Making Computers Idiot Proof...
-
Cars aren't made to appeal to mechanics and architects but to soccer moms and people who just want to drive them. For those who want to get into the engine great, but for those of us who think the difference between a V6 and V8 is 2, that's fine also. I just want engine to start and for it to take me where I want to go. I am not interested in fixing my cars problems or figuring out why they occur. Why should computers be any different to the average user? Al
And if you're like most people, you had a professional instructor give you a number of lessons in order to be able to drive a car. Imagine what the world would be like if everyone had to take a computer test before they were allowed to use one on their own...
-
It's a balance though. Wouldn't you rather have the car give you some diagnostics as to what it thinks is wrong, instead of an idiot "service engine soon" light? Which sends my girlfriend in a tizzy, to which I say, oh, it's just the stupid oxygen sensor. But no, she stops driving her car until she can get a service appt, so now we have to deal with car need conflicts, only to find out four days later that it was the O2 sensor. Sigh. So, there is a difference between usage, which should be idiot proof, and information, which should not assume that I am an idiot nor make me feel like one. Marc Pensieve -- modified at 18:37 Thursday 12th January, 2006
I agree you need a balance, the idea of a simple / advanced mode for applications is a great way to go. I worked for a law firm and when something went wrong, none of the lawyers cared what the problem was, they simply wanted it fixed so they could work. A simple mode would've been great and then I simply could change a setting and get more detail. Similar to IE, it has "Show friendly HTTP error messages" on by default, but allows you to uncheck and see what the actual error message is. I think the more intuitive you can make the system the better, most of the customers I support simply just want the application to work and to call someone else when it doesn't. They know how to work the application but they don't know (or want to know) how the application works. Al
-
I was stunned when I came across this brilliant idea: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000461.html[^] From what I can tell, his premise is to make computers more idiot proof, but I ask you, how can ideas like this NOT just result in better idiots? ie. Since many new users these days don't have a basic understanding of files and file systems, what they are, how to manage them etc. lets find a way to hide them even more than they already are. Maybe it's just me, but I can't find any way to understand this logic...comments? :confused: -- modified at 17:31 Thursday 12th January, 2006
I don't think it's such a bad idea. Why should people need to understand files and file systems? I guess the aim of the idea is to change computers to better suit us, rather than trying to change us to suit computers. It's pretty easy to label someone who doesnt understand computers an idiot, but the fact is that most people just don't care enough about computers to bother learning. They want to do their little thing and that's it. That seems perfectly reasonable to me. I feel the same way about cars.
-
I had the idea of writing a UI overlay on Windows called WOS (for Wife's Operating System). The idea was that when the user logged onto the system, there was no start menu, file access or anything. Just a blank screen with a few big pretty buttons (like "Internet" and "Type a letter") and one small button in the corner called "Advanced Mode" that takes you back to the old Windows UI. My wife assures me that I would make millions if I threw it together.
espeir wrote:
called "Advanced Mode" that takes you back to the old Windows UI.
why windows? take it here.... http://toastytech.com/guis/bobhome2.gif[^] _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
sounds to me like the idea is to change the concept of "file system" so that it doesn't conflict with how people already view the world. don't assume our current (30+ year old) file systems are the ideal way to store data in a computer.
Yes, but you have to think beyond the computer nowadays. While it might be cute and interesting to revolutionize the way data is stored on computers all you'll end up doing is confusing people further. Think of all the things we use everyday that use "files". Technically speaking, that DVD we rented last night, CD's, your cell phone, the mp3 player, cameras, the internet and lastly and most obvious computers of every kind. More and more all these devices are interacting, changing, merging together and we're all using them even if we don't know how to set the clock. Sure you can try and change the way people think of PC's, but then you'll be right back to the findamental concept of files eventually and then it will be even harder to explain how files are like this, but PC's are like "that"
Chris Losinger wrote:
it took him a long time to learn that, in computer-speak, a file is a synonym for document, not for folder.
I never did liked that analogy. The word "document" brings to mind a piece of paper that a person is going to look at. That analogy always seems to gets too complex when you have to explain all the different TYPES of documents and how some "documents" (apps) are used to modify other "documents" and these "documents" over here (shortcuts) are special "documents" that point to the real documents. Doesn't take long before I get a blank stare if I go down that path.
Phil C wrote:
While it might be cute and interesting to revolutionize the way data is stored on computers all you'll end up doing is confusing people further.
i don't see how you can assert that. maybe a different file system would confuse people who already know and like the file/folder paradigm, but something else might be better for people who don't already know it.
Phil C wrote:
Sure you can try and change the way people think of PC's, but then you'll be right back to the findamental concept of files eventually and then it will be even harder to explain how files are like this, but PC's are like "that"
not necessarily. take DVDs and cellphones (since you brought them up): there's no reason an end user has to know anything about how those devices store their data internally. if i download a ringtone, i don't need to know that it's a MIDI file, or an MP3 - it's just a 'ringtone'. if i put a DVD in my DVD player, i don't need to know how things are arranged on the disk - it's just a movie. there might be a similar abstraction (or set of abstractions) for general computer use. it's already there for some file types; think of My Pictures, My Music, etc.; MS is trying to get people to think of their pictures as pictures, not as JPEG/JFIF files. and, if you use iTunes, you'll see that you absolutely never have to think of your downloaded music as a "file" - it's just a song. you can put it on your iPod, play it, download it, move it into lists, etc - you never need to know about the file. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
espeir wrote:
I had the idea of writing a UI overlay on Windows called WOS (for Wife's Operating System).
Sounds like Microsoft Bob[^] to me. In fact, Bill Gate's wife came up with the Microsoft Bob idea. Interesting coincidence. Hey wait! Bill, is that you? :->
Joshua Quick wrote:
Interesting coincidence
I should have read forward! you beat me to it... :) okay... so to make up for it I will tell a story.... Idiot proofing is a constant request at work. One of the project leaders turned down the request for a UPS, it was too expensive at the time, but he wanted something that told the users, on the computer display, not to panic when all the equipment and lights powered down from power-loss. That was much more important than a UPS for the equipment. I sat completely dumbfounded at the request in light of not wanting battery backed power for the equipment, but I was only a year in on the job. The more experienced engineer/programmer didn't skip a beat, he sketched out a complicated rube-goldberg device that when lights dimmed would drop a screen in front of the computer display and project from a battery backed light "don't panic" (with some strange smiley-face that the government leader didn't recognize). Of course written in large friendly letters. It wasn't for at least 15 minutes of explanation that the government project leader realized that he was the brunt of humor. The good news was, he then signed the request for a UPS per our recommendations... so it did have a happy ending. _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
sounds to me like the idea is to change the concept of "file system" so that it doesn't conflict with how people already view the world. don't assume our current (30+ year old) file systems are the ideal way to store data in a computer.
Yes, but you have to think beyond the computer nowadays. While it might be cute and interesting to revolutionize the way data is stored on computers all you'll end up doing is confusing people further. Think of all the things we use everyday that use "files". Technically speaking, that DVD we rented last night, CD's, your cell phone, the mp3 player, cameras, the internet and lastly and most obvious computers of every kind. More and more all these devices are interacting, changing, merging together and we're all using them even if we don't know how to set the clock. Sure you can try and change the way people think of PC's, but then you'll be right back to the findamental concept of files eventually and then it will be even harder to explain how files are like this, but PC's are like "that"
Chris Losinger wrote:
it took him a long time to learn that, in computer-speak, a file is a synonym for document, not for folder.
I never did liked that analogy. The word "document" brings to mind a piece of paper that a person is going to look at. That analogy always seems to gets too complex when you have to explain all the different TYPES of documents and how some "documents" (apps) are used to modify other "documents" and these "documents" over here (shortcuts) are special "documents" that point to the real documents. Doesn't take long before I get a blank stare if I go down that path.
Phil C wrote:
and these "documents" over here (shortcuts) are special "documents" that point to the real documents
Ah, but shortcuts are just post-it notes with "go look over there instead" written on them! Iain.
-
I was stunned when I came across this brilliant idea: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000461.html[^] From what I can tell, his premise is to make computers more idiot proof, but I ask you, how can ideas like this NOT just result in better idiots? ie. Since many new users these days don't have a basic understanding of files and file systems, what they are, how to manage them etc. lets find a way to hide them even more than they already are. Maybe it's just me, but I can't find any way to understand this logic...comments? :confused: -- modified at 17:31 Thursday 12th January, 2006
I think maybe we should make computers idiot-proof. ------- sig starts "I've heard some drivers saying, 'We're going too fast here...'. If you're not here to race, go the hell home - don't come here and grumble about going too fast. Why don't you tie a kerosene rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -- modified at 5:28 Friday 13th January, 2006
-
To be honest I've always liked Simple/Advanced mode approaches. Gives the user an easy way to get their feet wet without all the intimidating details, but quick and easy access to the guts once the going gets a little tough. My fears step from the complete obfuscation of what is probably the most fundamental building block of computers just because someone doesn't want to take a moment to explain it to new users or give them an easier way to access them. I find people are a lot smarter than many "experts" give them credit for and the stupider (is that a word?) we treat them the stupider they'll act. In the end you end up doing a disservice to them. What's the old saying? Give a man a fish and you've fed him for a day, teach him to fish and you've fed him for a lifetime. -- modified at 17:32 Thursday 12th January, 2006
Phil C wrote:
What's the old saying? Give a man a fish and you've fed him for a day, teach him to fish and you've fed him for a lifetime.
Surely "Teach a man to fish and he sits there drinking beer"? :laugh: The tigress is here :-D
-
Phil C wrote:
While it might be cute and interesting to revolutionize the way data is stored on computers all you'll end up doing is confusing people further.
i don't see how you can assert that. maybe a different file system would confuse people who already know and like the file/folder paradigm, but something else might be better for people who don't already know it.
Phil C wrote:
Sure you can try and change the way people think of PC's, but then you'll be right back to the findamental concept of files eventually and then it will be even harder to explain how files are like this, but PC's are like "that"
not necessarily. take DVDs and cellphones (since you brought them up): there's no reason an end user has to know anything about how those devices store their data internally. if i download a ringtone, i don't need to know that it's a MIDI file, or an MP3 - it's just a 'ringtone'. if i put a DVD in my DVD player, i don't need to know how things are arranged on the disk - it's just a movie. there might be a similar abstraction (or set of abstractions) for general computer use. it's already there for some file types; think of My Pictures, My Music, etc.; MS is trying to get people to think of their pictures as pictures, not as JPEG/JFIF files. and, if you use iTunes, you'll see that you absolutely never have to think of your downloaded music as a "file" - it's just a song. you can put it on your iPod, play it, download it, move it into lists, etc - you never need to know about the file. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote:
not necessarily. take DVDs and cellphones (since you brought them up): there's no reason an end user has to know anything about how those devices store their data internally. if i download a ringtone, i don't need to know that it's a MIDI file, or an MP3 - it's just a 'ringtone'. if i put a DVD in my DVD player, i don't need to know how things are arranged on the disk - it's just a movie. there might be a similar abstraction (or set of abstractions) for general computer use. it's already there for some file types; think of My Pictures, My Music, etc.; MS is trying to get people to think of their pictures as pictures, not as JPEG/JFIF files. and, if you use iTunes, you'll see that you absolutely never have to think of your downloaded music as a "file" - it's just a song. you can put it on your iPod, play it, download it, move it into lists, etc - you never need to know about the file.
You made my point for me...exactly. All I was saying is why does anyone thing the idea of a "file" is so hard to understand? All the examples you spoke about aren't hard to explain to a novice by simply stating thay are all "files". Diferent TYPES of files, but files nonetheless. The fact that all these devices are used every day by practically everybody gives novices even more examples of where they use these "file" things. Of course, everyone here has long since understood it all. I'm just suggesting that it's not a very difficult concept, but if author of that article has his way what really wasn't very hard to understand (or explain) in the first place would instantly become very fuzzy and difficult to translate...not easier. Thus I restate my original point...the author is a BONE-head trying to fix something that really doesn't need fixing.
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
not necessarily. take DVDs and cellphones (since you brought them up): there's no reason an end user has to know anything about how those devices store their data internally. if i download a ringtone, i don't need to know that it's a MIDI file, or an MP3 - it's just a 'ringtone'. if i put a DVD in my DVD player, i don't need to know how things are arranged on the disk - it's just a movie. there might be a similar abstraction (or set of abstractions) for general computer use. it's already there for some file types; think of My Pictures, My Music, etc.; MS is trying to get people to think of their pictures as pictures, not as JPEG/JFIF files. and, if you use iTunes, you'll see that you absolutely never have to think of your downloaded music as a "file" - it's just a song. you can put it on your iPod, play it, download it, move it into lists, etc - you never need to know about the file.
You made my point for me...exactly. All I was saying is why does anyone thing the idea of a "file" is so hard to understand? All the examples you spoke about aren't hard to explain to a novice by simply stating thay are all "files". Diferent TYPES of files, but files nonetheless. The fact that all these devices are used every day by practically everybody gives novices even more examples of where they use these "file" things. Of course, everyone here has long since understood it all. I'm just suggesting that it's not a very difficult concept, but if author of that article has his way what really wasn't very hard to understand (or explain) in the first place would instantly become very fuzzy and difficult to translate...not easier. Thus I restate my original point...the author is a BONE-head trying to fix something that really doesn't need fixing.
Phil C wrote:
All the examples you spoke about aren't hard to explain to a novice by simply stating thay are all "files". Diferent TYPES of files, but files nonetheless. The fact that all these devices are used every day by practically everybody gives novices even more examples of where they use these "file" things.
it's even easier if you don't have to say anything about "files"; don't make people learn things they don't need to know. look at the web: it's all text files, at one level. yet nobody but web developers cares a bit that when they go to their favorite website that the page they see is a file of some kind - they just see a web page.
Phil C wrote:
the author is a BONE-head trying to fix something that really doesn't need fixing.
in your opinion. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Phil C wrote:
All the examples you spoke about aren't hard to explain to a novice by simply stating thay are all "files". Diferent TYPES of files, but files nonetheless. The fact that all these devices are used every day by practically everybody gives novices even more examples of where they use these "file" things.
it's even easier if you don't have to say anything about "files"; don't make people learn things they don't need to know. look at the web: it's all text files, at one level. yet nobody but web developers cares a bit that when they go to their favorite website that the page they see is a file of some kind - they just see a web page.
Phil C wrote:
the author is a BONE-head trying to fix something that really doesn't need fixing.
in your opinion. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote:
it's even easier if you don't have to say anything about "files"; don't make people learn things they don't need to know. look at the web: it's all text files, at one level. yet nobody but web developers cares a bit that when they go to their favorite website that the page they see is a file of some kind - they just see a web page.
OK...I give up. You're right. Let's just make things more confusing. Let's take ridiculously simple concepts and make them complex. We won't tell anyone, anything we don't feel they need to know. We shall let them see and use the results but hide how it's done. Do we have a secret handshake too? You work for Microsoft...don't you?
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
it's even easier if you don't have to say anything about "files"; don't make people learn things they don't need to know. look at the web: it's all text files, at one level. yet nobody but web developers cares a bit that when they go to their favorite website that the page they see is a file of some kind - they just see a web page.
OK...I give up. You're right. Let's just make things more confusing. Let's take ridiculously simple concepts and make them complex. We won't tell anyone, anything we don't feel they need to know. We shall let them see and use the results but hide how it's done. Do we have a secret handshake too? You work for Microsoft...don't you?
it's simply amazing to me that someone could be so confident to think that the current convention is, and shall ever be, the best way to do things - even when there are clear examples that people prefer a different way and that industry does well when it avoids the file/folder convention. but, you can take it personally, if you like. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
it's simply amazing to me that someone could be so confident to think that the current convention is, and shall ever be, the best way to do things - even when there are clear examples that people prefer a different way and that industry does well when it avoids the file/folder convention. but, you can take it personally, if you like. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Nope, not taking it personally. Your solution is so well thought out, the argument so logical that you've convinced me. I agree, and can't wait until we do away with the whole idea of files altogether. Just one big mass of data on our hard drives, CD's, thumb drives, servers, cell phones, mp3's... Now that I see the light, the only thing I'm left wondering is...why didn't someone think of this earlier :)
-
Nope, not taking it personally. Your solution is so well thought out, the argument so logical that you've convinced me. I agree, and can't wait until we do away with the whole idea of files altogether. Just one big mass of data on our hard drives, CD's, thumb drives, servers, cell phones, mp3's... Now that I see the light, the only thing I'm left wondering is...why didn't someone think of this earlier :)
personal attacks veiled in sarcasm isn't much of a defense of the status quo. good day Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
