Hacker News Reader

This 1000x.

Getting a user interface correct is exceedingly difficult. How would one know what a toaster is for if they had not seen one being used?

Computers are layers and layers of abstractions built to deal with an important resource, information. We've done a good job of burying the fact that at the lowest level we are coercing an electrical charge on a microscopic wire through a p-n junction the way we want. Hardly anyone needs to understand how to create their own incredibly tiny p-n junctions, nor understand what the hell a p-n junction is.

However, at the larger macro levels, there is still much work to be done.

Something as necessary as WiFi still causes a great amount of confusion. Why not alert the user that their wifi is off? Better yet, why not just pop up the wireless selector when someone opens anything that requires a remote resource if they are not connected?

If we were really good at designing things from the start we wouldn't have these problems. People don't need to know about the file system and how it works any more than they need to know about the change in voltage inside their electronics.

The curious among us will always dive deeper into the layers of abstraction and ask how and why. This is not unique to just computers.

The modern world around us is tantalizingly complex. Things like plumbing and water have been solved and "just work". The interface is very obvious and simple, and through a little bit of experimentation, one can figure out a water faucet with very little risk of failure or consequence. How we interact with water in our homes is pretty much solved. Assuming, of course, you live in a society with running water and plumbing. (Some still dont, it's amazing how often the first world forgets this)

How we interact with information is in the process of being "solved". Once our interface with information is "solved" it will be understood and there will be very little need for the major technical skills we require today to interact with this resource.

In the meantime, you are probably gainfully employed because of your ability to understand the current interface with information. It is your job to make this interface better for everyone.

A user cannot connect to the internet even after trying various software settings. It turns out the hardware wireless toggle is off. Either the hardware or OS itself didn't inform the user of what was going on, this is a massive design fail.

What if the hardware or OS did do it actually, but the user failed to recognize it as for what it is or meant?

  Someone's MacBook doesn't connect to the internet.

At this point, connecting to different wifi networks and turning on and off the radio should be considered basic knowledge--if you'd like to argue to the contrary, please save us the trouble and acknowledge that you want to remove any semblance of security for users.

The proxy probably threw up a message describing that it was working properly, and that the requested content was blocked because of $reason.

Things were working as expected and designed, and the user tried to do something that was outside of that envelope. If the user wants to do more, the user should learn to do more.

  Someone has embedded a YouTube video into a powerpoint presentation.

User did not understand the idea of remote content. User should be made aware of difference in remote content, possibly even later going on to use it to make smaller presentations where appropriate, or to guarantee operation in network-limited situations.

   A user's laptop is running very slowly due to virus infection.

User acknowledged that they were aware of virus scanners, used file-sharing programs, and voluntarily did not take prophylactic measures.

  A user complains of a computer not turning on, but it turns out the machine is on and the monitor is off.

User has apparently never used a television with a separate cable box, or a car with a radio, or a projector with a laptop. User now knows better, and can teach others!

  A user cannot connect to the internet even after trying various software settings.

User did not understand function of all buttons on machine. User now understands function of wireless toggle on machine, can help others.

  A user attempts to log in to a network site/computer.

User deliberately skips impatiently past diagnostic information sufficient to immediately ascertain source of issue and enable rectification.

User will go on to one day become stranded in traffic having ignored "low fuel" light in car.

  A user has a new iPhone and is sad about loss of contacts.

User bought into frictionless ecosystem, and was not notified that the needful was already happening automatically--though pondering the question "what if my phone breaks?" would've prevented this.

(To be fair, this is outright poor software design.)

  A user complains of not having internet access.

User never bothered to learn difference between shortcuts and files. User now knows difference, hopefully.

   A user thinks they have a virus.

User does not notice telltale UI mismatch, and does not know machine well enough to catch that. User hopefully now knows better.

> At this point, connecting to different wifi networks and turning on and off the radio should be considered basic knowledge--if you'd like to argue to the contrary, please save us the trouble and acknowledge that you want to remove any semblance of security for users.

I'm just trying to point out that expectations on connectivity are not consistent from one machine or platform to the next and that inconsistency makes it difficult for a user to understand what is going on.

> The proxy probably threw up a message describing that it was working properly, and that the requested content was blocked because of $reason.

> Things were working as expected and designed, and the user tried to do something that was outside of that envelope. If the user wants to do more, the user should learn to do more.

I would argue that things were not working as expected for the user but the proxy was working as intended and designed by the network admins. That mismatch is what makes using proxy or feature limited networks hard to use.

> User did not understand the idea of remote content. User should be made aware of difference in remote content, possibly even later going on to use it to make smaller presentations where appropriate, or to guarantee operation in network-limited situations.

Having worked with video troubleshooting for a variety of people, some folks understand that the video is remote and some do not. PowerPoint definitely should be designed in a way that helps the user make the distinction better than it currently does.

> User acknowledged that they were aware of virus scanners, used file-sharing programs, and voluntarily did not take prophylactic measures.

Relying on user behavior for this is a bad idea and brings down the security of the network. By default, always updated AV is a far better option for most people.

> User has apparently never used a television with a separate cable box, or a car with a radio, or a projector with a laptop. User now knows better, and can teach others!

That is probably true. I've done TV sales and installation before and the mental model of displays and input/output is not well understood by the average person. Moreover, connecting different kinds of screens and devices can result in different behavior and may need different troubleshooting steps. That inconsistency makes it difficult for people to use those devices and displays, esp. in the context of how many all-in-one computer and display devices the average person will use.

> User did not understand function of all buttons on machine. User now understands function of wireless toggle on machine, can help others.

The button has a use, but perhaps the hardware and/or software should more clearly communicate that the hardware is disabled.

> User deliberately skips impatiently past diagnostic information sufficient to immediately ascertain source of issue and enable rectification.

> User will go on to one day become stranded in traffic having ignored "low fuel" light in car.

It is well understood now that user do not read dialogs. Relying on dialogs as a communication method is a poor design and shouldn't be relied upon. Moreover, cars do suffer issues with users understanding error indicators, so I'm not really sure what you are trying to say.

> User bought into frictionless ecosystem, and was not notified that the needful was already happening automatically--though pondering the question "what if my phone breaks?" would've prevented this.

> (To be fair, this is outright poor software design.)

The tethered backup/restore for iOS devices via iTunes is not frictionless. It would be frictionless is the backup/restore was automatic through the web rather than requiring a specific step of steps. You are right that this is poor software design, absolutely.

Also, pre-iPhone a lot of people did expect to lose their contacts, esp. for those cell phone owners that didn't use devices with sim cards that can be moved from device to device.

> User never bothered to learn difference between shortcuts and files. User now knows difference, hopefully.

Even users that can click the correct icons may have trouble understanding the difference between files and shortcuts. To be fair, this may be one of those things that just needs to be taught in a direct fashion, because I'm not sure any software design change could really accommodate this misunderstanding (not even file system hiding OSes like Android/iOS do this right).

> User does not notice telltale UI mismatch, and does not know machine well enough to catch that. User hopefully now knows better.

The UI mismatch is not telltale to the average person. UI designs and paradigms change very often and the basic mechanics of windowed GUIs aren't well understood by the average person outside of the most basic operations. Again, there is a reason why malware ads and spam ads use these techniques, they are seeking to take advantage of the average level of information literacy.

It is easy to blame users for a lot of the issues they encounter, but that is completely unproductive. If computer hardware and software cannot work well and easily for the lowest common denominator then they are not improving people's lives, they are making them worse or putting those people in a position to have their lives made worse (virus infection, identity theft, loss of important documents/photos, etc.)

> Having worked with video troubleshooting for a variety of people, some folks understand that the video is remote and some do not. PowerPoint definitely should be designed in a way that helps the user make the distinction better than it currently does.

Those who don't, can't use computers.

I mean come on. "PowerPoint doesn't work" when referring to a video on one of the slides not loading?

If you were a user who didn't understand the difference between embedding the video and actually downloading it to local storage, it doesn't seem unreasonable to say "PowerPoint doesn't work", that program isn't loading the resource you thought you had.

> Those who don't, can't use computers.

The trend for the last decade or more has been to put more and more resources online or tie them to computer systems. In the US especially, libraries and social programs are underfunded and cannot meet the need of those that must use a computer to access something they need while not being able to use a computer. Applying for unemployment, handling documentation, finding work, and more are very computer centric now. In a perfect world, there would be options even for those that can't use a computer. However, we don't live in that world and as designers and implementers of hardware and software design we have a social duty to make the situation better for every user and potential user.