user hostile

I’ve been thinking about the bizarre concept of user friendliness, specifically as it applies to software and operating systems.

By way of illustration, my workplace uses Office 2000.   Someone got a bug up their backside because the number 2007 is greater than 2000, so we obviously needed to ‘upgrade’.  As any legitimate MIS guy would do, I installed it on a few pc’s to test it out (especially the main complainer).  What we found was that Microsoft ‘improved’ Office by hiding all the functions you’re used to.  Most activities are an exercise in search and rescue.  And, as one would expect, it’s way more bloated and slow than previous versions.  Office 2007 made its point and as a result, we’re using Office 2000 and Open Office.

Curious about the hype and bored out of my skull, I messed around with a Mac.  They have done wonders with their user interface.  The way I had to dig for anything meaningful was downright Microsoftian.   Setup and hardware interaction were beautifully hidden, bringing to mind the word ‘excavation.’   The mouse was physically hostile; it hurt my hand.   No matter what I did, I found it counterintuitive and more difficult to operate.

Windows Vista:  there are more reasons to hate this OS than taxes.  The first time I saw it desperately begged to be the last time.   Keeping in mind I’ve been using Windows since Win3, this interface is a mess.  Never mind bloated and resource-intensive; once again everything is hidden.  It’s not anywhere near where it used to be or should be.  Counter-intuitive.  It is also guilty of Leftystrat’s Number One Sin: prettiness.  Granted, this is not a widely-held opinion, but it is mine.  I don’t need blinking lights, fancy cursors, constant popups, or Help from my OS.  I don’t want to be questioned or second-guessed… I’ll deal with the ramifications myself, thank you.

A coworker showed me a preview version of KDE 4, the Linux desktop.  He got two screens into it and we both agreed this was a waste of time, requiring too many keystrokes or clicks to accomplish the most basic tasks.  His comment was that KDE 4 is the Vista of Linux. [fortunately you're not stuck with any single desktop with Linux]

When I relate some of these experiences, one of the comments is that the user interface is not designed for the current user - it’s designed for the total beginner.  The explanation is that teams of usability gurus got together to make this interface idiot-proof.

Murphy, of Murphy’s Laws, states that if you make something idiot-proof, they’ll just make a better idiot.

If we give the explanation a little credence it raises one niggling little question: what about the usability for the millions of existing users?  Why make an ‘upgrade’ more difficult to use?

Sorry, I’m not buying.  Literally.

My userbase would have required retraining had we gone to Office 2007.  So in order to ‘upgrade’ we faced the costs of the software and training.  If we had to put that much effort into an upgrade, we figured why bother.  There was no gain.  At least Open Office doesn’t require training.

I have this odd requirement for software.  I want it to work.   Reasonably quickly would be good.  Not too graphics-intensive is a plus.   One last thing: if any onscreen action happens to produce noise, the entire computer is likely to become airborne, giving a new meaning to in-flight computing.

What do you think?