It just surfs the web (more FireFox)
-
I love asking someone what they love most in Firefox, watching them fumble for a moment, and then stammer something to the effect of “it’s…it’s just better.” The fact is that for most people, there is no one life-changing feature in Firefox, no “ah ha!” moment; the Big Thing is the sum of a thousand little moments where Firefox worked with them, not against them. If it does nothing else, I hope Firefox reminds software developers that despite “Internet time” and the constant pressure to reinvent, usability is still king. from Blake Ross on The Firefox religion[^]. If you ignore the daft title of his post it is a good, quick read. I had to laugh at the above paragraph as it is exactly what we have seen here on CP when us FireFox advocates tried to make our case. Of course, the idea that software should be invisible to its users is somewhat sobering to its developers. Ask any seasoned programmer if coding is an art or a science and he will invariably claim the former. The frustrating difference is that art is inherently an end unto itself, created to be consumed and enjoyed. People enjoy the painting, but software is just the paintbrush. Until some programmers come to terms with the hard realization that nobody actually wants to use software for the sake of using software, I fear we will be forced to cope with ever more task panes and other distractions that seem to serve no purpose other than to remind us that someone worked late hours creating the program. I had to read it twice to understand what he was driving at and it is indeed a sobering thought. Do you think his point is valid? That "a technology should be nothing more than a means to an end", that it should be seamless, invisible to the user. If you agree then do you think we are getting there with modern software or is The Next Big Thign still driving our interest? regards, Paul Watson South Africa The Code Project Pope Pius II said "The only prescription is more cowbell. "
-
I love asking someone what they love most in Firefox, watching them fumble for a moment, and then stammer something to the effect of “it’s…it’s just better.” The fact is that for most people, there is no one life-changing feature in Firefox, no “ah ha!” moment; the Big Thing is the sum of a thousand little moments where Firefox worked with them, not against them. If it does nothing else, I hope Firefox reminds software developers that despite “Internet time” and the constant pressure to reinvent, usability is still king. from Blake Ross on The Firefox religion[^]. If you ignore the daft title of his post it is a good, quick read. I had to laugh at the above paragraph as it is exactly what we have seen here on CP when us FireFox advocates tried to make our case. Of course, the idea that software should be invisible to its users is somewhat sobering to its developers. Ask any seasoned programmer if coding is an art or a science and he will invariably claim the former. The frustrating difference is that art is inherently an end unto itself, created to be consumed and enjoyed. People enjoy the painting, but software is just the paintbrush. Until some programmers come to terms with the hard realization that nobody actually wants to use software for the sake of using software, I fear we will be forced to cope with ever more task panes and other distractions that seem to serve no purpose other than to remind us that someone worked late hours creating the program. I had to read it twice to understand what he was driving at and it is indeed a sobering thought. Do you think his point is valid? That "a technology should be nothing more than a means to an end", that it should be seamless, invisible to the user. If you agree then do you think we are getting there with modern software or is The Next Big Thign still driving our interest? regards, Paul Watson South Africa The Code Project Pope Pius II said "The only prescription is more cowbell. "
Paul, When I started development the entire concept behind a program was to "get a job done faster than a person could do it manually". Programs should be functional, do what they are designed to do, do it right, do it fast, get it done. Period. We were taught to focus on performance of an application, and to keep the UI simple (that entire "KISS" concept is somewhere in there). I agree with the author in many respects that "a technology should be nothing more than a means to an end" ... programming is not an "art"; drawing icons is an art, making a splash screen graphic is an art, painting a picture is an art; programming is an applied science that when done properly, yields a functional result that replaces an often tedious and complex task or series of tasks thereby allowing it's user to get on with life and focus on other matters. Paul Watson wrote: do you think we are getting there with modern software or is The Next Big Thing still driving our interest I believe that the software industry is totally driven by marketing fanatics and more and more by people who believe that graphic rich UIs are more important than functionality ... the norm in the industry seems to be "listen to the end-user but ignore what they want and do what the company felt like doing in the first place". Programmers made a grave mistake decades ago, and we've somehow lost control of our own creations and we're so deep in the thick of things now, that the only way to regain control is to start our own businesses, leaving behind the companies that seek to maintain control of us ... As my wife once said "I would gladly give up all the "Bling" that goes along with so many applications these days, if it meant the program was easy to use and worked right the first time. I'm sick of applications that look nice, but it takes forever to figure out how to do anything in them; or once you do figure it out, it doesn't work right or the way you would expect it to". - she said this when talking about Microsoft Word and the newer versions of Quicken. That's my two cents on the matter. D.
-
I love asking someone what they love most in Firefox, watching them fumble for a moment, and then stammer something to the effect of “it’s…it’s just better.” The fact is that for most people, there is no one life-changing feature in Firefox, no “ah ha!” moment; the Big Thing is the sum of a thousand little moments where Firefox worked with them, not against them. If it does nothing else, I hope Firefox reminds software developers that despite “Internet time” and the constant pressure to reinvent, usability is still king. from Blake Ross on The Firefox religion[^]. If you ignore the daft title of his post it is a good, quick read. I had to laugh at the above paragraph as it is exactly what we have seen here on CP when us FireFox advocates tried to make our case. Of course, the idea that software should be invisible to its users is somewhat sobering to its developers. Ask any seasoned programmer if coding is an art or a science and he will invariably claim the former. The frustrating difference is that art is inherently an end unto itself, created to be consumed and enjoyed. People enjoy the painting, but software is just the paintbrush. Until some programmers come to terms with the hard realization that nobody actually wants to use software for the sake of using software, I fear we will be forced to cope with ever more task panes and other distractions that seem to serve no purpose other than to remind us that someone worked late hours creating the program. I had to read it twice to understand what he was driving at and it is indeed a sobering thought. Do you think his point is valid? That "a technology should be nothing more than a means to an end", that it should be seamless, invisible to the user. If you agree then do you think we are getting there with modern software or is The Next Big Thign still driving our interest? regards, Paul Watson South Africa The Code Project Pope Pius II said "The only prescription is more cowbell. "
I do think software should be as invisible as possible. It is to an end-user simply a way to getting something accomplished, a tool. Above everything, software should accomplish it's main goal as simply and effectively as possible. That is, without any thought on the users end about how that is really getting accomplished. Having said that, how it accomplishes a task should be easily enough explained and understood so an end user can adjust the software to their own work needs and style, but this need not be required. For example, my camera can be placed in full auto mode for average Joe photographer, and he'll be quite happy with the pictures. However, if Joe needs to he can easily switch to a partial or fully manual mode without any real change to how the camera works. The key is understanding who is using the tool. What are the expectations of the market? Are they experts or beginners? Do they need to be able to tweak functionality to make their life easier? Designing to allow a certain level of modification that is functional, easily implemented, easily maintained and flows with a task is what makes software design a craft, I think. Paul Watson wrote: If you agree then do you think we are getting there with modern software or is The Next Big Thign still driving our interest? As most things, it's not either/or. Some industries are based ont the next big thing, like gaming. Other industries, at the moment, I think are working on fine tuning the utility of their tools, such as image editing. BW
"Get up and open your eyes. Don't let yourself ever fall down.
Get through it and learn how to fly. I know you will find a way...
Today"
-Days of the New -
Paul, When I started development the entire concept behind a program was to "get a job done faster than a person could do it manually". Programs should be functional, do what they are designed to do, do it right, do it fast, get it done. Period. We were taught to focus on performance of an application, and to keep the UI simple (that entire "KISS" concept is somewhere in there). I agree with the author in many respects that "a technology should be nothing more than a means to an end" ... programming is not an "art"; drawing icons is an art, making a splash screen graphic is an art, painting a picture is an art; programming is an applied science that when done properly, yields a functional result that replaces an often tedious and complex task or series of tasks thereby allowing it's user to get on with life and focus on other matters. Paul Watson wrote: do you think we are getting there with modern software or is The Next Big Thing still driving our interest I believe that the software industry is totally driven by marketing fanatics and more and more by people who believe that graphic rich UIs are more important than functionality ... the norm in the industry seems to be "listen to the end-user but ignore what they want and do what the company felt like doing in the first place". Programmers made a grave mistake decades ago, and we've somehow lost control of our own creations and we're so deep in the thick of things now, that the only way to regain control is to start our own businesses, leaving behind the companies that seek to maintain control of us ... As my wife once said "I would gladly give up all the "Bling" that goes along with so many applications these days, if it meant the program was easy to use and worked right the first time. I'm sick of applications that look nice, but it takes forever to figure out how to do anything in them; or once you do figure it out, it doesn't work right or the way you would expect it to". - she said this when talking about Microsoft Word and the newer versions of Quicken. That's my two cents on the matter. D.
Douglas Troy wrote: I believe that the software industry is totally driven by marketing fanatics and more and more by people who believe that graphic rich UIs are more important than functionality Ah, yes, the marketing fanatics. Problem is, Joe Blow looking for software is WAY more likely to buy a product that looks nice rather than one that just works. I think the deeper problem is that more programmers do not consider the user in determining what is needed to complete the task the program is meant to help with. They go the 90% to make it nice, but then forget about the other 90% of making it easy to use. :-D There's some phrase about eating your own dog food or something, and that is really appropiate. :laugh: -- Joel Lucsy
-
I love asking someone what they love most in Firefox, watching them fumble for a moment, and then stammer something to the effect of “it’s…it’s just better.” The fact is that for most people, there is no one life-changing feature in Firefox, no “ah ha!” moment; the Big Thing is the sum of a thousand little moments where Firefox worked with them, not against them. If it does nothing else, I hope Firefox reminds software developers that despite “Internet time” and the constant pressure to reinvent, usability is still king. from Blake Ross on The Firefox religion[^]. If you ignore the daft title of his post it is a good, quick read. I had to laugh at the above paragraph as it is exactly what we have seen here on CP when us FireFox advocates tried to make our case. Of course, the idea that software should be invisible to its users is somewhat sobering to its developers. Ask any seasoned programmer if coding is an art or a science and he will invariably claim the former. The frustrating difference is that art is inherently an end unto itself, created to be consumed and enjoyed. People enjoy the painting, but software is just the paintbrush. Until some programmers come to terms with the hard realization that nobody actually wants to use software for the sake of using software, I fear we will be forced to cope with ever more task panes and other distractions that seem to serve no purpose other than to remind us that someone worked late hours creating the program. I had to read it twice to understand what he was driving at and it is indeed a sobering thought. Do you think his point is valid? That "a technology should be nothing more than a means to an end", that it should be seamless, invisible to the user. If you agree then do you think we are getting there with modern software or is The Next Big Thign still driving our interest? regards, Paul Watson South Africa The Code Project Pope Pius II said "The only prescription is more cowbell. "
Paul Watson wrote: Do you think his point is valid? That "a technology should be nothing more than a means to an end", that it should be seamless, invisible to the user. If you agree then do you think we are getting there with modern software or is The Next Big Thign still driving our interest? The Next Big Thing is the invisible interface! :-D:laugh: -- Joel Lucsy
-
Paul Watson wrote: Do you think his point is valid? That "a technology should be nothing more than a means to an end", that it should be seamless, invisible to the user. If you agree then do you think we are getting there with modern software or is The Next Big Thign still driving our interest? The Next Big Thing is the invisible interface! :-D:laugh: -- Joel Lucsy
touche :) regards, Paul Watson South Africa The Code Project Pope Pius II said "The only prescription is more cowbell. "
-
I love asking someone what they love most in Firefox, watching them fumble for a moment, and then stammer something to the effect of “it’s…it’s just better.” The fact is that for most people, there is no one life-changing feature in Firefox, no “ah ha!” moment; the Big Thing is the sum of a thousand little moments where Firefox worked with them, not against them. If it does nothing else, I hope Firefox reminds software developers that despite “Internet time” and the constant pressure to reinvent, usability is still king. from Blake Ross on The Firefox religion[^]. If you ignore the daft title of his post it is a good, quick read. I had to laugh at the above paragraph as it is exactly what we have seen here on CP when us FireFox advocates tried to make our case. Of course, the idea that software should be invisible to its users is somewhat sobering to its developers. Ask any seasoned programmer if coding is an art or a science and he will invariably claim the former. The frustrating difference is that art is inherently an end unto itself, created to be consumed and enjoyed. People enjoy the painting, but software is just the paintbrush. Until some programmers come to terms with the hard realization that nobody actually wants to use software for the sake of using software, I fear we will be forced to cope with ever more task panes and other distractions that seem to serve no purpose other than to remind us that someone worked late hours creating the program. I had to read it twice to understand what he was driving at and it is indeed a sobering thought. Do you think his point is valid? That "a technology should be nothing more than a means to an end", that it should be seamless, invisible to the user. If you agree then do you think we are getting there with modern software or is The Next Big Thign still driving our interest? regards, Paul Watson South Africa The Code Project Pope Pius II said "The only prescription is more cowbell. "
I think in many cases revenue drives change. Companies think they have to change the user interface radically in order to call the product v2, v3, v4, etc. Make people think they're getting something for their upgrade fee. Developer: v2 can do A, B & C that v1 could not. Cool, huh? Marketing: Fine, but it looks just like v1!! Developer: So? A, B & C can be accessed from the "Tools" pull-down menu. Marketing: The "Tools" menu has to go. How about a dockable toolbar or a fly-out menu? Developer: But that's less intuitive. A, B & C are tools and belong in the "Tools" menu. Marketing: Sorry but "Tools" menus are so last year. How about we skip A, B & C and rewrite it all in C#? "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
-
Douglas Troy wrote: I believe that the software industry is totally driven by marketing fanatics and more and more by people who believe that graphic rich UIs are more important than functionality Ah, yes, the marketing fanatics. Problem is, Joe Blow looking for software is WAY more likely to buy a product that looks nice rather than one that just works. I think the deeper problem is that more programmers do not consider the user in determining what is needed to complete the task the program is meant to help with. They go the 90% to make it nice, but then forget about the other 90% of making it easy to use. :-D There's some phrase about eating your own dog food or something, and that is really appropiate. :laugh: -- Joel Lucsy
Joel, First off, I'm very glad I do not work with any of the developers you know; we would not get along at all ... Secondly, your "Joe Blow" example is typical of what I've heard from sales for decades now; mainly because sales people know nothing about the products they sell, nor will they take the time and make the effort to learn such (not all of them, most of them). So they cry foul that they cannot sell to "Joe Blow" because he wants his applications skinned; and until we do this "we're loosing countless sales and monies". That'll grab the ears of management quickly and guess what happens??? Gee, I wonder, does interface end-up taking precedence over functionality? Emmmm .... Yes ... I've heard this sad pathetic excuse many times before. Never mind the old school mindset of "selling sand to the Arabs and ice to the Eskimos" now no one can sell anything until it's "pretty". Guess I'm the idiot that would rather have a so-so looking car that will run for 200,000 miles without a problem than an expensive great looking car that will break-down every 60,000 miles and cost 10 times what the so-so car costs to maintain and run ... Yea, it's all me. ... and what if functionality is "missed"? Yea, blame the developer for this one. Never mind the poor design spec, the failure of the requirements gathering team to properly get said requirements, marketing's push to get something implemented in an application only for it to be pulled later because "they were wrong", let's forget all the months that blow by and the back-and-forth that happens while the developers are constantly being told to change this, and that, and something here or there because the design was poor, or they forgot something or [insert lame excuse here] Yes, let's all blame the programmer who's job is SO easy that anyone that can pick-up a VB text book and hack out a Windows forms "hello" program in VB can be a called a "Programmer" ... I mean, after all, Windows is getting easier and that means development must be as well right? SURE! That's it. Yes, the programmers are ALWAYS given PLENTY of time to get the job done ... Nah, there's never any dead-lines or last second editions ... nah ... that never happens. We always have everything we need to get the job done 100% of the time, and it's all our fault that we spend Joel Lucsy wrote: 90% to make it nice, but then forget about the other 90% of making it easy to use. Yea, that's it ... I was completely wrong ... WHAT WAS I thinking!?!?! :wtf:
-
Joel, First off, I'm very glad I do not work with any of the developers you know; we would not get along at all ... Secondly, your "Joe Blow" example is typical of what I've heard from sales for decades now; mainly because sales people know nothing about the products they sell, nor will they take the time and make the effort to learn such (not all of them, most of them). So they cry foul that they cannot sell to "Joe Blow" because he wants his applications skinned; and until we do this "we're loosing countless sales and monies". That'll grab the ears of management quickly and guess what happens??? Gee, I wonder, does interface end-up taking precedence over functionality? Emmmm .... Yes ... I've heard this sad pathetic excuse many times before. Never mind the old school mindset of "selling sand to the Arabs and ice to the Eskimos" now no one can sell anything until it's "pretty". Guess I'm the idiot that would rather have a so-so looking car that will run for 200,000 miles without a problem than an expensive great looking car that will break-down every 60,000 miles and cost 10 times what the so-so car costs to maintain and run ... Yea, it's all me. ... and what if functionality is "missed"? Yea, blame the developer for this one. Never mind the poor design spec, the failure of the requirements gathering team to properly get said requirements, marketing's push to get something implemented in an application only for it to be pulled later because "they were wrong", let's forget all the months that blow by and the back-and-forth that happens while the developers are constantly being told to change this, and that, and something here or there because the design was poor, or they forgot something or [insert lame excuse here] Yes, let's all blame the programmer who's job is SO easy that anyone that can pick-up a VB text book and hack out a Windows forms "hello" program in VB can be a called a "Programmer" ... I mean, after all, Windows is getting easier and that means development must be as well right? SURE! That's it. Yes, the programmers are ALWAYS given PLENTY of time to get the job done ... Nah, there's never any dead-lines or last second editions ... nah ... that never happens. We always have everything we need to get the job done 100% of the time, and it's all our fault that we spend Joel Lucsy wrote: 90% to make it nice, but then forget about the other 90% of making it easy to use. Yea, that's it ... I was completely wrong ... WHAT WAS I thinking!?!?! :wtf:
You may have missed my sublte sarcastic tones. I sometimes forget people can't see me smiling. :-D Douglas Troy wrote: First off, I'm very glad I do not work with any of the developers you know; we would not get along at all ... Actually, you'd probably get along here fine, we don't subscribe to the "pretty" rule for most things, but we do recognize that it is a market factor. Lowest common denominator (Ooohhh, shiny rock! Me want more! :-D) -- Joel Lucsy
-
You may have missed my sublte sarcastic tones. I sometimes forget people can't see me smiling. :-D Douglas Troy wrote: First off, I'm very glad I do not work with any of the developers you know; we would not get along at all ... Actually, you'd probably get along here fine, we don't subscribe to the "pretty" rule for most things, but we do recognize that it is a market factor. Lowest common denominator (Ooohhh, shiny rock! Me want more! :-D) -- Joel Lucsy
HA! I was hoping you weren't being serious, BUT HEY! What do I know, because as I'm sure you are aware, most people honestly believe that the programmers are to blame ... sorry I missed your sarcasm, that's the problem with text message boards I guess; and as you can tell, I'm a tad bit on the defensive side when it comes to this topic ... been burned one too many times. I'll get off my soap box now ... [steps down off box] ;) D.
-
I love asking someone what they love most in Firefox, watching them fumble for a moment, and then stammer something to the effect of “it’s…it’s just better.” The fact is that for most people, there is no one life-changing feature in Firefox, no “ah ha!” moment; the Big Thing is the sum of a thousand little moments where Firefox worked with them, not against them. If it does nothing else, I hope Firefox reminds software developers that despite “Internet time” and the constant pressure to reinvent, usability is still king. from Blake Ross on The Firefox religion[^]. If you ignore the daft title of his post it is a good, quick read. I had to laugh at the above paragraph as it is exactly what we have seen here on CP when us FireFox advocates tried to make our case. Of course, the idea that software should be invisible to its users is somewhat sobering to its developers. Ask any seasoned programmer if coding is an art or a science and he will invariably claim the former. The frustrating difference is that art is inherently an end unto itself, created to be consumed and enjoyed. People enjoy the painting, but software is just the paintbrush. Until some programmers come to terms with the hard realization that nobody actually wants to use software for the sake of using software, I fear we will be forced to cope with ever more task panes and other distractions that seem to serve no purpose other than to remind us that someone worked late hours creating the program. I had to read it twice to understand what he was driving at and it is indeed a sobering thought. Do you think his point is valid? That "a technology should be nothing more than a means to an end", that it should be seamless, invisible to the user. If you agree then do you think we are getting there with modern software or is The Next Big Thign still driving our interest? regards, Paul Watson South Africa The Code Project Pope Pius II said "The only prescription is more cowbell. "
Paul Watson wrote: Do you think his point is valid? Yes. I can sit and watch my wife or my mom or most of my customers use a computer for 5min, and his point is proven. Paul Watson wrote: If you agree then do you think we are getting there with modern software [...]? No. The day i would rather sit and hammer out a short note in MS-Word than in Notepad, we're on the right track. The day i'd rather sit and pour out my heart to a close friend in Word rather than in Notepad, we're actually getting somewhere. IMHO, precious few commercial software products have taken usability over gimmickry as a goal since we moved from full-screen DOS applications. The fact that i still suffer through a "wizard-style" interface to get pictures off my camera, and still go through two menus and two dialogs to print my address on an envelope is proof enough of this for me.
Shog9
I'm not the Jack of Diamonds... I'm not the six of spades. I don't know what you thought; I'm not your astronaut...
-
I love asking someone what they love most in Firefox, watching them fumble for a moment, and then stammer something to the effect of “it’s…it’s just better.” The fact is that for most people, there is no one life-changing feature in Firefox, no “ah ha!” moment; the Big Thing is the sum of a thousand little moments where Firefox worked with them, not against them. If it does nothing else, I hope Firefox reminds software developers that despite “Internet time” and the constant pressure to reinvent, usability is still king. from Blake Ross on The Firefox religion[^]. If you ignore the daft title of his post it is a good, quick read. I had to laugh at the above paragraph as it is exactly what we have seen here on CP when us FireFox advocates tried to make our case. Of course, the idea that software should be invisible to its users is somewhat sobering to its developers. Ask any seasoned programmer if coding is an art or a science and he will invariably claim the former. The frustrating difference is that art is inherently an end unto itself, created to be consumed and enjoyed. People enjoy the painting, but software is just the paintbrush. Until some programmers come to terms with the hard realization that nobody actually wants to use software for the sake of using software, I fear we will be forced to cope with ever more task panes and other distractions that seem to serve no purpose other than to remind us that someone worked late hours creating the program. I had to read it twice to understand what he was driving at and it is indeed a sobering thought. Do you think his point is valid? That "a technology should be nothing more than a means to an end", that it should be seamless, invisible to the user. If you agree then do you think we are getting there with modern software or is The Next Big Thign still driving our interest? regards, Paul Watson South Africa The Code Project Pope Pius II said "The only prescription is more cowbell. "
Paul Watson wrote: nobody actually wants to use software for the sake of using software except programmers, of course.
I never really know a killer from a savior
boost your code || Fold With Us! || sighist | doxygen -
I love asking someone what they love most in Firefox, watching them fumble for a moment, and then stammer something to the effect of “it’s…it’s just better.” The fact is that for most people, there is no one life-changing feature in Firefox, no “ah ha!” moment; the Big Thing is the sum of a thousand little moments where Firefox worked with them, not against them. If it does nothing else, I hope Firefox reminds software developers that despite “Internet time” and the constant pressure to reinvent, usability is still king. from Blake Ross on The Firefox religion[^]. If you ignore the daft title of his post it is a good, quick read. I had to laugh at the above paragraph as it is exactly what we have seen here on CP when us FireFox advocates tried to make our case. Of course, the idea that software should be invisible to its users is somewhat sobering to its developers. Ask any seasoned programmer if coding is an art or a science and he will invariably claim the former. The frustrating difference is that art is inherently an end unto itself, created to be consumed and enjoyed. People enjoy the painting, but software is just the paintbrush. Until some programmers come to terms with the hard realization that nobody actually wants to use software for the sake of using software, I fear we will be forced to cope with ever more task panes and other distractions that seem to serve no purpose other than to remind us that someone worked late hours creating the program. I had to read it twice to understand what he was driving at and it is indeed a sobering thought. Do you think his point is valid? That "a technology should be nothing more than a means to an end", that it should be seamless, invisible to the user. If you agree then do you think we are getting there with modern software or is The Next Big Thign still driving our interest? regards, Paul Watson South Africa The Code Project Pope Pius II said "The only prescription is more cowbell. "
(rather, Blake Ross did). I'm downloading FireFox. :omfg:
I never really know a killer from a savior
boost your code || Fold With Us! || sighist | doxygen -
(rather, Blake Ross did). I'm downloading FireFox. :omfg:
I never really know a killer from a savior
boost your code || Fold With Us! || sighist | doxygentosoP tsriF Hmm..... it just surfs the web.
I never really know a killer from a savior
boost your code || Fold With Us! || sighist | doxygen -
Paul Watson wrote: Do you think his point is valid? Yes. I can sit and watch my wife or my mom or most of my customers use a computer for 5min, and his point is proven. Paul Watson wrote: If you agree then do you think we are getting there with modern software [...]? No. The day i would rather sit and hammer out a short note in MS-Word than in Notepad, we're on the right track. The day i'd rather sit and pour out my heart to a close friend in Word rather than in Notepad, we're actually getting somewhere. IMHO, precious few commercial software products have taken usability over gimmickry as a goal since we moved from full-screen DOS applications. The fact that i still suffer through a "wizard-style" interface to get pictures off my camera, and still go through two menus and two dialogs to print my address on an envelope is proof enough of this for me.
Shog9
I'm not the Jack of Diamonds... I'm not the six of spades. I don't know what you thought; I'm not your astronaut...
Shog9 wrote: No. The day i would rather sit and hammer out a short note in MS-Word than in Notepad, we're on the right track. The day i'd rather sit and pour out my heart to a close friend in Word rather than in Notepad, we're actually getting somewhere. IMHO, precious few commercial software products have taken usability over gimmickry as a goal since we moved from full-screen DOS applications. The fact that i still suffer through a "wizard-style" interface to get pictures off my camera, and still go through two menus and two dialogs to print my address on an envelope is proof enough of this for me. 100% agree, notepad (well, actually metapad) often takes place as my primary text editor for everything from essays to quick emails. When I need to finnaly load it up into something to handle formatting/spell check/etc, I'll cut-paste over into word and do those things there. Ideally for me, when I install something, it should be setup at the start to simply 'do the basics of what it is to do'. For word, that would mean upon default install, would basicly act like notepad, but then as you use it, you can then enable the other features you want it to do which makes your life easier. Far to often, I find all the 'stuff' word does, slows me down more so than anything.
-
I think in many cases revenue drives change. Companies think they have to change the user interface radically in order to call the product v2, v3, v4, etc. Make people think they're getting something for their upgrade fee. Developer: v2 can do A, B & C that v1 could not. Cool, huh? Marketing: Fine, but it looks just like v1!! Developer: So? A, B & C can be accessed from the "Tools" pull-down menu. Marketing: The "Tools" menu has to go. How about a dockable toolbar or a fly-out menu? Developer: But that's less intuitive. A, B & C are tools and belong in the "Tools" menu. Marketing: Sorry but "Tools" menus are so last year. How about we skip A, B & C and rewrite it all in C#? "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
I agree there. The sad times are when they made radical changes to have a new look and feel and destroy or at least hinder its usefulness! That has happened to many over the decades. Rocky <>< Mozilla/Firefox Crushing IE's Lead![^]