Re: Ease of use (was Call for constructive user criticism.)

[Tom Gilbert <gilbertt tomgilbert freeserve co uk>]

* Fox, Kevin M (KMFox@mail.bhi-erc.com) [990809 21:18]:
> Yes it is hard otherwise, but it is worth it to hide the complex features
> that normally should not be seen by normal users, and still allow the guru's
> access. Otherwise a program has to be ether a toster, or a jigsaw puzzle.
> With 2 interfaces, it can be both.
> 
> > > Yes, but, it would help out the computer people who dont 
> > know much about
> > > computers. And the "slightly insulting" part will help 
> > people want to
> > learn
> > > the advanced stuff. No one wants to look stupid. :)
> > 
> > People should learn stuff because they want to, not because 
> > the computer is
> > treating them as a idiot.
> 
> True. But, it allows them to still use the programs when they dont know how
> to use a computer and work themselves up to the advanced level. Presenting a
> new user with 10,000 buttons would just make the user go bonkerz, but
> presenting the user with the 100 or so buttons he/she needs to start off
> with will make learning go faster.

Oh come on! Do you think being an advanced user is about having more
buttons??? That's madness.

btw, if anyone presented me with a piece of software which made use of
100 buttons, I would declare it a virus, and disinfect my hd of it :-)

> 
> > An insulting or patronising interface is possibly the worst 
> > thing you can
> > give a program.
> > 
> 
> I agree. 
> If you make 1 interface easy and simple to use, and the other advanced and
> more difficult to use, it allows the user to choose if he/she is ready to
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Why the heck would you make an interface *more difficult to use* on
purpose? Also madness. Why should more difficult == more advanced?

> use the complex stuff. It dosn't need to be insulting, it just needs to be
> very simple to use.
> 
> > iain

You do not need two interfaces to every program. Developers have
enough to do without supporting two interfaces. It is patently
unnecessary. A well designed interface makes things clear to users
*whilst still allowing* the use of more advanced features.

Lets have some common sense, please.

Here's an example. I'm using mutt to write this. With a suitable
config file (the default is quite good) a new user can cope with it
totally. Press m to send a mail, r to reply, s to save. Nice and easy.
There is a help line at the bottom by default, explaining stuff all
the while.

Once the user gets the hang of the software, he can disable the help
line, divide his mail into folders and write macros to switch between
them, reformat them, change the colours of various sections of
messages, change the default keybindings, and customise his or her
environment in many other ways.

Two interfaces? Come off it. Why not one good one?

Tom.
-- 
            .-------------------------------------------------------.
    .^.     | Tom Gilbert, England | tom@tomgilbert.freeserve.co.uk |
    /V\     |----------------------| www.tomgilbert.freeserve.co.uk |
   // \\    | Sites I recommend:   `--------------------------------|
  /(   )\   | www.freshmeat.net www.enlightenment.org www.gnome.org |
   ^^-^^    `-------------------------------------------------------'