On 8/6/2015 8:15 AM, scott wrote:
>>> It's a bit like the way you can drive a way without having a clue how an
>>> internal combustion engine actually works.
>>>
>>> Is that "dumbing down"? Or is that "removing unimportant implementation
>>> details"? Where do you draw the line?
>
> I would say you provide the information to allow the user to do what is
> expected in normal situations. In the past it was expected a car might
> not start at some point, not anymore. Therefore there is no need for a
> user to know how to diagnose an engine that won't start (beyond being
> told there's no fuel left!).
>
> Or take a photocopier. It's still expected that paper might get jammed
> somewhere, so there is provision to explain to the user how to open the
> correct panel/drawer to unjam the paper. The user doesn't need to know
> how it works to do that.
>
> If everyone took the time to learn how everything worked that they used
> we'd have a world full of curious engineers and nobody with any time to
> do other tasks :-)
>
>> I think that is the crux of the problem.
>> I don't have an answer.
>
> The difficulty with software like MS Office it is used by a huge range
> of people with very different requirements. My mum wants to type a
> letter and struggles to change the line spacing to make it look right.
> My gf wants to make a form in Word with boxes for people to check and
> type in. I want a complex workbook in Excel with macros. Designing a UI
> that works well for all those people cannot be easy.
>

Yes to all of that.
The problem is exacerbated by the "religious conviction" of the 
different sides.

I freely admit that I am on the side of knowing what you are doing. But 
then I work with a seriously complex program and tech savvy people.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message