On Tue, 04 Aug 2015 21:25:09 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 8/4/2015 5:34 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 04 Aug 2015 07:51:05 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>
> 
>>> I spent a whole five minuets thinking about this. And have come to the
>>> conclusion that I have turned into the older generation, already.
>>
>> LOL
>>
>>
> You think that is funny?
> Wait a couple of years and you will start to sound like your dad or his
> mates. ;-)

I've already started doing that, and I've embraced it. ;)

>>> Physically Apple products beat everything else hands down. IMO
>>> Interfaces, they are not intuitive to me, too much thought has gone
>>> into them and I feel that they are over engineered. But then when
>>> technology morphs into consumer products. Something has to change to
>>> let the little darlings use it without straining their capabilities.
>>> So I will sit back, keep my gob shut, if I can, and wait for the sky
>>> to fall.
>>
>> Well, think about the original iPod interface as an example.  One
>> button,
>> one dial, intuitive to use.
> 
> That was a mp3 player, wasn't it?

Yes, gramps. ;)

> Ah dinnae ken, then.
> 
>> My mother learned how to use it, and she's not the most technical
>> person in the world (she would be the first to say it). :)
>>
>>
> I married your mother?
> My wife is a devote of King Ludd. :-)
> 
> But that is my point. Apple is very good for people that just want to
> use it for what it does. I find it is a pain the the butt as it works
> differently from PCs.

That's part of my point, though - these are devices that are designed to 
be used.  Just because a system is more complex doesn't mean it needs to 
look like the Space Shuttle.  That's why it's important to start with 
interaction design and understand how a user is going to use it.

> BTW do you know how I can downgrade her iPad 2. I updated it a couple of
> months ago and she does not like the way it behaves. (It is an iPad 2
> and had not been upgraded since I bought it for her, when it came out.

No idea, I have a Samsung tablet (just received today, in fact).

>> Properly designed technology is a joy to use.  The problem is that most
>> user interaction is not designed by people trained in UX design - it's
>> designed by developers who have had to run with the "design" mantle as
>> part of the job.
>>
>>
> No argument with that. But it is not what I am used to.

Sure, it's not what *anyone* is used to - and so we're all apologists for 
poor user interaction/interface/experience design.

But that can't be fixed if we're not willing to change things in software 
design and development.  What's the old definition of 'insanity' again?

>> When you build a building, you don't just start putting steel and
>> concrete together - you start with a blueprint, and that blueprint
>> defines a lot about what the final product looks like.  There are
>> design elements that cover the infrastructure used, certainly - and
>> those are designed by competent designers of those infrastructure
>> components.
>>
>>
> And here is me thinking that you start with the clients requirements.

LOL - well, yes, that's where you start.  Design aesthetic is an 
important consideration.

>> But the exterior isn't designed by the person who also designed the
>> electrical system or the plumbing system.
>>
>> Modern software UIs are typically designed by the electrician - which
>> means that the light switches and outlets are all really well placed,
>> but the things the user cares about are often not where the user would
>> intuitively look.
>>
>> That's not the fault of the proverbial electrician - it's a management
>> issue.
> 
> Fee fi fo fum. I smell the blood of someone who believes what he is
> saying.
> 
> It is more complex than that. IMO

I don't think it is, actually - if you leave a software engineer to 
design a user interface, they're going to design one that mimics the 
underlying structure of the software - because they're *intimately* 
familiar with the way those internals work.

But the average user of any software program isn't that familiar with the 
internals - so the interface doesn't make a lot of sense to them.

Which means they have to take classes on how to perform basic tasks, and 
they need complicated manuals that describe all the different knobs they 
need to turn and settings they need to configure in order to get the 
behaviour they want.

If you start with "why is the user using this software", you can design 
an interaction that lets the user solve their business problem.  That 
doesn't mean you hide all the knobs, but you design around the most 
common use cases so those tasks can be accomplished with a minimum of 
fuss.

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message