NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you think of usability?

I’m a usability engineer.

In short, I make your software more user-friendly, so that it fits like a glove around a hand.

I use all kind of tools, disciplines and techniques to achieve that one:

• the use of personas
• contextual task observing
• cognitive psychology
• heuristic usability evaluations
• a usability lab
• the implementation of usability design guidelines
• early and late prototyping.
• Etc…


What is currently annoying you the most about software? What should be improved and how?

You may post unrealistic solutions. :)

What do you think of usability?


What is it good for?

What is it good for?

Usability? That's obvious
The thread? Curiosity

I question your usability.

I question your usability.

You shouldn't. I am not user-friendly, are you?

everything about Microsoft Word. everything. It's such a piece of shit, but it's the only installed word program at work so I have to use it. Every time it resets itself to having the wrong menu bars on at start-up, wrong format, wrong font-size, heaven help you if you want to move a picture from one page to another - then it randomly chooses where to place it, most likely off the screen altogether. Tables are just a joke.
it really sucks.

What annoys me is that "user friendly" means "familiar" to most people. What you are used to is user friendly because you know how to use it. It only takes a couple minutes of feeling lost to decide that anything too different from that is not user friendly.

Dvorak vs qwerty is one example of this. It doesn't matter if dvorak has potential to be faster or not because the unfamiliar dvorak layout is not as user friendly as the familiar qwerty layout. Right click vs ctrl+x/c/v is another. My uncle who learned to copy paste with the right click menu thinks thats easy while the keyboard shortcuts are too complicated even though the keyboard shortcuts are faster then opening a menu. Yet another example is command line vs graphical interfaces. All you have to do to install Wesnoth on Ubuntu is type "sudo apt-get install wesnoth" and your password but typing commands is not user friendly so people still do it the graphical way that is considerably slower then typing one line of text.

I think the user friendliness of an interface should be measured by how long it takes to complete the intended tasks with it and that should be measured on users who have received enough training to truly master the interface.

Consistency is more important then user friendliness though. If you are designing a small part of a larger work environment that you can't change then your part should blend in as well as possible with the other parts no matter how cumbersome that environment's standards and traditions are. At least until someone can fix the real problems at the source by improving the entire environment as a whole.

You shouldn't. I am not user-friendly, are you?

No. But if usability is such a concern, shouldn't you be? Since you're in the business, after all.

My top 5 annoyances are

1a. Incomplete documentation. If there is a feature in the software, I want to know that it exists, I want to know what it does, and I want to know how to switch it on/off (if possible).

1b. No description of the software itself. Half a year ago I bought a new PC with some software pre-installed. Half of that software I had never heard of, but nowhere it said what it did or what it was good for.

2. Things happening automatically behind my back that I did not ask for. E.g., the "You have unused icons on your desktop" message of windows.

3. Popups or questions on routine startup.

4. Non-intuitivity. This may sound a bit vague, but some features in some software packages seem too incomprehensible to figure out for yourself, even with help of the manual. A prime example is vector graphics in adobe photoshop.

5. Long startup times.

everything about Microsoft Word. everything. It's such a piece of shit, but it's the only installed word program at work so I have to use it. Every time it resets itself to having the wrong menu bars on at start-up, wrong format, wrong font-size, heaven help you if you want to move a picture from one page to another - then it randomly chooses where to place it, most likely off the screen altogether. Tables are just a joke.
it really sucks.

And you really can't find an alternative?

And you really can't find an alternative?
didn't you notice what I said?
It's the only wordprocessing software installed at work.
Admin restrictions prevent us from d/l'ing and installing software. So it's the only we've got.
*sigh*

What annoys me is that "user friendly" means "familiar" to most people. What you are used to is user friendly because you know how to use it. It only takes a couple minutes of feeling lost to decide that anything too different from that is not user friendly.

Dvorak vs qwerty is one example of this. It doesn't matter if dvorak has potential to be faster or not because the unfamiliar dvorak layout is not as user friendly as the familiar qwerty layout. Right click vs ctrl+x/c/v is another. My uncle who learned to copy paste with the right click menu thinks thats easy while the keyboard shortcuts are very complicated even though the keyboard shortcuts are faster then opening a menu.

I think the user friendliness of an interface should be measured by how long it takes to complete the intended tasks with it and that should be measured on users who have received enough training to truly master the interface.

Consistency is more important then user friendliness though. If you are designing a small part of a larger work environment that you can't change then your part should blend in as well as possible with the other parts no matter how cumbersome that environment's standards and traditions are. At least until someone can fix the real problems at the source by improving the entire environment as a whole.

Familiarity is an important issue. If people already learned something, we can reuse their knowledge/skill. Even if the 'new' technology is better, still many people prefer the old style, unless it's giving them clear advantages.

Your uncle is maybe using it different as you do. Probably he doesn't cut and paste that lot. The shortcuts have to be memorized, opening the pop-up menu is easier to remember.
Also women (your uncle is male, I know), in general, hate shortcuts.

Consistency is part of usability. But I agree that in large applications it's sometimes gone.

My top 5 annoyances are

1a. Incomplete documentation. If there is a feature in the software, I want to know that it exists, I want to know what it does, and I want to know how to switch it on/off (if possible).

I agree with you. It should be available at least through a help file.

1b. No description of the software itself. Half a year ago I bought a new PC with some software pre-installed. Half of that software I had never heard of, but nowhere it said what it did or what it was good for.

Same as above.

2. Things happening automatically behind my back that I did not ask for. E.g., the "You have unused icons on your desktop" message of windows.

I didn't check, but I assume you're male, rather high educated. :)
Some people do not like it that the software is having an own life, they want to be in control of it, instead that the software is in control over them.

You have to understand that OS and out-of-the-box software isn’t designed especial for you.


3. Popups or questions on routine startup.

I always advice to kill ALL popups and questions. They interupt your task, distract you from the real thing and in general they make you feel stupid.

But it's cheap and easy to build, so...


4. Non-intuitivity. This may sound a bit vague, but some features in some software packages seem too incomprehensible to figure out for yourself, even with help of the manual. A prime example is vector graphics in adobe photoshop.

No, it's not vague. I understand you very well.

5. Long startup times.

There's a little trick for getting the impression that it is going faster:

Animated feedback.

Familiarity is an important issue. If people already learned something, we can reuse their knowledge/skill.

Consistency is part of usability. But I agree that in large applications it's sometimes gone.
I think that's the problem of some of the new software: It's written by people who are so used to using it, they forget that most people out there aren't. So all those shortcuts and other time-saving devices etc aren't as readily apparent as they once were. They're too quick to assume that everyone out there knows all the basic shortcuts already so don't see the need to reiterate them.

Just yesterday a colleague saw me increase font size in Word using 'ctrl' + ']'. She was amazed, as she didn't know that you could use the kb to do such a thing. I was amazed that someone in this day and age didn't know about this.

well i've always had a problem with Adobe's products. if you don't already know how to use them, they're very difficult to learn. not intuitive. Corel's alternatives, however, i picked up without any effort at all. moving over to Adobe's offerings (after using Corel) took a fair bit of effort even after being proficient in the next-best software. and i still don't get on with Illustrator (CS2)...


i also updated my Office 2003 yesterday, with one extremely annoying result. i use Word as my Outlook email editor (as standard), and that's always been fine. but now, after the update, every time i start a new email, reply, or forward, it tells me another program (Word) is trying to access my Outlook information, and do i want this to be allowed? unfortunately there is no "always allow" option - the longest i can allow Word access for is 10 minutes, after which it will ask me again. its fucking irritating! :headbang:
in this instance, Microsoft = fail... big time.

I think that's the problem of some of the new software: It's written by people who are so used to using it, they forget that most people out there aren't. So all those shortcuts and other time-saving devices etc aren't as readily apparent as they once were. They're too quick to assume that everyone out there knows all the basic shortcuts already so don't see the need to reiterate them.

Just yesterday a colleague saw me increase font size in Word using 'ctrl' + ']'. She was amazed, as she didn't know that you could use the kb to do such a thing. I was amazed that someone in this day and age didn't know about this.

Sure, in company software, written by the company, for the company.

They usual have no budget for usability engineers, have no knowledge about usability methodologies.

They depend on the talent of the programmers.

In general those people, despite that most of them are very smart, have not the knowledge to make a good communication possible between software and humans.

What do you think of usability?

What is currently annoying you the most about software?
Almost everything about modern software annoys me, truth be told.

For many developers, usability seems to be measured by how closely the UI that they present to the end user resembles Microsoft's Office suite. This is laziness. I can accept that people want software that is almost immediately familiar to them, and that the majority of people currently using computers as part of their daily work routine have been weaned on MS Office, but it's just not that good an interface (excepting the shortcut icons, which as a rule are pretty intuitive). I blame Visual Studio, myself, for encouraging an endless production line of cookie-cutter interfaces conforming to Microsoft's 'standard'.

Heuristic evaluation annoys me as well. Whilst I wholeheartedly agree that heuristic measures should be used to identify and trap likely user errors, and to ensure inclusion of comprehensive documentation, I just can't help feeling that if Nielsen had his way, everything would look pretty much the same.

Use of cognitive psychology to determine what makes something intuitive and usable? Great idea, until you stop and realise that an individual's cognition is very culturally dependent (e.g. subtle little things such as the use of colour to denote danger/urgency fall down if red isn't the normal colour for danger in that part of the world). Good evaulators factor this type of thing into their evaluations, but most of the ones that I have come into contact with lose their objectivity pretty quickly.

I'll stop ranting, since I realise that these are just my opinions. I just sometimes get carried away on this subject :)

Almost everything about modern software annoys me, truth be told.

For many developers, usability seems to be measured by how closely the UI that they present to the end user resembles Microsoft's Office suite. This is laziness. I can accept that people want software that is almost immediately familiar to them, and that the majority of people currently using computers as part of their daily work routine have been weaned on MS Office, but it's just not that good an interface (excepting the shortcut icons, which as a rule are pretty intuitive). I blame Visual Studio, myself, for encouraging an endless production line of cookie-cutter interfaces conforming to Microsoft's 'standard'.

You're right. It's a little lack of fantasy as well and conservative thinking.

Heuristic evaluation annoys me as well. Whilst I wholeheartedly agree that heuristic measures should be used to identify and trap likely user errors, and to ensure inclusion of comprehensive documentation, I just can't help feeling that if Nielsen had his way, everything would look pretty much the same.

Well I'm not a big apostle of Nielsen. He's excellent in selling himself, but I think there are better people on the market: Deborah Mayhew, Allan Cooper, ....

Use of cognitive psychology to determine what makes something intuitive and usable? Great idea, until you stop and realise that an individual's cognition is very culturally dependent (e.g. subtle little things such as the use of colour to denote danger/urgency fall down if red isn't the normal colour for danger in that part of the world). Good evaulators factor this type of thing into their evaluations, but most of the ones that I have come into contact with lose their objectivity pretty quickly.

Yes, lots of things are culturally dependent. But by instance a human memory is working more or less the same in USA as in Spain.

I'll stop ranting, since I realise that these are just my opinions. I just sometimes get carried away on this subject :)

No, no, go on. :)

well i've always had a problem with Adobe's products. if you don't already know how to use them, they're very difficult to learn. not intuitive. Corel's alternatives, however, i picked up without any effort at all. moving over to Adobe's offerings (after using Corel) took a fair bit of effort even after being proficient in the next-best software. and i still don't get on with Illustrator (CS2)...


i also updated my Office 2003 yesterday, with one extremely annoying result. i use Word as my Outlook email editor (as standard), and that's always been fine. but now, after the update, every time i start a new email, reply, or forward, it tells me another program (Word) is trying to access my Outlook information, and do i want this to be allowed? unfortunately there is no "always allow" option - the longest i can allow Word access for is 10 minutes, after which it will ask me again. its fucking irritating! :headbang:
in this instance, Microsoft = fail... big time.

Yep, it's a design mistake. Software should have a memory.

No. But if usability is such a concern, shouldn't you be? Since you're in the business, after all.

No need for. 'cause I'm just used by a few people and their frequency of use is high.

I can be difficult in use, but the people around me get used to it.

Yep, it's a design mistake. Software should have a memory.

indeed... i just hope they fix it soon.

by the way, Opera (browser) gets my thumbs up (from a user point of view, of course) as good and well-designed software :)

especially with the new 'speed dial' thing

What do you think of usability?

I’m a usability engineer.

In short, I make your software more user-friendly, so that it fits like a glove around a hand.

I use all kind of tools, disciplines and techniques to achieve that one:

• the use of personas
• contextual task observing
• cognitive psychology
• heuristic usability evaluations
• a usability lab
• the implementation of usability design guidelines
• early and late prototyping.
• Etc…


What is currently annoying you the most about software? What should be improved and how?

You may post unrealistic solutions. :)
My biggest complaint is outside of your expertise. Too many poorly written programs are brought to market. Poorly written to the extent that they are unreliable and crash regularly. Many have known bugs that aren't documented, but have adverse effects on what the end user intends to produce.

My second biggest gripe is about the way many programs are updated. They save in native formats that are unreadable to the last generation of that same program. AutoCad 2008, 2007, 2006, etc, all fall into that trap.

Just as bad, though are the programs that try to do too much. Visio is the leading candidate for this category. When I started using it, Visio was a very nice program that I could use for simple diagrams. Now, it's become a monster. I use AutoCad for everything, simple and complex, just because it's manageable.

indeed... i just hope they fix it soon.

by the way, Opera (browser) gets my thumbs up (from a user point of view, of course) as good and well-designed software :)

especially with the new 'speed dial' thing

Can you explain what it is?

My biggest complaint is outside of your expertise. Too many poorly written programs are brought to market. Poorly written to the extent that they are unreliable and crash regularly. Many have known bugs that aren't documented, but have adverse effects on what the end user intends to produce.

Competition is very hard and they are mostly aware that they are releasing bugware. They're afraid to lose market share.

I think they are wrong. I think that people would easily switch to 'perfect' software. Sure if you have a reputation to deliver quality, I'm rather sure that people are willing to wait for the new release instead of going to some buggy competitor.

But those people are smarter than me. So they win. :)


My second biggest gripe is about the way many programs are updated. They save in native formats that are unreadable to the last generation of that same program. AutoCad 2008, 2007, 2006, etc, all fall into that trap.

I don't understand why they do it.


Just as bad, though are the programs that try to do too much. Visio is the leading candidate for this category. When I started using it, Visio was a very nice program that I could use for simple diagrams. Now, it's become a monster. I use AutoCad for everything, simple and complex, just because it's manageable.

Microsoft (and others) have a patent on loading too much functionality in one package.

Most people only use between 5% and 10% of the available functionality of MS Word.

I’m pretty sure that a competitor could beat (temporarily) Microsoft on that field.

Too many poorly written programs are brought to market. Poorly written to the extent that they are unreliable and crash regularly. Many have known bugs that aren't documented, but have adverse effects on what the end user intends to produce.Commercial software is seldom made better than it needs to be to sell. The extent to which this is, and how bad it can be and still sell, seems to go exponentially with the size of the vendor and its current market share.

They save in native formats that are unreadable to the last generation of that same program. AutoCad 2008, 2007, 2006, etc, all fall into that trap.Introducing incompatibilities between versions means that once enough customers upgrade, pretty much everyone is forced to follow. This works once the market share becomes large enough, and is a tactic used by many large companies to keep gaining revenue from periodically "improving" the same old software long after it was new and innovative.

Commercial software is seldom made better than it needs to be to sell. The extent to which this is, and how bad it can be and still sell, seems to go exponentially with the size of the vendor and its current market share.

Yes, but don’t underestimate the pushing of the competition. For every piece of software there are a lot of contenders. And all they say ‘we are good, the others are bad’ (it’s like religions :p)

For box software, market share is everything and once it’s dropping…

Basically, they release it too soon, to cut off competition and then release service packs. :)


Introducing incompatibilities between versions means that once enough customers upgrade, pretty much everyone is forced to follow. This works once the market share becomes large enough, and is a tactic used by many large companies to keep gaining revenue from periodically "improving" the same old software long after it was new and innovative.

Still I think this could be an unique selling point for some challenger.

Error messages that are not unique or no error message at all isn't helpful. When I get an error I copy it to google without even trying to understand it but that doesn't work with vague stuff like this one the otherwise very nice email program Sylpheed Claws just gave me when I tried to send an email:
"Error occurred while sending message."

Half done translations where a question is in Swedish but the answers are in English or some menu items are in Swedish while other items are in English. I can use either language just fine but switching back and fourth between them in the middle of something brings my thoughts to a grinding halt.
I didn't check, but I assume you're male, rather high educated. :)
Some people do not like it that the software is having an own life, they want to be in control of it, instead that the software is in control over them.

You have to understand that OS and out-of-the-box software isn’t designed especial for you.
It's confusing when software does stuff I don't know about. It's not the loss of control that bothers me, it's not knowing whats going on. Luckily Linux doesn't do this too much.

Abstractions that hide stuff also confuse me. For example if some files are hidden so I miss them when making a backup and my settings get messed up when restoring the backup I have no chance of figuring out what I did wrong since I can't see the files I missed. That is until I manage to defeat and bypass the abstraction in question.

Wizards are also mysterious. When answering one question at a time without knowing what the big picture is I often have to go back or start over because at a late question I realize "Ahh, this is what it's all about, but then I should have answered differently on a previous question.".

Microsoft (and others) have a patent on loading too much functionality in one package.

Most people only use between 5% and 10% of the available functionality of MS Word.
I feel lost when I'm having trouble finding the option I'm looking for because there is a huge jungle of functionality but I feel even more lost when I can't find the option I'm looking for because it doesn't even exist.

Error messages that are not unique or no error message at all isn't helpful. When I get an error I copy it to google but that doesn't work with vague stuff like this one the otherwise very nice email program Sylpheed Claws just gave me when I tried to send an email:
"Error occurred while sending message."

Sometimes, they are unavoidable. But a development team, should do whatever is possible to avoid them.

Many software titles allow users that they can do something wrong and then a popup will tell them how stupid they are, 'cause they did something which is not possible... :)

Half done translations where a question in Swedish but the answers in English or some menu items are in Swedish while other items are in English. I can use either language just fine but switching back and fourth between them in the middle of something brings my thoughts to a grinding halt.

Very nasty, indeed.


It's confusing when software does stuff I don't know about. It's not the loss of control that bothers me, it's not knowing whats going on. Luckily Linux doesn't do this too much.

Yep, but by not knowing what it is doing, you're losing control.


Abstractions that hide stuff also confuse me. For example if some files are hidden so I miss them when making a backup and my settings get messed up when restoring the backup I have no chance of figuring out what I did wrong since I can't see the files I missed. That is until I manage to defeat and bypass the abstraction in question.

Most people have already problems by just understand the concept 'hidden files'.

Wizards are also mysterious. When answering one question at a time without knowing what the big picture is I often have to go back or start over because at a late question I realize "Ahh, this is what it's all about, but then I should have answered differently on a previous question.".

Wizards works. But not for all people and tasks. In general, low to average educated people likes them. And it might work for tasks you don't use often.

I feel lost when I'm having trouble finding the option I'm looking for because there is a huge jungle of functionality but I feel even more lost when I can't find the option I'm looking for because it doesn't even exist.

A few years ago, I had some discussion with some manager from MS about the same issue. He said: "Use Works!" :)

I would like to see a basic Word where I can add the functionality I want.

In the future we will see that, Google and others, are working on that kind of things.

The basic package is free and you'll pay for the extra's....

What is it good for?

absolutely nothing?

absolutely nothing?

Say it again

absolutely nothing?

...that took a while.

...that took a while.

I was really surprised that nobody posted it before me......pleasantly surprised though, it was fun. Thank you. :)

Can you explain what it is?

http://help.opera.com/Windows/9.23/en/speeddial.html

i don't know what i did without it :P

this is mine:
http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/2180/speeddialye5.jpg
it has NS, a few work sites, wikipedia, myspace, google analytics, and my personal site all available whenever i open a new tab (which i do easily and quickly by hitting ctrl+shift+N :))

http://help.opera.com/Windows/9.23/en/speeddial.html

i don't know what i did without it :P

this is mine:
http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/2180/speeddialye5.jpg
it has NS, a few work sites, wikipedia, myspace, google analytics, and my personal site all available whenever i open a new tab (which i do easily and quickly by hitting ctrl+shift+N :))

Thanks. That's one of the reasons I started this thread. :)

I was not aware that it existed, but I understand why it would really work.

What do you think of usability?

I’m a usability engineer.

In short, I make your software more user-friendly, so that it fits like a glove around a hand.

I use all kind of tools, disciplines and techniques to achieve that one:

• the use of personas
• contextual task observing
• cognitive psychology
• heuristic usability evaluations
• a usability lab
• the implementation of usability design guidelines
• early and late prototyping.
• Etc…


What is currently annoying you the most about software? What should be improved and how?

You may post unrealistic solutions. :)Far too often the software makes an assumption of me having some sort of retardation, so it hides features away so it can be soft and fuzzy to people with no experience with the software. Often, usability by experienced persons is ignored so their workflow has to suffer because the software provides no mechanism to 'power use' it.

A good example would be word processors such as Microsoft Word or OpenOffice.org Writer. Sure the menus are nice for when you need to discover a feature when you only have a vague notion of what you want, but they are horrid when you already know what you need to do (you have to leave the keyboard and start using the mouse). It would be nice if there was some way to map all features to a keyboard shortcut. Vim and Emacs do this, but they are text editors, not word processors. Actually, Emacs is a good example: it has menus and such for when you need them, but everything has a shortcut which can be used once you have become familiar with the app.

What annoys me the most is the fact that everything seems to be 'rushed' out, while leaving massive gaping holes in the software *cough*Vista*cough*. I can understand the concept of rushing something out, to get it on the market, but I just wish that companies would take more time in backtracking, double-checking, and making sure at least majority of the holes are filled, instead of releasing patches for the next 6 months to correct things that should've been fixed in the first place.

didn't you notice what I said?
It's the only wordprocessing software installed at work.
Admin restrictions prevent us from d/l'ing and installing software. So it's the only we've got.
*sigh*What about Google Docs? It doesn't need any installation, and in my opinion it doesn't suck too hard.

What is currently annoying you the most about software? What should be improved and how?

You may post unrealistic solutions. :)

I would like to personally be consulted about my needs prior to developers creating something, then getting a usability expert to test it with me.

I'm kind of kidding, but I think you know what I'm getting at.

I swear to god that one day I'm going to design a learning/learning content management system that works for students, developers, course faciliators all at the same time. And it will make sense. And all will hail me as the conquering hero of online courseware. Well, two or three people might.

I would like to personally be consulted about my needs prior to developers creating something, then getting a usability expert to test it with me.

I'm kind of kidding, but I think you know what I'm getting at.

I swear to god that one day I'm going to design a learning/learning content management system that works for students, developers, course faciliators all at the same time. And it will make sense. And all will hail me as the conquering hero of online courseware. Well, two or three people might.You are going to invent WebCT?

The most commonly used functions of a program should be the easiest to find and use. It should be easy to locate functionality, meaning functions have to be sorted by what they do and placed logically, and be well named and/or have a fitting icon. Programs should never have custom interfaces, and they should always obey the OS/DE style of doing things (shortcuts, menus, icons etc).

I'm a Gnome user and I'm pretty happy with how things are here. KDE is a disaster, but they seem to be working on it for version 4. With Windows, it's like every program wants to look and work different from everything else, and not even Microsoft sticks to their own style (WMP, Office). I think the desire to make money on a program and usability are at least somewhat incompatible. Usability is about making the program unobtrusive and "just work". But if you want to make money, you need your program to really stick out. Not to mention stick icons on your desktop, in your systray and in your Start menu...

What do you think of usability?

I’m a usability engineer.

In short, I make your software more user-friendly, so that it fits like a glove around a hand.

I use all kind of tools, disciplines and techniques to achieve that one:

• the use of personas
• contextual task observing
• cognitive psychology
• heuristic usability evaluations
• a usability lab
• the implementation of usability design guidelines
• early and late prototyping.
• Etc…


What is currently annoying you the most about software? What should be improved and how?

You may post unrealistic solutions. :)

The usability of any software depends very much on the type of user you are aiming at,
and that requires you to look at how that type of user uses the computer.

You would not for example use the same interface layout for a 5 yr old's block counting game as you would for something like autocad 8 (strange, but some companies do :headbang: )
Another example is in the realm of DNC software (my area of expertise), that is software that is used to transfer control programs from a PC to an industrial robot and back.
Checking out some of the DNC software showed a wide variety of interface design linked by one factor, they were designed for the software developer (and yes I fell into the same trap once too ) and were way too complex.

However by consulting with the end users of the system, most of whom are not PC experts, I came up with a simple clean design that takes the minium amount of training and knowledge to use.
Press 2 buttons, and type in your filename to transfer and off it goes.
But, and heres the but, If the user wants to use filechoosers, cut and paste, keyboard shortcuts, file editors, backup and printing function, even setting the look and feel of the whole system (its java based and lists the installed l & f's) all these features are enabled and available.

In short, usabilty should be built in right from the start and that only happens when the users are involved in the design right from the start.

Boris BSc(hons), Dip.Comp. .... all of which should mean I know what I'm talking about :D

PS. This answer is copyright, no attempt should be made to include it in your assignment answers (just in case you are looking for a shortcut to some answers :upyours: )

I disagree with Schniederman , ie the make it work for 90% of users and it will be OK.

I think make it usable by people with a range of disabilities and it will be better than OK.

For anyone thinking that's unrealistic you have probably used a couple of products today (maybe software, maybe not) that were designed for people with disabilities but can be used by anyone.

ball point pens, electric toothbrushes and telephones spring to mind.

I hate it when you cannot change the colour of a screen. I find it really difficult to read against a white background.

Posi - your example is really good - not everyone can even use a mouse - i can but it is painful.

What do you think of usability?

I’m a usability engineer.

In short, I make your software more user-friendly, so that it fits like a glove around a hand.

I use all kind of tools, disciplines and techniques to achieve that one:

• the use of personas
• contextual task observing
• cognitive psychology
• heuristic usability evaluations
• a usability lab
• the implementation of usability design guidelines
• early and late prototyping.
• Etc…


What is currently annoying you the most about software? What should be improved and how?

You may post unrealistic solutions. :)

I dont have a suggestion YET but from a customer support perspective anything in the medical Realm is absolutely horrid from a usability standpoint

Far too often the software makes an assumption of me having some sort of retardation, so it hides features away so it can be soft and fuzzy to people with no experience with the software. Often, usability by experienced persons is ignored so their workflow has to suffer because the software provides no mechanism to 'power use' it.

A good example would be word processors such as Microsoft Word or OpenOffice.org Writer. Sure the menus are nice for when you need to discover a feature when you only have a vague notion of what you want, but they are horrid when you already know what you need to do (you have to leave the keyboard and start using the mouse). It would be nice if there was some way to map all features to a keyboard shortcut. Vim and Emacs do this, but they are text editors, not word processors. Actually, Emacs is a good example: it has menus and such for when you need them, but everything has a shortcut which can be used once you have become familiar with the app.

Yes, but shortcut keys will only work for people that use the application a lot. Also women, in general, do not like it very much.

I'm not a MS Office expert, but I believe you can add/modifiy/delete shortcuts by selecting the Tools/Customize menu and then click the Keyboard button....

What annoys me the most is the fact that everything seems to be 'rushed' out, while leaving massive gaping holes in the software *cough*Vista*cough*. I can understand the concept of rushing something out, to get it on the market, but I just wish that companies would take more time in backtracking, double-checking, and making sure at least majority of the holes are filled, instead of releasing patches for the next 6 months to correct things that should've been fixed in the first place.

In a way, that's the business model that most vendors use.

Believe me, companies like Microsoft invest a lot in testing.
Could they invest more? Maybe, but there’s no need for, they are king in their domains…

The usability of any software depends very much on the type of user you are aiming at,
and that requires you to look at how that type of user uses the computer.

You would not for example use the same interface layout for a 5 yr old's block counting game as you would for something like autocad 8 (strange, but some companies do :headbang: )
Another example is in the realm of DNC software (my area of expertise), that is software that is used to transfer control programs from a PC to an industrial robot and back.
Checking out some of the DNC software showed a wide variety of interface design linked by one factor, they were designed for the software developer (and yes I fell into the same trap once too ) and were way too complex.

However by consulting with the end users of the system, most of whom are not PC experts, I came up with a simple clean design that takes the minium amount of training and knowledge to use.
Press 2 buttons, and type in your filename to transfer and off it goes.
But, and heres the but, If the user wants to use filechoosers, cut and paste, keyboard shortcuts, file editors, backup and printing function, even setting the look and feel of the whole system (its java based and lists the installed l & f's) all these features are enabled and available.

In short, usabilty should be built in right from the start and that only happens when the users are involved in the design right from the start.

Boris BSc(hons), Dip.Comp. .... all of which should mean I know what I'm talking about :D

PS. This answer is copyright, no attempt should be made to include it in your assignment answers (just in case you are looking for a shortcut to some answers :upyours: )


You're right, but your answer is just common knowledge. :)

I consult users very early and ask for their requirements and opinions, I watch what and how they behave (in a sense of using the software) but I never, never, never ask them to design the GUI.

Henry Ford said, "If I had asked my customers what they wanted, they would have said, 'a faster horse'".

I disagree with Schniederman , ie the make it work for 90% of users and it will be OK.

I think make it usable by people with a range of disabilities and it will be better than OK.

For anyone thinking that's unrealistic you have probably used a couple of products today (maybe software, maybe not) that were designed for people with disabilities but can be used by anyone.

ball point pens, electric toothbrushes and telephones spring to mind.

I hate it when you cannot change the colour of a screen. I find it really difficult to read against a white background.

Posi - your example is really good - not everyone can even use a mouse - i can but it is painful.

"I disagree with Schniederman , ie the make it work for 90% of users and it will be OK."

I disagree as well, till a certain level.

I’ll give an example.

If you know that a significant share of your users is pretty old, just make it standard that the font type is one (or two) point larger as usual.

Old people, their vision capacities are less and they will reward the larger font.

The ‘young’ people will not notice it or at least will not feel uncomfortable by using a font that’s just a little bigger as usual. (but making it too big will result in complains)

On the other hand sometimes it’s not justifiable from a cost/benefit viewpoint to include special requirements for disabled ones. Sorry.

If you know that your user population doesn’t count disabled ones, then few companies will start developing features for them.

You're right, but your answer is just common knowledge. :)

I consult users very early and ask for their requirements and opinions, I watch what and how they behave (in a sense of using the software) but I never, never, never ask them to design the GUI.

Henry Ford said, "If I had asked my customers what they wanted, they would have said, 'a faster horse'".

Which is exactly where you are going wrong.
Most folks out there in reality (nasty horrid place) dont want bells and whistles,they want a user interface they can use, if you dont involve the end users in gui design you can end up with a smashing gui that works brilliantly if you know all the ins and outs and know where the shortcuts are but you need a degree in computer science to understand it.

You are going to invent WebCT?

No, I mean something more useful than WebCT/Blackboard and less onerous for the average installation than Moodle.

I've used most of the major ones, from mainframes to the net over the past 15 years. I've yet to see the perfect one.

No, I mean something more useful than WebCT/Blackboard and less onerous for the average installation than Moodle.

I've used most of the major ones, from mainframes to the net over the past 15 years. I've yet to see the perfect one.

I have no problems with my Moodle.

I have no problems with my Moodle.

Neither do I. But most of the severely understaffed non-profit CBOs I'm working with don't have the in house database expertise to host and support it adequately.

Neither do I. But most of the severely understaffed non-profit CBOs I'm working with don't have the in house database expertise to host and support it adequately.

well, without proper support any program is going to be a problem.

well, without proper support any program is going to be a problem.'

Yes. However, since the topic here is usability, I thought I’d put out an example of a very large class of software that, in my experience, would benefit from some usability analysis.

My biggest issue is the ability to turn off "features". I know what I'm doing with computers and software (generally, and give me about 15 minutes to work out a new interface) and I don't need my computer patronizing me. But there are a whole bunch of annoying Windows "features" that either can't be turned off or require a long series of steps to turn off. (i.e. the "unused icons" Windows pop-up noted earlier)

Other than that, I don't have too many issues with software usability. But I guess I'm a bit unique in that I'm willing to work with an unfamiliar interface to get what I need, instead of always demanding what I already know.

Which is exactly where you are going wrong.
Most folks out there in reality (nasty horrid place) dont want bells and whistles,they want a user interface they can use, if you dont involve the end users in gui design you can end up with a smashing gui that works brilliantly if you know all the ins and outs and know where the shortcuts are but you need a degree in computer science to understand it.

No, no, no.

A usability engineer is on the side of the users, not the developers.

If it's required, due the user base, the task, the frequency of use or other parameters that the GUI should be clean and easy, then the GUI will be clean and easy.

A single user isn't a good advisor or he should be the only user of the system.

A usability engineer will look for the usability requirements of all major stakeholders and users, rather than single out 1 user.

My biggest issue is the ability to turn off "features". I know what I'm doing with computers and software (generally, and give me about 15 minutes to work out a new interface) and I don't need my computer patronizing me. But there are a whole bunch of annoying Windows "features" that either can't be turned off or require a long series of steps to turn off. (i.e. the "unused icons" Windows pop-up noted earlier)

Other than that, I don't have too many issues with software usability. But I guess I'm a bit unique in that I'm willing to work with an unfamiliar interface to get what I need, instead of always demanding what I already know.

Oh yes you do.

By your skills, you are in need of specific requirements. If software is designed for your type of people and we ignore your skills then the delivered software will not be satisfying for you.

There's software around, that you will not learn in 15 minutes. I'm thinking about an AutoCad, ZaiNET, Development environments, etc...

Which is exactly where you are going wrong.
Most folks out there in reality (nasty horrid place) dont want bells and whistles,they want a user interface they can use, if you dont involve the end users in gui design you can end up with a smashing gui that works brilliantly if you know all the ins and outs and know where the shortcuts are but you need a degree in computer science to understand it.

I'll give you a classic example: position of labels vs. textboxes.

If you ask users, or just any people what they prefer...

this...

Family Name : **************
Namexxxxxxx: ********
Streetxxxxxx: **************
Zip Codexxxx: ****
Agexxxxxxxxx: **

or this one..

Family Name : **************
Family Name : ********
FamilyStreet : **************
FamZip Code : ****
Family WAge : **

Then they will select the top one, 'cause people, in general, like symmetry.

But what's the best from a usability point of view?

The bottom one.

'cause you will do less eye movements, the cognitive load will be lower and thus you'll process the screen faster and input is done with less mistakes.

Usability labs worldwide have proven this.

As a common user you don't know this and just trust your feeling...

(Btw, there is a better solution -> Putting labels above the textbox - but that's sometimes not possible 'cause lack of space)

Usability relates to many things including chaos theory and AI.

An easy way to say this is that you can generally predict how a herd will move but not the individual creatures within that herd.

This relates to usability because you can guess what the average person will do but not what the individual person will do - so any individual on any program may perform a certain aspect differently though, if you average it out, well that's all you'll get, an average.

So while all of us are 70% compatible with say, MS Word, each of our 30% of problems are different.

This is the same problem with predicting weather, you can guess where the hurricane might go on average but not 100% because you can't account for the individual hurricane and all the components that determine its direction.

It relates to AI because you can program a computer to react on average for any situation but not specifically for one situation unless you have infinite code.

Our brain works differently by working on averages and specific, so it can tell, say that the flight of a ball means your hand needs to go to a certain point to catch it and it can average any object in flight, but it can also specify according to that object.

Or something like that, I'm not writing a thesis here.

what is currently annoying about most software is that it costs money and it uses up precious memory.

Usability relates to many things including chaos theory and AI.

An easy way to say this is that you can generally predict how a herd will move but not the individual creatures within that herd.

This relates to usability because you can guess what the average person will do but not what the individual person will do - so any individual on any program may perform a certain aspect differently though, if you average it out, well that's all you'll get, an average.

So while all of us are 70% compatible with say, MS Word, each of our 30% of problems are different.

This is the same problem with predicting weather, you can guess where the hurricane might go on average but not 100% because you can't account for the individual hurricane and all the components that determine its direction.

It relates to AI because you can program a computer to react on average for any situation but not specifically for one situation unless you have infinite code.

Our brain works differently by working on averages and specific, so it can tell, say that the flight of a ball means your hand needs to go to a certain point to catch it and it can average any object in flight, but it can also specify according to that object.

Or something like that, I'm not writing a thesis here.

I see it as my task to predict what is predictable (which is pretty a lot).

Sure, you can't do well for everyone and there will be always strange animals on your road. :)

what is currently annoying about most software is that it costs money and it uses up precious memory.

That's not a usability item.

That's not a usability item.

it is for me. if it costs money i can't use it cuz i can't afford it. if it uses up too much memory i can't use it cuz my computer throws a fit. :p

it is for me. if it costs money i can't use it cuz i can't afford it. if it uses up too much memory i can't use it cuz my computer throws a fit. :pI'd say the latter is a valid usability concern, the same as buggy or slow programs are. Sadly, memory usage will simply continue to grow, as it's considered a cheap resource that new computers will have "enough" of and few really care that much about it anymore. Programs are generally 10 (and even that is becoming rare nowadays) to 100 times (or even several more orders of magnitude) as large as they would technically need to be to be able to perform all of their tasks, and the same goes for their memory usage. Writing efficient programs takes more effort than cranking out quick-and-dirty crap, and quick and dirty crap sells, hence that is what companies make. *insert more grumpy old-school programmer ramblings here*

I'd say the latter is a valid usability concern, the same as buggy or slow programs are. Sadly, memory usage will simply continue to grow, as it's considered a cheap resource that new computers will have "enough" of and few really care that much about it anymore. Programs are generally 10 (and even that is becoming rare nowadays) to 100 times (or even several more orders of magnitude) as large as they would technically need to be to be able to perform all of their tasks, and the same goes for their memory usage. Writing efficient programs takes more effort than cranking out quick-and-dirty crap, and quick and dirty crap sells, hence that is what companies make. *insert more grumpy old-school programmer ramblings here*

It is considered as a functional problem, less as a usability one.

Else, all problems would be usability related, 'cause sooner or later a user will complain... :)

If the response time is taking too much time, or the overall speed of the software is going down, then it can become a usability problem.