I wonder of the 80% how much would they care for it if they had time to discover and learn it. And how much they really just will never care (unless their role / conpany changes).
For product like Microsoft Office (or whatever it's called these days) 20% is ludicrously high. I'd guess more in the 1% - 2% range. Especially Word is way to complex for the needs of most people, Wordpad covers the needs of most home users. I also thinks that's where the recentment for the remaining features come from. It's not that there's some number of feature hiding in a corner that's the problem, it's that almost the entire application is "useless".
I’ve lost count of the number of Word documents I’ve had to edit where the creator completely ignored styles and formatted every element individually.
Working with styles is relatively complicated (not hard, but distinct form pure wysiwyg picking font&size and hoc) and for most small documents doesn't have much of a benefit in the result.
For larger documents or professional work it's relevant, but by then people are used to adhoc ways
It makes you yearn for latex and xsl-fo(!).
If you want me to do it The Right Way, make sure that's a happy path, or I'm going to stop doing it.
Ironically, at the time the corporate templates didn’t even use styles. It was just a 5 page doc with all the different things a person might use, and we were expected to copy/paste what we wanted to get the proper formatting. This wasn’t officially stated, but that was the only way I could see to use it.
Agree, and I see this problem in both non-tech users and even sysadmins on my team when I'm looking for new hires.
I'll get resumes of people that are seemingly great, but they really only learned a few specific tools and had no general understanding of theory or even what those tools were doing. I don't care if you "know" Ansible, I do care if you know why we use orchestration management in the first place, and what those ansible playbooks are doing. Tools come and go, but the principles remain.
Likewise with general users. Don't train how to use Word, train how to communicate clearly, format ideas, and share them with others using a computer. The tool is irrelevant
--- start quote ---
Beyond the top 10 commands or so, however, the curve flattens out considerably. The percentage difference in usage between the #100 command ("Accept Change") and the #400 command ("Reset Picture") is about the same in difference between #1 and #11 ("Change Font Size")
--- end quote ---
The whole series is great: https://web.archive.org/web/20080316101025/http://blogs.msdn... and there's a presentation, too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHiNeUTgGkk
“Knows Word” and “familiar with Windows” are boilerplate résumé spam to match the keyword selection. No one actually is expected to follow up on those bullets.
Sometimes, there is indeed a new feature that could solve a problem that they have, but they don't know it exists. I've seen a lot of pop-ups in software that try to tell me about new features, but I never read them, because I'm always trying to do something else when they appear. Emailed newsletters also don't work, because the marketing people who design them always make them look like advertisements.
Finally, many computer users are deeply incurious about their computers, and are often too scared of breaking something to try an unfamiliar feature.
You click a control and something happens - you don't like it, but you don't know what turns it off or undoes it. There's no global state rollback. It's like the sheer terror those "don't show me this again" buttons instill - the concept is frightening even if I'm kind of annoyed by the message, and they rarely if ever include an explanation of exactly where to do to turn the control back on.
People are even afraid to do basic troubleshooting out of fear of breaking something and not being able to easily rollback to the point that something as simple changing the sleep settings on a computer results in a help desk ticket.
Low cognitive load should be a major goal, and that doesn't mean the app can't be feature rich. Make the app very fast, or at least hide latency from the user. No esoteric icons, instead default to plain text. If you have icons, no artificial delay between mouse-over and tooltip. No smooth scrolling. No excessive whitespace. No elements that move around while the page loads. No scrolljacking. And actually use your app so a random user like me can't find multiple bugs in it.
Chatgpt website is a good example of how to tick some of these boxes to achieve low cognitive load, despite being feature rich. It's very fast, and mousing over an icon displays the tooltip immediately. Although they have a few UI bugs that they need to fix, I would give them an 8.5/10. Gemini website is an example of how to tax cognitive load despite being feature poor and "simple". It's very slow for large contexts, it scrolljacks, and it has numerous bugs. I would give them a 2/10, partly due to the fact that it hasn't noticeably improved for over a year since I started using it, despite being one of their flagship products.