Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Research Proving People Don't RTFM, Resent 'Over-Featured' Products, Wins Ig Nobel Prize (improbable.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the at-least-read-the-research-paper dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Thursday the humor magazine Annals of Improbable Research held their 28th annual ceremony recognizing the real (but unusual) scientific research papers "that make people laugh, then think." And winning this year's coveted Literature prize was a paper titled "Life Is Too Short to RTFM: How Users Relate to Documentation and Excess Features in Consumer Products," which concluded that most people really, truly don't read the manual, "and most do not use all the features of the products that they own and use regularly..."

"Over-featuring and being forced to consult manuals also appears to cause negative emotional experiences."

Another team measured "the frequency, motivation, and effects of shouting and cursing while driving an automobile," which won them the Ig Nobel Peace Prize. Other topics of research included self-colonoscopies, removing kidney stones with roller coasters, and (theoretical) cannibalism. "Acceptance speeches are limited to 60 seconds," reports Ars Technica, "strictly enforced by an eight-year-old girl nicknamed 'Miss Sweetie-Poo,' who will interrupt those who exceed the time limit by repeating, 'Please stop. I'm bored.' Until they stop."
You can watch the whole wacky ceremony on YouTube. The awards are presented by actual Nobel Prize laureates -- and at least one past winner of an Ig Nobel Prize later went on to win an actual Nobel Prize.

61 of 101 comments (clear)

  1. sorry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    TL:DR

  2. Why bother... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The features and interface will all be different in 6 months anyways for 90% of software. Anything that survives was simple enough to figure out already anyways.

  3. Something worth keeping in mind! by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 2

    When you are architecting software, this is actually something you should keep in mind. If you keep things simple then people can actually use your software. However, if you complicate things because you're "smarter" than the users then you can congratulate yourself on that but you have failed the users despite your length documentation.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:Something worth keeping in mind! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I have in the past rewritten a number of manuals nobody read. These generally were a mess, with misleading chapter and paragraph titles, information about some subjects was scattered all over the place, contradictory and incomplete. After I finished with it the structure was logical, titles were descriptive and designed to match questions people would have, information was complete, correct and not scattered around, and the size of the manual typically was about 1/4 of the original.

      People still didn't read it.

    2. Re:Something worth keeping in mind! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      [Cleaned up version] was about 1/4 of the original. People still didn't read it.

      Amen! I've had the same experience. Next I'll try pop-up manuals with bears and Power Rangers.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    3. Re:Something worth keeping in mind! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I do, or at least try to, read the manual. But then I'm a sysadmin. Even so, I typically don't read the entire thing because it's just too tedious, annoying, incomprehensible, or whatever. Most manuals suck giant balls through tiny straws. I try to get a general sense of the thing and fill in the needed-now blanks until it functions enough to make do, and maybe will get back to making it do more later. I typically notice soon enough when I need more power, at which point I'll re-check the manual and if unsatisfactory might have to conclude I'm in need of a different tool to get the job done.

      Even those manuals ostensibly written for professional manual-readers like me tend to uselessness: Take almost any "reference manual" for networking equipment. It'll be chock-full of "foo bar <parameter>: Set the bar parameter to the foo subsystem", in the case of CLI and lots of pictures on how to click your way around the equivalent GUI setting. But no word on what it means, how it relates to the rest, what you can do with it, when you might need it, gotchas and other considerations. All conspicuously missing.

      This was one big large selling point for Unix, in that it came with honest manpages. Written in troff so they're the same whether nroff puts'em on your screen or you look'em up in the paper version (or print them yourself). That typesetter, incidentally, was the killer app for Unix within AT&T. But I digress. Those manpages are written for technicians to get shit done. Good ones tell you what the thing does, how to make it dance, what not to do, and what to watch out for. They work, for a very specific audience.

      It doesn't surprise me that people trained from birth that everything is supposed to be "intuitive, no training needed" will not bother with the manual, certainly not seeing the quality of said manuals. It doesn't really bother me that people don't read manuals, since most people are followers--they'll only learn if someone shows'em. So maybe it's a good idea to bring back those classes "learn to use your computer" you used to get with your (professional get-shit-done hardware) purchase in the microcomputer era. It does bother me when I need to make hardware dance and the manual turns out to be unreadable and wrong.

    4. Re:Something worth keeping in mind! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Here's the solution from nazis

      http://www.alanhamby.com/tigerfibel.shtml

    5. Re:Something worth keeping in mind! by TigerPlish · · Score: 1

      Here's the solution from nazis

      http://www.alanhamby.com/tiger...

      One of the more entertaining manuals out there. I particularly enjoy the drawings of the lady keeping clean, and the guy shifting what appears to be a Benz SSK with index and thumb only. At the end of the book there's charts on how far the Tiger can be from a US or Soviet tank and hole it, while being impervious to the target's rounds. Those krauts sure knew how to build a tank!

      I miss the old Japanese electronics manual, they had the most wonderful drawings of anthropomorphized things, like a cassette having heat stroke from being left in the sun, etc. Super-deformed chibi characters pointing out interesting things in the manual.

      Now it's all borrr-ing corporate.

      --
      The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
    6. Re:Something worth keeping in mind! by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      You need a manual though sometimes. Or often. I still don't know how to use my iPhone properly because it had literally no instructions that came with it. Not even something that pointed you to a web site to go to. I see a lot that someone will use their phone a certain way and others are surprised and ask "how did you do that?" On Android I was baffled what all the tiny status icons meant as well, as in what was ok and what was an error.

      Manuals people, write them!

    7. Re:Something worth keeping in mind! by houghi · · Score: 1

      I learned this several years ago.

      We where starting with ADSL and in the process, we made a website and a manual that had screenshots of everything. We tested the software on several machines and even went as far as testing it with people who never used a PC to see what went wrong. One person tried to put the floppy in the CD player. Once that was sorted, nobody had any issues.

      It was the best cooperation I have ever seen, including sales, marketing IT, support 1st, second and 3rd grade.
      People learned how to reference the page as to where the customer would be in the process, so they could go on.

      We basically did this, because with previous projects, the most frequent question was where the manual was.

      So we had a team of people who worked very hard to make a great manual that would actually help people. If the customer would look on the website, in the manula or on the screen, he would see the same thing.

      We even went as far as make the website interactive, so you could do the whole procedure first online, so you would see would be going on.
      It was great. It was wunderfull. It was expensive.
      It was wasted money.
      People would still ask where the manual was (In the envelope) and when you then wanted to refer to the manual, they did noit want the manual. They wanted to talk to a person.

      People wanting a manual, does not mean they want to use it.

      The whole process was basically putting in the floppy in their Windows machine, click on OK, enter their login and password and click on OK again.

      So why DID the people call? Because they wanted to talk to a human. They probably never put a floppy into their machine and as many people, where suddenly blind. The only thing the people on the phone needed to do was:
      * What does the screen say? To enter your login? What is your login? OK, then enter your login, as requested on the screen.
      And the same for password and of clicking OK. Just basic following the information on the screen.

      To date this: we tested this next to Windows on the first iMac, so '98 or '99. Most of the customers never had a computer before, let alone Internet. The lesson I learned then is as true today. Do not waste your time on manuals. If they want one, send them a phonebook or whatever. If they complain, give them their money back or something. All that will be cheaper than wasting it on manuals.I do understand that the people here are different. Many here read manuals as if they are novels.

      I do not blame the customers for being humans. I will blamw people who do not factor in human behaviour in their process. (looking especially at password-change-procedures).
      So put the money that you would spend on manuals (where they are not legally required) on the human behaviour.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    8. Re:Something worth keeping in mind! by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      So why DID the people call? Because they wanted to talk to a human. They probably never put a floppy into their machine and as many people, where suddenly blind.

      I've also found this to be true and I also find it to be one of the most frustrating human behaviors. Some people seem to be paralyzed by fear, unable to cope with uncertainty and thus demand someone hold their hand to walk them though the process. What makes it worse is that this isn't something they get over, it's a pattern of behavior.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  4. 80/20 rule by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Interesting

    80% of your users only use 20% of your features. But it's a different 20% for everyone. Eventually you get to the point where everyone's got that one little feature they can't live without. That's where you get lock in from. It's how Microsoft keeps their office monopoly in the face of competition from Open Office and the like.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:80/20 rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That and OO having some ridiculous and very ancient bugs they apparently don't want to deal with. Since I write, all my favorites are in the Writer. Things like not being able to turn off that idiotic 'snap to cursor' that prevents you from scrolling down and reading text while leaving your cursor where you're editing, auto-capitalization correctly handling new lines, suddenly shifting into 'secret text' mode where you can't see anything you're currently typing, moving a page from one area in the document to another CHANGING ITS FRIGGIN' FORMAT (rather randomly). These and other things that all the other word processors solved years ago.

    2. Re:80/20 rule by _merlin · · Score: 1

      Yeah, every time I use OO Writer I hit this shit. Paragraphs just randomly change format, and re-applying the style doesn't fix it. It's buggy as hell. MS Office has been going downhill for the last few releases. I don't know what to do.

    3. Re:80/20 rule by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Use flat text, or perhaps a simple "markdown" language. I've been avoiding MS Office formats for some time: they encourage spending far too much time on tuning a font size or colors, rather then on writing or organizing the ideas being expressed.

  5. Boy that sucks by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

    I read manuals. I *like* manuals. They tell you how to operate the products you buy! That people won't read them is a real disappointment. The real surprise here is the negative emotional reaction. WTF? How do you get upset by reading about useful information?

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:Boy that sucks by antdude · · Score: 1

      People hate to read like me (if too much). :P

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    2. Re:Boy that sucks by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I read manuals. I *like* manuals.

      I can relate. Back when I was a poor post-doc, I sold myself as a technical writer and wrote a bunch of manuals. Everything from software to machine tools. This was before everything was translated from Chinese.

      I'm still something of a connoisseur of good manuals. Occasionally, I find an absolute gem, and it makes me want to write a thank you letter to the company.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re:Boy that sucks by mwvdlee · · Score: 2

      What consititutes "reading the manual"? If it means reading every word from front to back then "No". If it means "scanning it from front to back and reading the parts that I care about, then "Yes".

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    4. Re:Boy that sucks by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      It depends. I read manpages. I searchtechnical references. I scantutorials.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    5. Re:Boy that sucks by dwywit · · Score: 1

      That's exactly what I do. Scan the ToC, jump to chapters of interest, read the introduction and how-to, read the rest of the chapter if it looks interesting or if I need a particular function, then on to the next chapter of interest.

      The last manual I read - actually read - more than 50% was WordPerfect 5.1. Between that, and the little keyboard cheat sheets, I was a WordPerfect guru. That was one powerful program, and I'm sorry it's gone out of use. I still fire it up in DosBox once in a while for the nostalgia.

      I have a fond memory of the absolute completeness of IBM systems documentation, AKA "sequoias". Boxes and boxes of ring-binders full of everything you ever could or ever want to know about your system. Not that I read all of it, of course, just the ones that related to my job.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    6. Re:Boy that sucks by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      It depends. I read manpages. I searchtechnical references. I scantutorials.

      Also, I don't preview. I live on the edge, baby!

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    7. Re:Boy that sucks by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Except that most modern manuals _don't_ tell you details. That requires a repair manual or the debugging manual, which is rarely available to consumers.

    8. Re:Boy that sucks by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Because said information is ofttimes buried in a labyrinth of deceptive section and topic headers.

      A manual's not a novel. It should cascade through topic headings that lead you to the information you need.

    9. Re:Boy that sucks by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      I'm still something of a connoisseur of good manuals.

      Well, manuals are kinda like sex. When they're good, they're REALLY good. And when they're bad, they're better than nothing.

      [not my joke. was originally about documentation I think. Don't know the attribution]

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    10. Re:Boy that sucks by Art+Challenor · · Score: 1

      I feel sure that there's an emacs manual somewhere that you could read for a few years.

  6. There are manuals, then there are manuals by bobstreo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There's nothing I hate more than trying to figure out what some dyslexic English as a Third Language moron created using Google Translate actually meant.

    Then there are the manuals that contain proper English that repeat everything, except the answer you actually need.

    I had bookshelves full of Microsoft, Oracle and Solaris manuals that (with the advent of reasonably good search engines) I quickly tossed into the recycling bin,

    1. Re:There are manuals, then there are manuals by hey! · · Score: 2

      Then there are manuals that are full of cautions meant to absolve the vendor of legal liability if you do something incredibly stupid with their product, but don't actually help you use the product for its intended purpose.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  7. WI TFM? by Mats+Svensson · · Score: 2

    Usually, people who tell others to "RTFM" have no idea where TFM is, or if there even is a FM, or if TFM covers the F subject.
    They just blurt it out as if they get a cracker every time they do.

    BWAAACK
    RTFM!
    RTFM!
    RTFM!
    RTFM!
    RTFM!
    RTFM!
    BWAAACK

  8. Research like this is why software is crap by Ashthon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Research like this is causing software to be increasingly dumbed down to a point where it is extremely difficult to use. In the past you could configure software to work in a way you found desirable and productive, but now all the sophisticated is being removed and you're forced to work the way the UX designers dictate. Take Firefox:

    • You used to be able to enable or disable the status bar depending on your preference, but the UX designs thought such an option was confusing so they removed the status bar entirely.
    • You used to have a usable search box with a drop down list of search engines, but the UX designers though words were confusing so they turned the search box into an unusable mess, and now it's easier to visit the site and perform a search than deal with the search box.
    • You used to be able to have the tabs above or below the address bar, but the UX designs decided to force everyone to have the tabs at the top (you can still get them at the bottom via userChrome.css).
    • The easy to access menu bars are slowly being replaced by the cumbersome hamburger button which can't even be hidden without resorting to userChrome.css.
    • Bookmarks used to default to the Bookmarks Menu, but now they default to "Other Bookmarks" which causes them to be unfindable. You have to use an extension just to get the bookmarks to be saved where you want.

    I could go on all day with Firefox, but dumbing down of the browser by removing features and options has turned it into a nightmare to use. The same is very much true of Windows 10 which is an absolute train wreck. I've found myself increasingly moving away from commercial software produced by UX designers to FOSS produced by programmers simply because I want software that works.

    The thing is, it's not just technical users who hate what UX designers are doing to software, and casual users I speak to also hate the constant UI changes, the hiding of features and the removal of options. Now here we have some worthless 'intellectuals' being given a Nobel Prize for telling people to fuck up their software.

    It's little wonder we're moving to a world where computes are becoming less sophisticated and turning into machines for running 'apps' that you can only get from a curated store that bans anything remotely useful. With the direction computing is headed, I think I'll just go and live in a cave.

    1. Re: Research like this is why software is crap by dnaumov · · Score: 1

      God forbid software becomes something more than 1-2% of the population can use.

    2. Re: Research like this is why software is crap by Aristos+Mazer · · Score: 1

      Actually, God intended to make software work for everyone, but all the plans for making that happen basically reduce to âoehave another Noah-level flood or similar extinction event.â The only survivors would be those who can use complex software. But then God got into Tetris and hasnâ(TM)t been active since. Keeps muttering about âoejust one more game...â

    3. Re: Research like this is why software is crap by TJHook3r · · Score: 1

      I would broadly agree with this comment but using Apple products after years of Windows/Dos really blew my mind! Sometimes things should 'just work' - even though a masochistic mindset is a badge of honour in IT.

    4. Re:Research like this is why software is crap by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I bought my mum a Chromebook because Windows and Firefox were confusing for her. She's not a novice, she actually had training in Windows and Office, but there is still a lot of crap that she can't handle.

      So there is utility in being simple. What we need is apps that have a simple mode and a power user mode. Considering how flexible the Firefox UI is supposed to be it seems like they missed an opportunity there.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:Research like this is why software is crap by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I bought my mum a Chromebook because Windows and Firefox were confusing for her.

      That's just an argument in favor of what the GP was talking about, hiding complexity but keeping it available. about:config is a great example of that working. A lot of functionality in Firefox in particular should not just be hidden, but also moved into addons. A prime example is developer tools. I do NOT need that stuff 99% of the time, and I regularly bring it up by fat-fingering. If it were an addon I could disable, that wouldn't happen without me having to dick with settings. I shudder to think of what the average netbook user would think if they accidentally brought that up and it ate 80% of their UI suddenly.

      Considering how flexible the Firefox UI is supposed to be it seems like they missed an opportunity there.

      Especially since back when Firefox was new it was all about light, fast, simple. Then they shoved a bunch of stuff into it that should have been addons and the rest is still happening.

      Windows is another great example of something that could be simpler, but Microsoft is also going the opposite direction. What's worse, not only are they not making the UI better, but they're actually changing it without making it better, which means that there's less benefit from sticking with their system since everything you've learned is now wrong. It's a real double-whammy of suckitude.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Research like this is why software is crap by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      Congratulations on not only not reading TFA, but missing the point of the headline: IGNobel Prize.

      And congratulations for not getting the point the research paper made.

      We found that manuals are not read by the majority of people, and most do not use all the features of the products that they own and use regularly. Men are more likely to do both than women, and younger people are less likely to use manuals than middle-aged and older ones. More educated people are also less likely to read manuals. Over-featuring and being forced to consult manuals also appears to cause negative emotional experiences. Implications of these findings are discussed.

      The paper does not advocate for the sort of UI stupidity you describe!

    7. Re:Research like this is why software is crap by BeanThere · · Score: 1

      It does, by associating the 'negative emotional experience' of reading a manual (aka learning) with so-called "over-featuring", whatever "over" is supposed to mean. Of course reading a manual is unpleasant, for the same reason studying anything is unpleasant - e.g. engineers study advanced calculus (which tends to create a 'negative emotional experience') because it helps them later do useful things like build bridges that don't collapse.

      Likewise, studying a user manual (unpleasant learning/studying) helps you later do useful things with the software - it's an investment, that pays off later, once you are able to get more power out of the software. It doesn't mean advanced calculus is "over-featured".

      You don't read user guides because it's fun, just like most people don't study advanced calculus for fun. Most people don't study accounting for fun, but studying accounting has huge benefits later if you run a business.

      The basics of software should usable by the average user with minimal studying, sure, but there is an inherent point at which you must invest in doing some unpleasant learning if you want to get the full power and return on investment from the software product.

    8. Re:Research like this is why software is crap by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      The paper describes something that happens in the real world: features going unused because the users don't read the documentation and/or the software makes it look too complicated. Wishing this phenomenon would go away doesn't work.

      The recommendations at the end of the paper are worth checking out.

      We are not suggesting that designers avoid including additional features completely or that all mention of features should be excluded from product promotion, but it is about finding the right balance and the correct features for the product.

      All too often, programmers add features to a program haphazardly, making documenting those features a pain in the ass.
      The answer to that is not to remove those features or to hide them under a hamburger menu, and the paper does not advocate for those irritating solutions.

      If the level of complexity on the product is necessary, Bishop (2008) suggested that it can be addressed by re-arranging features and functions. For example, the complexity can be shifted out of the user experience into manufacture or automationâ"and therefore be âtamedâ(TM). Bishop claimed that this critical task is the burden of designers.
      McGrenere and Moore (2000) and Redish (1989) cited the training wheels interfaceâ"a real but simpler system for users to learn on.

      There's a world to be gained with actual improvements to the workflow of a program (as opposed to rearranging the deckchairs). It's unfortunate that companies have replaced human factors specialists/interaction designers with 'UX people' who make idiotic decisions, but that replacement is not advocated by this paper.

  9. UI for work flow, not reflecting the internals by raymorris · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In my experience, applications that have enough different features an complexity to really be a problem often support doing several different tasks. Often it can be made much more usable by designing a UI around the distinct jobs one can do using the software, a UI based on workflow. I'm not going to say wizards exactly, but UI flows designed for specific tasks the user wants to accomplish.

    The UI often represents the underlying underlying data rather than the tasks. You know for sure that you have this kind of UI if it has different sections for different kinds of objects. Of these different kinds of objects map to different table in your database, you definitely have a data-centric UI instead of a task-centric one.

    My server backup software originally had a data-centric UI. It was basically alot like managing hosting accounts. It had a page for servers - listing, adding, removing, and editing them. It had a page for DNS names - adding, removing, and editing them. There were a couple other pages like that, for manahaing the objects in the application. That worked great for me. Users didn't like it.

    We added another UI that started with this page:
    Add a new server
    Restore file or server
    Manage billing
    Other tasks

    Clicking "add a new server" took the user through the steps of adding a new server - including any domain names related to that server. Clicking "restore a file or server" took them through the steps to do that. At each step, the only saw the options relevant to that step.

    The task-centric model is a great way to manage complexity. The data-centric UI can also be useful at times, but it's inherently more difficult to learn and use in many cases. Some applications warrant having both options. We kept both for the server backup system. Customers used the task-centric, wizard-like UI for common tasks. For less-common tasks, the data-centric UI was more flexible.

  10. Intuitive UI by Kokuyo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes, well... Is it a surprise when they've tossed all that we've learned about UI making?

    Clickable objects are no longer clearly marked as such. Different kinds of content are no longer clearly distinguished from one another. Contectual information on mouse-over or right click or even F1 is hit and miss, but usually miss.

    And be honest, how often do you go "What kind of moron from Bizarro Land would name this function that and put it there??!!".

    Or lists... on one frame, it's exportable on the second it's sortable and on the third you can do multi-selection. But not one of them can do all three.

    Not to forget that if whatever you are using happens to have multi-platform apps, GUIs or whatever, you can bet your ass they won't have been developed by the same team. So you not only need to handle each and every single app with a lot of TLC for them to even remotely do what you want, you'll have to learn to do it differently on your MacOS laptop, on your Android phone and on your Windows desktop. If you're especially lucky, the online interface will behave differently depending on the browser too.

    And let's be exceptionally frank here, writing a good manual is an artform few have ever mastered. 90% of my use cases I find my answers on some message board online and certainly not in a manual.

    OR, as it's the case with our current backup software, the manual is easily 1000 pages. Now, if I were tasked solely with pampering our backup software, you could argue that that is doable and you'd be right. But I also have to pamper the storage environment (with several products, of course), the Cisco UCS, SAN infrastructure and Vmware Virtualization as a cherry on top.

    And in order to not kill motherfuckers daily, I strictly adhere to my 8 hour work days, except for emergencies and maintenance tasks that cannot be done on hours.

    So imagine this new-fangled dohicky coming along expecting me to forego everything I thought I knew about gadgets and do it their way now because reasons. Yeaaah, no. Go fuck yourself, would you kindly?

    1. Re:Intuitive UI by hey! · · Score: 2

      A lot of this is "design" as artistic expression rather than design as functional communication. And I suspect it's not people who are trained as designers but product managers with delusions of artistic ability. Or its marketers obscuring function with emotional messages that crowd out function.

      Microsoft is particularly guilty of marketing communication trumping function. Microsoft Office's interface was pretty much as good as it needed to be by the mid 90s, with the exception of bug and security fixes, which are worth paying for, but not visible to users. But whenever Microsoft does a major update to a product that is used by end-users, they shuffle around functions so the user sees he's getting something different than he had before. UIs targeted at back end people tend to suffer less pointless change.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  11. I don't RTFM and hate over-featured apps. Why? by franzrogar · · Score: 2

    I don't RTFM ever (only did to learn how a programming language works and the language needed to code in it).

    GUIs are normally built foolproof (read the icon pop-up title and you'll know what it does). Puntually, I search for a very very specific question.

    So, I don't RTFM and still I'm able to work with the programs.

    I DO HATE over-featured apps. Seriously, I DON'T NEED an e-mail app that also searchs the web and can track my next flying. It's a f*cking E-MAIL APP.

    If I wanted a SUISSE-KNIFE APP, I would have installed that. Then, WHY ON HELL I want my e-maill app to waste phone data (that I pay for) searching the web in the background, turn on my GPS (wasting battery life) even when I don't want it to, and give my personal data to flying companies (when I explicitly forbade it)?

    I don't want stinky over-featured apps. Well, my bad, I HATE over-featured apps.

  12. To the article's point by DaMattster · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yes, I am starting to become resentful of all of the technology forced upon me and I don't RTFM. I personally hate the whole so-called Internet of Things. I neither want nor need a smart TV and smart refrigerator. The whole IoT thing is like a solution searching for a problem.

    1. Re:To the article's point by Shark · · Score: 1

      IoT is a solution to a problem, just not the consumer's problem. It is a solution to the manufacturer's problem of gathering as much information on the consumer as possible so that they can make money on whatever they sold you *and* make money selling that information. A lot of IoT and smart devices now are practically sold at a loss from a hardware perspective just so they can tap into that revenue stream.

      --
      Mind the frickin' laser...
  13. Re: Who by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    If it's well designed, nobody.

    The problem you often see, though, is that a simple, well designed, useful program will slowly, over time, "evolve" into a bloated mess full of "features" which you never use with a UI that makes it difficult to actually find what you're looking for.

    As a bonus, if it's an "app", it will also get bogged down with advertisements to help pay for all these new "features" which nobody wanted.

  14. Canon and Kyocera, I'm looking at you by quonset · · Score: 2

    Canon and Kyocera have to have some of the most egregious manuals out there. Canon in particular will start with a section (let's say how to input an IP address into a printer), but in addition to the few steps to do this, they will have 5-6 extraneous, and completely unnecessary sub-sections which point to something else but don't make it clear if you need to follow those steps.

    Or worse, they'll point you to another section somewhere else in the manual, even though you're at the part where logically, that part comes next.

    It is quite obvious the people making manuals don't work with the software/hardware but rely on the engineers to tell them what to write. And engineers don't know what to write because to them it all makes sense since they work with the software/hardware.

    As an aside, my credit union's telephone banking has become essentially unusable since they changed systems. Based on the hoops one now has to jump through, it is quite clear the software developers have never used a phone tree. Without exaggeration, every option pressed leads to a voice telling you, "Okay, let's do X" or "Wait while I do X".

    This explains why manuals are so poorly done. The people don't have a clue what they're doing.

    1. Re:Canon and Kyocera, I'm looking at you by MohamedMohamed · · Score: 1

      Not to forget that if whatever you are using happens to have multi-platform apps, GUIs or whatever, you can bet your ass they won't have been developed by the same team. So you not only need to handle each and every single app with a lot of TLC for them to even remotely do what you want, you'll have to learn to do it differently on your MacOS laptop, on your Android phone and on your Windows desktop. If you're especially lucky, the online interface will behave differently depending on the browser too. https://www.programsnow.com/ And let's be exceptionally frank here, writing a good manual is an artform few have ever mastered. 90% of my use cases I find my answers on some message board online and certainly not in a manual. OR, as it's the case with our current backup software, the manual is easily 1000 pages. Now, if I were tasked solely with pampering our backup software, you could argue that that is doable and you'd be right. But I also have to pamper the storage environment (with several products, of course), the Cisco UCS, SAN infrastructure and Vmware Virtualization as a cherry on top.

  15. Re: Connections by alvinrod · · Score: 2

    Reminds me of an old joke: What did the cannibal do after he dumped his girlfriend?

    Wipe his ass.

  16. MODES by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    Wizards are restrictive hand holding... but probably fine for simple things or dangerous things...
    What you are looking for is MODES; which it sounds like you kind of found.

    Easier to do on a webpage since each "page" lends itself to being it's own mode and the metaphor is there but well hidden. In an app, you don't see them that often these days they've largely been forgotten but also many apps are too simple to be forced into that situation. Plus the trend is now to copy old children's software. Some high end software lets you reconfigure the UI and save presets to switch between; which becomes another variation of modes (but one which most users never use effectively or lacks enough customization to be worth it.)

    --
    Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
  17. This is why by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    The features and interface will all be different in 6 months anyways for 90% of software. Anything that survives was simple enough to figure out already anyways.

    Several points, mostly directed at developers:

    1) With online documentation, the manual can (and should!) be kept 100% up to date with the software. Further, if the documentation for a feature is generated at the same time the feature is added, and modified as things that affect that feature are added, this isn't all that difficult a task. There's no excuse for poor documentation.

    2) Software that changes in such a way that it doesn't do what it did before the same way, or even at all, rendering previous learning by the customer useless, is bad — extremely bad — design.

    3) Software that has few features most often tends to address the needs of only a few. This person needs this, but the next person needs that. This serves both as justification for having many features, and for adding more as people make their needs known to the developer. The trick of making sure this works is twofold: try to make sure that one feature does not get in the way of another, so that only the features needed by the customer must be learned, and make sure that all features are easily discoverable both in the software and in the documentation.

    4) With good software and good documentation, tech support is a matter of reading the inquiry, and either directing the questioner to the appropriate portion of the documentation, or adding what is needed to the documentation and then directing the questioner to the appropriate portion of the documentation. User questions are a gold mine for documentation improvement and validation. This process also means you can do technical support fast, and you only have to answer specific questions once if you do it well the first time. This is critical both with regard to keeping both the documentation and also the technical support itself from eating resources more than they absolutely have to.

    5) If you want your users to RTFM, then you'd better make very sure you have an efficient, clean mechanism to WTFM that you're comfortable with. I guarantee you if you try it in raw HTML/CSS, you'll be bogged down in the details rather than producing good docs. I couldn't find a solution adequate to my needs, so I wrote one, which I make freely available for any other person who needs to write lots and lots of detailed online docs. It's very powerful, and turns writing docs into a smooth, easy process — after an investment of time learning it. And of course, it's well documented. Ever since I created it, my documentation writing process has become much faster and smoother, and my technical support load has decreased significantly. Developers need tools like this; without something like it, you either aren't going to have good docs, or you're going to have to invest a lot more time and money than you otherwise would have to. Or your docs will suck. That actually seems to be the most common end result. It's no wonder that RTFM isn't the first thing users tend to do.

    6) Users appreciate reliable, powerful software that doesn't make them re-learn features, user interface configurations, underlying concepts, and make them wait long periods — or forever — for bug fixes, yet benefits from regular updates. It is not "many features" that aggravate most users. It is over-complex interdependence of features and the need to re-trench because someone decided to change how critical portions of the software actually work, where the feature is found, and so forth. Users invest significant time learning how to do what they want to do. Screwing with that investment is a very bad idea. You can sort of get away with it if what you're making is the only choice they have, but IMHO, it's a very, very bad idea to piss off your users, to make them do what amounts to the same work over (and over

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:This is why by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      2) Software that changes in such a way that it doesn't do what it did before the same way, or even at all, rendering previous learning by the customer useless, is bad â" extremely bad â" design.

      This is not necessarily bad, if the new way is actually better. This is what Microsoft in particular hasn't figured out. They change stuff just to have it be different, without making it any better. They did it in 8, and they did it again in 10. 2000 and XP are largely identical and even 7 is comprehensible to someone who comes from one of them, and they are largely familiar to someone who came up from NT4. It was a valuable lesson, but they must have lost the staff which had learned it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:This is why by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      This is not necessarily bad, if the new way is actually better.

      I strongly disagree. You want to provide a new thing, or even just a new way, then fine, do so. But don't break what was already there. I am all for offering users new things. Just as long as it doesn't break the old things. And really, there's no reason to.

      Got a new UI, software feature, etc.? Fine. Provide a switch or other optional mechanism. Let the customer decide if they want to use it. If they don't, then the previous (whatever) should continue to work.

      We're writing this stuff for the customer. For many developers, the idea is to earn food, shelter, etc. Well, if you want your software to do well, don't screw the very people who have invested time and money in your work.

      IMHO, if a developer thinks they need to wreck existing workflows and/or interface paradigms and/or APIs, they are almost certainly 100% wrong. The exceptions to this are so rare as to be non-existant for the vast majority of developers, applications, and operating systems.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    3. Re:This is why by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      Change will occur one way or another. Your philosophy often results in writing new software that can do the new things the way potential customers want it.

      Your company doesn't want to maintain two applications that perform similar functions. The old will not receive updates or support and will die. So is it better to softly nudge your customers with minor changes, or force them to learn the entirely new software which is quite different?

      As your competitor, I know which one I would have you choose... so be very sure that it is worth losing some customers.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    4. Re:This is why by lgw · · Score: 1

      An actual customer is worth a lot more than a speculative potential customer. Don't annoy your existing customer base in the hope that one day, maybe, your new UI will attract more new customers.

      Unless you're writing apps for some iThing, of course, then break everything randomly with each major update and your customers will beg you to hurt them more.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    5. Re:This is why by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      Your company doesn't want to maintain two applications that perform similar functions.

      Why not? How much does it really cost to maintain an old application?

      The old will not receive updates or support and will die.

      Why? How much has the API to the underlying hardware changed? If not, what's breaking the old software?

    6. Re:This is why by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      Why not? How much does it really cost to maintain an old application?

      More than it costs to maintain one.

      The old will not receive updates or support and will die.

      Why?

      Because companies don't exist to waste money.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    7. Re:This is why by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      (Slashdot needs an edit function)

      What I meant to say is, it costs more to maintain two applications than it costs to maintain one.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    8. Re:This is why by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      Why does it cost to maintain an old application though? Why does the platforms and APIs it relies on have to change constantly?

  18. As an acolyte of the BoFH... by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

    "being forced to consult manuals also appears to cause negative emotional experiences" makes me smile. I write quite a bit of documentation at my job, and often love to drop a new product on the help desk with no training except "it's all on the Wiki"...which no ones reads either.

  19. Absolutely agreed. Code generator for data-centric by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Absolutely agreed. Many years ago, I had built enough web UOs which tied to a database back end, thay i went ahead and built framework and template system to automate generating the data-centric one. With just a few customization rules added to the configuration table, I could have a decent view of the software's internal model competed within a couple hours. (Good generic CSS also helped with this.)

    After creating the data-centric UI I a couple hours, we could then build the task-centric side for common workflows.

  20. If you have to read a manual to use it... by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 1

    it wasn't built right.

    Take cars, for example. They are highly complex machines. Yes, there's a manual. But when you go rent a car, do you first read the manual? No! Why would you? The controls are easy enough to use that you can figure them out. You only need the manual if you really need to take it apart and fix something.

    Software and gadgets shouldn't be any different.