPhone to "add" "set" or CREATE an alarm, it's likely because I already own an alarm clock. So I guess that makes ME stupid?

  111. If don't understand how to operate it, then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Read The F***ing Manual.

  112. Interfaces are inherently ITistic by Dr+La · · Score: 1

    It has little to do with being elder. There is a whole cohort of digibetic younger people who call their slighty more computer-savy brother (me) as soon as things get more complicated than opening a Word document (and even then...)

    The real reason is that interfaces are the products of what I call "ITistics", a special form of Autistics. Since 99% of the Slashdotters is ITistic, it is no surprise many here won't accept that pushing a plus-sign and in that way "adding an alarm clock" is ITistic (and indeed, autistic). For a programmer, used to thinking in modules and object oriented language, "adding" something makes sense. For "normal" people, it doesn't.

    You see the same with geeks who insist that an OS or software with command-line language is superior to a point-and-click GUI. For an ITistic, it is certainly superior. For everybody else, it is not, as command-line operations are not intuitive at all, and it involves remembering a lot of different commands. Which the average non-ITistic doesn't want to: they just want to be able to operate something by pushing an option.

    Of course, the typical slashdot geek will not get at all what I write above. Which only points out that ITism is a real cognitive affliction: they really will not see the problem.

    --
    Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse
  113. Why blame technology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not: "How the elderly alienate today's tech"?

  114. The academic comments back... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, didn't realise this would be so interesting to people!
    Anyway a few comments and clarifications - the alarm clock interface example I gave was from the Android Samsung Galaxy Tab.
    I agree that many of the issues highlighted are related to technophobes and digital novices rather than older people specifically, however I didn't mention the ageing effects that we do or will all experience to a greater or lesser extent which make our interactions more difficult: e.g. the reduction in flexibility in the lens of the eye causing inability to focus on near objects, reduced tactile sensitivity in fingers, reduction in ability to hear higher frequency sounds to mention but a few. Cambridge University's inclusive design toolkit at www.inclusivedesigntoolkit.com is excellent and covers a lot of these age and disability related issues, however I'm more interested in the mental model type incompatibilities that can cause huge problems for interaction, even if you can see, hear and touch accurately.
    Incidentally I'm not blaming the technology devices as the title suggests (although clearly that title gets people willing to comment!), but I'm interested in how Android/iOS devices could be made to be easily usable by the 10 million or so mainly older people in the UK (or 7 billion worldwide) who don't currently go online, as they strip away so many of the issues that need learning to overcome, like learning to use a mouse. Hence identifying and trying to understand the errors that these kinds of mainly older users experience when using current interfaces. The reason that developing interfaces that we can all (or as many as possible to) use is important, is that its now becoming harder to survive in the world if you don't email, web surf or even text. Also as we move towards an ageing population, if we are able to design digital technology that they (or the future us) can use, we have a chance of providing healthcare remotely and being able to cope with the demographic ageing care timebomb.
    Certainly for people who have the experimental mindset (‘ooh what does this button do, oh I see’) learning is faster and more robust. Many of the older people we have tested don’t have a strong case of this, some perhaps because of the ‘don’t play with it or you’ll break it’ upbringing, but also perhaps that they’ve learned many mental models in the past for all sorts of things, and they’re more inclined to apply those mental models to this situation (which will require less mental effort in ‘reprogramming’ the brain) or learn a specific procedure to use the interface for a specific goal.
    On the theme that 'well when the current crop of older people have departed things will be fine', we have seen some older people become digitally excluded purely through the change in interface design that happens over time - one lady in her 60's proudly told us that she was one of the first people to use an Apple Mac in the UK in the 80's, but that she would be able to use one now, 'as they've gotten too complicated'. I currently am holding a hypothesis that we all will experience technology interfaces overtaking us, and depending on how techy, competent, interested etc you are the longer it will take for this to happen. If you don't agree imagine a world where interfaces are now gestural, and 'all' you need to do is learn the gestural interface commands and you're fine - fine if you are willing to change your habits (and easier the younger you are as you’ve had fewer years getting those habits ingrained) but alienating if you don't have time, willingness, ability etc. From my own personal experience, I'm not even willing to invest in learning how to migrate to an Apple Macbook Pro that my work kindly gave me - as I've 25 years of hard earned experience with PC's which enables me to be reasonably in control even when things in Windows go awry.
    In my previous life (I used to be head of Ergonomics and Human Factors for Ford of Europe) I learned that if you can manage to ma

  115. Great article. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fascinating article. I feel like one of the biggest ways technology alienates the elderly is through complicated interfaces. However, easy-to-understand options and a quality customer service team can help in most situations for sure.

    Elise
    http://landiscor.com/

  116. RTFM by PC9001 · · Score: 1

    I tell it to the old and young alike.