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.'"

54 of 453 comments (clear)

  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 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)

    3. 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.

    4. 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
    5. 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!

    6. 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.
    7. 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.

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

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

    9. 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.

    10. 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.

    11. 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).

    12. 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"
    13. 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.
    14. 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.

    15. 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
    16. 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?
    17. 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.

    18. 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.
    19. 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.

    20. 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!

    21. 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
    22. 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
    23. 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!
    24. 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.

    25. 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!"

  2. Re:Fucker... by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 2

    Stepping on lawns also alienate the elderly.

  3. 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?
  4. 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...
  5. 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 Chemisor · · Score: 2

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

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

  6. "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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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 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.
  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.
  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.
  16. 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.

  17. 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.
  18. 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
  19. Self-Solving Problem by SEE · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They're elderly, so all we have to do is wait them out.

  20. Before commenting . . . . by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 2

    Before commenting, please read "Design of Everyday Things" by Norman.

    Please.

    --
    I am not a crackpot.
  21. 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.

  22. 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.
  23. 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.

  24. 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.