Neven,
> Don't be elitist - if the big M and BK are such shit why do thet make so
> much money...
I dont think I'm being elitest - McD's and BK make money 'cos they are
'cool' for kids to go to, 'cos they target their advertising directly at
people under 15, they then drag their parents along, who then pay highly
inflated prices for food that is only just edble. Hell, I get suckered
in sometimes too, tho in the last year, I've come to realize that BK (I
literally can't eat McD's - 'nother matter) looks good, tastes OK when I
eat it, but I feel ill all avo afterwards. Maybe I now have a lower
tollerance to fat than I used to, I dunno.....
> They must have some inate quality - propably time to reead Robert M Perzig?
> again?
Who?
> With any UI each will have its own style it is a brave person who attacks
> anothers
Fair enough - it wasn't MENT to be an attack, more a comment on the
state of software design at present. Most software is designed by
developers who dont think like most 'normal' people - I'll happily
include myself in this list (ie, not the normal people list).
Example is confirmation dialogues. Why? If I hit delete, I WANT TO
DELETE IT! If I then realise I've screwed up, thats what undo is for.
Its even worse if I KNOW I want to delete 20 items, but I still have to
respond to 20 confirmation dialogues. Programmers (generally) design a
program - and I'm not just talking about User Interface here - around
their view of the problem, except that their view generally includes the
way the code works, which the user really couldn't give a rats arse
about. Their goal as a programmer is to get the product out the door,
looking atleast reasonable, on time, on budget, with the minimal amount
of bugs. Users generally want an app that they dont feel stupid using,
that responds in a reasonable amount of time (<5sec usually - depends on
the task), and operates in an intelligent way.
Example: Netscape 4.6
the mail client is OK-ish - it fits my goals as a user - I want to send
mail, receive mail, and be able to find messages when I need them. I'd
say I dont use 40% of the 'features' tho. I use even less of word (about
20-25%), and almost none of excel's.
The addressbook is crap tho. I have, for example, 3 people called
"kerry" in my address book. I only EVER send mail to Kerry Sainsbury out
of those three - except he is ALWAYS #3 on the list. Hell, I dont even
know who the other 2 are!!!
I read Alan Coopers comments/book on this topic the other day, and
looking at it from a semi-distance, he's right: Users usually start out
in the 'beginner' stage - they dont know what they are doing. To not
look quite as stupid, they learn, and hit the intermediate stage, where
they generally stay, 'cos at that point, they know the app well enough
to do their job.
Problem is, their are usually 2 forces that control the level the app is
targetted at - the developer and the marketing dept. Marketing/sales
sees people who dont know the app at all, or worse, managers who will
never use it, and they want the app targetted at these people - the
'beginner'. Developers want to target it at people of similar skill
level to themselves - ie, very high. The user in the middle, who has
invested _some_ time learning the app, gets left out.
Example: Install Shield installed apps
Fine, it asks me a whole bunch of questions, but wouldn't it be better
for most users (not all) if all the interaction they had to do was:
App: "hello, I'm going to install this app for you. You can cancel now,
or press next to go on. BTW, I'm going to install it into a default
place, but if you wanna mess with this, press the advanced button"
User: "Next>"
App: "OK, here's the licence agreement. I know you will not read it, but
I'm going to show it to you anyway"
User: <um, I dont understand legalese, but i wanna use this app>
"Agree..."
App: "OK, I'm copying files. and setting up a good set of defaults"
App: "done. Now run it."
Even better if it skipped the second step. Current apps using IS
generally have an intro, licence, option-to-install-some-or-all, where
to put it, which options to put in (if you select "custom"), a
confirmation screen, then they copy the files etc, then they confirm
that, yes, they have finished, and you can go about using it now.
The MS auto installer is a slightly better step in the right direction -
the admin says "here's a package to install", the users gets told "I'm
installing this", and thats about it. The user doesn't (_generally_)
need to know that the app is being installed, and usually doesn't
_care_, just as long as they can use it when they want to.
Enough - time for some work :) We should really move this to the
offtopic list tho :)
Nic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Zealand Delphi Users group - Delphi List - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Website: http://www.delphi.org.nz
