Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [agile-usability] RE: norman

Expand Messages
  • Desilets, Alain
    then you might see that only 20% of an apps features are used by 90% of the people. -- Alain: I haven t read that study, but according to Johnson 02, 45% of
    Message 1 of 21 , Nov 2, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Message
      then you might see that only 20% of an apps features are used by 90% of the people. 
       
      -- Alain:
      I haven't read that study, but according to Johnson'02, 45% of features were never used, and 19% were rarely used (for a total of 64%). This was a study of rather waterfallish projects, as opposed to agile ones. I don't know what those number would look like for an agile project.
      ---- 

      and yes, the load of crap that companies lug around as "legacy" is reality -- albeit is it a necessary one out of design or is it out of ignorance? even here, though, i submit a valuable addition to something like Word would be the magic customizer slider (that i have invented in my head for years when i was building a very complex, somewhat horrid at times UI in the incarnation of TogetherSoft's ControlCenter UML modeling tool) that would allow features to go from novice to power user in terms of: visibility and depth and degree of user control. 
       
      -- Alain:
      I have heard this idea many times, but I have never seen it implemented. I suspect there might be some pitfalls in terms of the system builder's ability to help and support the user. In other words, it could make it hard to write a good help system when different users employ completely different UIs.
       
      I can see this working if you had say, 3 system-wide settings like beginner, intermediate and advanced. You definitely would not want people to be able to use say, beginner UI in one part of the system and expert UI in another part (do the words "feature interaction" raise the hair at the back of your neck?).
      -----
       
       
      For example, Word could be dramatically simplified by a very small number of features being available by default. 
       
      -- Alain:
      Yes, "less is more" is the one thing where Alan Cooper seems to have gotten it right.
      ----
    • Larry Constantine
      ... a valuable addition to something like Word would be the magic customizer slider (that i have invented in my head for years when i was building a very
      Message 2 of 21 , Nov 2, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Jon Kern wrote:
        ----------
        a valuable addition to something like Word would be the magic customizer
        slider (that i have invented in my head for years when i was building a very
        complex, somewhat horrid at times UI in the incarnation of TogetherSoft's
        ControlCenter UML modeling tool) that would allow features to go from novice
        to power user in terms of: visibility and depth and degree of user control.
        ----------

        It's cute, been proposed many times by many people in one form or another,
        but whether it's a slider or a series of radio button, it turns out to be a
        bad idea.

        (1) A user is not across the board novice, intermediate, or expert in
        interaction style, but varies from one part of the UI to another. Typical
        users are improving intermediates for the 10-20% of the UI they use fairly
        regularly, expert for a few percent of over-learned features, and novices
        for the remaining bulk. But that changes over time and even with respect to
        what they are using the system for at a given moment.

        (2) Having the entire configuration of the user interface change because the
        user slips the slider up or down a notch is extremely disruptive user
        experience.

        (3) Most users do not actually know at what level they are operating or what
        they should tell the system. Even making the choice on setup causes great
        anxiety, as many users fear that if they set the level too low, they will be
        prevented from doing things but if they set it too high they will be
        overwhelmed. Interestingly, when allowed to choose between so-called short
        menus (with reduced options and only basic features) and full menus, the
        vast majority of users prefer long menus.

        A far better approach is based on the progressive usage model (the ski-slope
        model, as it is sometimes known) which supports continuous and incremental
        in-context adaptation of the UI by users to fit evolving interaction style
        and level of expertise. (Covered in our book and several papers.)

        --Larry Constantine, IDSA
      • Jade Ohlhauser
        Well said Larry. I agree having a single control that changes the UI or other sort of interface expertise modes is not a good idea. You re asking the user to
        Message 3 of 21 , Nov 2, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Well said Larry.
           
          I agree having a single control that changes the UI or other sort of interface "expertise" modes is not a good idea. You're asking the user to make a decision without a lot of information on what the consequences and rewards are and what their own needs are. Also, it's a disruptive jump moving "up to the next level". It's not quite back to square one, but it's a real and/or perceived step backwards in the user's journey to application mastery. Finally, I think if there's something so bad about something that it needs to be removed from the UI for a so called "beginner" user, then it should probably be redesigned.
           
          Nice find with that photo app Jon, oh man is that bad. It's almost too painful to compare it to something like Picassa 2.
           
          And if I may slip in one more UI praise for Word that in my opinion makes up for a lot of bad, the red squiggly. I'm talking about underlining misspelled words right away instead of waiting for a spell check. Brilliant. Of course, they ended up taking the superficial element of the concept too far with the Smart Tags. Talk about missing the point.
           
          Jade Ohlhauser
          Product Manager
          RPM Software                                 
          www.rpmsoftware.com 403-265-6727 x704
           


          From: agile-usability@yahoogroups.com [mailto:agile-usability@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Larry Constantine
          Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 8:02 AM
          To: agile-usability@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [agile-usability] user expertise and progressive usage (was RE: norman)

          Jon Kern wrote:
          ----------
          a valuable addition to something like Word would be the magic customizer
          slider (that i have invented in my head for years when i was building a very
          complex, somewhat horrid at times UI in the incarnation of TogetherSoft's
          ControlCenter UML modeling tool) that would allow features to go from novice
          to power user in terms of: visibility and depth and degree of user control.
          ----------

          It's cute, been proposed many times by many people in one form or another,
          but whether it's a slider or a series of radio button, it turns out to be a
          bad idea.

          (1) A user is not across the board novice, intermediate, or expert in
          interaction style, but varies from one part of the UI to another. Typical
          users are improving intermediates for the 10-20% of the UI they use fairly
          regularly, expert for a few percent of over-learned features, and novices
          for the remaining bulk. But that changes over time and even with respect to
          what they are using the system for at a given moment.

          (2) Having the entire configuration of the user interface change because the
          user slips the slider up or down a notch is extremely disruptive user
          experience.

          (3) Most users do not actually know at what level they are operating or what
          they should tell the system. Even making the choice on setup causes great
          anxiety, as many users fear that if they set the level too low, they will be
          prevented from doing things but if they set it too high they will be
          overwhelmed. Interestingly, when allowed to choose between so-called short
          menus (with reduced options and only basic features) and full menus, the
          vast majority of users prefer long menus.

          A far better approach is based on the progressive usage model (the ski-slope
          model, as it is sometimes known) which supports continuous and incremental
          in-context adaptation of the UI by users to fit evolving interaction style
          and level of expertise. (Covered in our book and several papers.)

          --Larry Constantine, IDSA

        • Jon Kern
          if you read carefully, you ll see my idea was always based on a per-feature (or group) concept, so to speak. slider that would allow features to go from
          Message 4 of 21 , Nov 3, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            if you read carefully, you'll see my idea was always based on a per-feature (or group) concept, so to speak.
               " slider that would allow features to go from novice to power user"
            Not across the board, as I agree it would be bad UI.

            The idea is that you can allow the user to peel back the wrapper and access more features at their pace. The system would magically track their level of comfort and expertise and frequency of use. All based on metadata recorded about the UI/features and usages...

            One of the features we built for Together to control the UI was a role-based configuration. An analyst will need to have very different parts of the app available than, for example, a developer. An analyst doesn't need the code editor, debugger, and the like. Of course, it was available if it was really needed. It was just a way to control the default features that were visible and front-and-center, so to speak.

            Of course, a better goal is to provide better UIs. But, it does become very challenging for big honkin' tools like Together or OptimalJ or even IDEs to accommodate varying levels of expertise as a new user goes from novice to power user.

            What sorts of UI design rules of thumb apply for these types of highly complex apps?
            -- jon
            
            


            Larry Constantine said the following on 11/2/2005 10:01 AM:
            Jon Kern wrote:
            ----------
            a valuable addition to something like Word would be the magic customizer
            slider (that i have invented in my head for years when i was building a very
            complex, somewhat horrid at times UI in the incarnation of TogetherSoft's
            ControlCenter UML modeling tool) that would allow features to go from novice
            to power user in terms of: visibility and depth and degree of user control.
            ----------

            It's cute, been proposed many times by many people in one form or another,
            but whether it's a slider or a series of radio button, it turns out to be a
            bad idea.

            (1) A user is not across the board novice, intermediate, or expert in
            interaction style, but varies from one part of the UI to another. Typical
            users are improving intermediates for the 10-20% of the UI they use fairly
            regularly, expert for a few percent of over-learned features, and novices
            for the remaining bulk. But that changes over time and even with respect to
            what they are using the system for at a given moment.

            (2) Having the entire configuration of the user interface change because the
            user slips the slider up or down a notch is extremely disruptive user
            experience.

            (3) Most users do not actually know at what level they are operating or what
            they should tell the system. Even making the choice on setup causes great
            anxiety, as many users fear that if they set the level too low, they will be
            prevented from doing things but if they set it too high they will be
            overwhelmed. Interestingly, when allowed to choose between so-called short
            menus (with reduced options and only basic features) and full menus, the
            vast majority of users prefer long menus.

            A far better approach is based on the progressive usage model (the ski-slope
            model, as it is sometimes known) which supports continuous and incremental
            in-context adaptation of the UI by users to fit evolving interaction style
            and level of expertise. (Covered in our book and several papers.)

            --Larry Constantine, IDSA

          • Jon Kern
            Nice find with that photo app Jon, oh man is that bad. It s almost too painful to compare it to something like Picassa 2. btw: yes, it is a bit exploratory
            Message 5 of 21 , Nov 3, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              "Nice find with that photo app Jon, oh man is that bad. It's almost too painful to compare it to something like Picassa 2. "

              btw: yes, it is a bit exploratory as far as the UI goes, i think. i bet it is going for a different audience and is purposely trying not to look like every other photo program on the planet (like Picasa). They wanted to make the ability to organize and tag photos through simple "who/what/where" info via drag-n-drop or simple type to get a list of tags or create tags. and to make it so your "Mom" can even share photos with friends.

              it's actually easy to use and I don't mind not having a stupid "file" or "edit" or "help" menu. click one button to share one or more photos... click tags to sort: "Jonny" "Mountain" "Nepal" to narrow down to all pics of Jonny, then Jonny with Mountains, then Jonny + Mountains + in Nepal.

              And praise for Word? That squiggly is what IDEs have been doing for a while: catching errors as you make them.

              -- jon
              
              


              Jade Ohlhauser said the following on 11/2/2005 1:12 PM:
              Well said Larry.
               
              I agree having a single control that changes the UI or other sort of interface "expertise" modes is not a good idea. You're asking the user to make a decision without a lot of information on what the consequences and rewards are and what their own needs are. Also, it's a disruptive jump moving "up to the next level". It's not quite back to square one, but it's a real and/or perceived step backwards in the user's journey to application mastery. Finally, I think if there's something so bad about something that it needs to be removed from the UI for a so called "beginner" user, then it should probably be redesigned.
               
              Nice find with that photo app Jon, oh man is that bad. It's almost too painful to compare it to something like Picassa 2.
               
              And if I may slip in one more UI praise for Word that in my opinion makes up for a lot of bad, the red squiggly. I'm talking about underlining misspelled words right away instead of waiting for a spell check. Brilliant. Of course, they ended up taking the superficial element of the concept too far with the Smart Tags. Talk about missing the point.
               
              Jade Ohlhauser
              Product Manager
              RPM Software                                 
              www.rpmsoftware.com 403-265-6727 x704
               


              <cut>

            • Ron Jeffries
              Hi Jon, ... Reading incredibly carefully, I see the word slider , not sliders , suggesting strongly that there is just one across the board slider. ... Oh
              Message 6 of 21 , Nov 3, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Jon,

                On Thursday, November 3, 2005, at 5:06:30 AM, Jon Kern wrote:

                > if you read carefully, you'll see my idea was always based on a per-feature (or group) concept,
                > so to speak.
                >    " slider that would allow features to go from novice to power user"
                > Not across the board, as I agree it would be bad UI.

                Reading incredibly carefully, I see the word "slider", not
                "sliders", suggesting strongly that there is just one across the
                board slider.

                > The idea is that you can allow the user to peel back the wrapper
                > and access more features at their pace. The system would magically
                > track their level of comfort and expertise and frequency of use.
                > All based on metadata recorded about the UI/features and usages...

                Oh ... and I guess from this that you mean an internal slider, not a
                visible one, where some all-knowing being is deciding how I'm doing
                and exposing new features for me, not a slider that I the user can
                adjust?

                > One of the features we built for Together to control the UI was a
                > role-based configuration. An analyst will need to have very
                > different parts of the app available than, for example, a
                > developer. An analyst doesn't need the code editor, debugger, and
                > the like. Of course, it was available if it was really needed. It
                > was just a way to control the default features that were visible
                > and front-and-center, so to speak.

                And was that good? Did actual users really like it? A situation
                today that is like that is Visual Studio 2005, which holds all kinds
                of things back in the Team Version that should in fact be available
                to kids on the street in the Pick Up at Circuit City and Learn C# in
                Your Free Time version.

                VS 2005, to me, is trying to control how I work, based in part on my
                pocketbook and in part on some Vision From Redmond about how I
                should work, rather than letting me control how I work.

                This isn't the same as your example but it's an example of how very
                far awry incremental exposure can go.

                > Of course, a better goal is to provide better UIs. But, it does
                > become very challenging for big honkin' tools like Together or
                > OptimalJ or even IDEs to accommodate varying levels of expertise
                > as a new user goes from novice to power user.

                Yes, it really does. I'm not at all sure that hiding things works
                ... when I use another person's version of Office that isn't
                configured like mine, I often look for things that I'm being
                protected from because the program doesn't realize that a Word God
                has just sat down at the keyboard. I suppose it should be reading
                the Microsoft Customer RFID chip in my brain. Maybe next version.

                > What sorts of UI design rules of thumb apply for these types of
                > highly complex apps?

                I, too, look forward to hearing this answer!

                Ron Jeffries
                www.XProgramming.com
                Example isn't another way to teach, it is the only way to teach.
                --Albert Einstein
              • Desilets, Alain
                And if I may slip in one more UI praise for Word that in my opinion makes up for a lot of bad, the red squiggly. I m talking about underlining misspelled words
                Message 7 of 21 , Nov 3, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  Message
                  And if I may slip in one more UI praise for Word that in my opinion makes up for a lot of bad, the red squiggly. I'm talking about underlining misspelled words right away instead of waiting for a spell check. Brilliant. Of course, they ended up taking the superficial element of the concept too far with the Smart Tags. Talk about missing the point. 
                   
                  -- Alain:
                  Yeah, I LOVE this kind of unobtrusive decorator. When used properly, they can provide a lot of additional information right away when it becomes relevant, but without interrupting the normal flow of work.
                   
                  The Eclipse IDE is great in that way. For example, as soon as I type a syntax mistake, the culprit token is underlined, plus a red stop sign and a light bulb appear in the margin. Clicking on the red stop sign shows the exact error message from the compiler, and clicking on the light bulb brings up a list of automatic fixes for the error (ex: replace "okBitton with okButton").
                  ---- 
                   
                  Jade Ohlhauser
                  Product Manager
                  RPM Software                                 
                  www.rpmsoftware.com 403-265-6727 x704
                   


                  From: agile-usability@yahoogroups.com [mailto:agile-usability@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Larry Constantine
                  Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 8:02 AM
                  To: agile-usability@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: [agile-usability] user expertise and progressive usage (was RE: norman)

                  Jon Kern wrote:
                  ----------
                  a valuable addition to something like Word would be the magic customizer
                  slider (that i have invented in my head for years when i was building a very
                  complex, somewhat horrid at times UI in the incarnation of TogetherSoft's
                  ControlCenter UML modeling tool) that would allow features to go from novice
                  to power user in terms of: visibility and depth and degree of user control.
                  ----------

                  It's cute, been proposed many times by many people in one form or another,
                  but whether it's a slider or a series of radio button, it turns out to be a
                  bad idea.

                  (1) A user is not across the board novice, intermediate, or expert in
                  interaction style, but varies from one part of the UI to another. Typical
                  users are improving intermediates for the 10-20% of the UI they use fairly
                  regularly, expert for a few percent of over-learned features, and novices
                  for the remaining bulk. But that changes over time and even with respect to
                  what they are using the system for at a given moment.

                  (2) Having the entire configuration of the user interface change because the
                  user slips the slider up or down a notch is extremely disruptive user
                  experience.

                  (3) Most users do not actually know at what level they are operating or what
                  they should tell the system. Even making the choice on setup causes great
                  anxiety, as many users fear that if they set the level too low, they will be
                  prevented from doing things but if they set it too high they will be
                  overwhelmed. Interestingly, when allowed to choose between so-called short
                  menus (with reduced options and only basic features) and full menus, the
                  vast majority of users prefer long menus.

                  A far better approach is based on the progressive usage model (the ski-slope
                  model, as it is sometimes known) which supports continuous and incremental
                  in-context adaptation of the UI by users to fit evolving interaction style
                  and level of expertise. (Covered in our book and several papers.)

                  --Larry Constantine, IDSA

                • Jon Kern
                  ... Ron Jeffries said the following on 11/3/2005 8:59 AM: Hi Jon, ... per-feature (or group) concept, ... user ... Reading incredibly carefully, I see the
                  Message 8 of 21 , Nov 3, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    :=)

                    Ron Jeffries said the following on 11/3/2005 8:59 AM:
                    Hi Jon,

                    On Thursday, November 3, 2005, at 5:06:30 AM, Jon Kern wrote:

                    >  if you read carefully, you'll see my idea was always based on a per-feature (or group) concept,
                    > so to speak.
                    >     " slider that would allow features to go from novice to power user"
                    >  Not across the board, as I agree it would be bad UI.

                    Reading incredibly carefully, I see the word "slider", not
                    "sliders", suggesting strongly that there is just one across the
                    board slider.
                    Yeah, but I knew what I meant :=0
                    And, there could be the overarching "slider" based on measured brain wave activity with the skull cap hat shipped with the product.

                    > The idea is that you can allow the user to peel back the wrapper
                    > and access more features at their pace. The system would magically
                    > track their level of comfort and expertise and frequency of use.
                    > All based on metadata recorded about the UI/features and usages...

                    Oh ... and I guess from this that you mean an internal slider, not a
                    visible one, where some all-knowing being is deciding how I'm doing
                    and exposing new features for me, not a slider that I the user can
                    adjust?
                    Hey, I never committed to building this, it was just a fleeting idea that has wafted around the rather shallow UI design center in my brain...

                    I mentioned this idea more as a manifestation of the reality that is presented by a complex (possibly overly so) tool.

                    > One of the features we built for Together to control the UI was a
                    > role-based configuration. An analyst will need to have very
                    > different parts of the app available than, for example, a
                    > developer. An analyst doesn't need the code editor, debugger, and
                    > the like. Of course, it was available if it was really needed. It
                    > was just a way to control the default features that were visible
                    > and front-and-center, so to speak.

                    And was that good? Did actual users really like it? A situation
                    Well, I also did it because a major firm was willing to commit just over $1M in product purchases. So, at least they used it, maybe.

                    The beauty was, I could configure it externally without hard-coding. Therefore, it wasn't too challenging to roll it out due to our ability to "externally" specify product feature grouping (to sell different product feature mixes).

                    today that is like that is Visual Studio 2005, which holds all kinds
                    of things back in the Team Version that should in fact be available
                    to kids on the street in the Pick Up at Circuit City and Learn C# in
                    Your Free Time version.

                    VS 2005, to me, is trying to control how I work, based in part on my
                    pocketbook and in part on some Vision From Redmond about how I
                    should work, rather than letting me control how I work.
                    Sounds like a poor implementation of the idea...

                    There's the concept of misunderstanding how a user might need to use features.

                    There's a concept of features per product edition... get more if you pay more.

                    Then there's the magical "Intelli-Slider-per-Meaningful-Feature-Group" adaptive shelter, that doesn't prevent a user overriding feature availability in an easy manner.

                    This isn't the same as your example but it's an example of how very
                    far awry incremental exposure can go.

                    > Of course, a better goal is to provide better UIs. But, it does
                    > become very challenging for big honkin' tools like Together or
                    > OptimalJ or even IDEs to accommodate varying levels of expertise
                    > as a new user goes from novice to power user.

                    Yes, it really does. I'm not at all sure that hiding things works
                    I'm not sure either...
                    ... when I use another person's version of Office that isn't
                    configured like mine, I often look for things that I'm being
                    protected from because the program doesn't realize that a Word God
                    Yes... I have the same problem when working on a Word doc/desktop by someone who doesn't use styles or even the different "tags" that show tabs, spaces, paragraphs, etc.
                    has just sat down at the keyboard. I suppose it should be reading
                    the Microsoft Customer RFID chip in my brain. Maybe next version.
                    I'd go for that, as long as the chip also helped me go through airports more quickly ;=)

                    > What sorts of UI design rules of thumb apply for these types of
                    > highly complex apps?

                    I, too, look forward to hearing this answer!

                    Ron Jeffries
                    www.XProgramming.com
                    Example isn't another way to teach, it is the only way to teach.
                      --Albert Einstein
                  • Jon Kern
                    okay... I had something to do with this UI. i went phishing for some initial reactions. we deliberately threw out all manner of UI
                    Message 9 of 21 , Nov 3, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      <disclaimer>
                      okay... I had something to do with this UI. i went phishing for some initial reactions.
                      </disclaimer>

                      we deliberately threw out all manner of UI convention and tried to start from scratch with a "zero mass" design... it was based on seeing our "moms" (really) struggling horribly with all manner of "standard" photo apps.

                      just like the aeron chair was met with distaste at first, it grew on people after they began to really use it. you can get a feel for the software by looking at the 10-minute "walkabout" viewlet. But even better to try it out.

                      if you give tidepool a spin, try to organize a few hundred images, create some stories, and share photos with friends, maybe you would have a different opinion from your first gut reaction.
                      -- jon
                      
                      


                      Jon Kern said the following on 11/3/2005 8:24 AM:
                      "Nice find with that photo app Jon, oh man is that bad. It's almost too painful to compare it to something like Picassa 2. "

                      btw: yes, it is a bit exploratory as far as the UI goes, i think. i bet it is going for a different audience and is purposely trying not to look like every other photo program on the planet (like Picasa). They wanted to make the ability to organize and tag photos through simple "who/what/where" info via drag-n-drop or simple type to get a list of tags or create tags. and to make it so your "Mom" can even share photos with friends.

                      it's actually easy to use and I don't mind not having a stupid "file" or "edit" or "help" menu. click one button to share one or more photos... click tags to sort: "Jonny" "Mountain" "Nepal" to narrow down to all pics of Jonny, then Jonny with Mountains, then Jonny + Mountains + in Nepal.

                      And praise for Word? That squiggly is what IDEs have been doing for a while: catching errors as you make them.

                      -- jon
                      
                        


                      Jade Ohlhauser said the following on 11/2/2005 1:12 PM:
                      Well said Larry.
                       
                      I agree having a single control that changes the UI or other sort of interface "expertise" modes is not a good idea. You're asking the user to make a decision without a lot of information on what the consequences and rewards are and what their own needs are. Also, it's a disruptive jump moving "up to the next level". It's not quite back to square one, but it's a real and/or perceived step backwards in the user's journey to application mastery. Finally, I think if there's something so bad about something that it needs to be removed from the UI for a so called "beginner" user, then it should probably be redesigned.
                       
                      Nice find with that photo app Jon, oh man is that bad. It's almost too painful to compare it to something like Picassa 2.
                       
                      And if I may slip in one more UI praise for Word that in my opinion makes up for a lot of bad, the red squiggly. I'm talking about underlining misspelled words right away instead of waiting for a spell check. Brilliant. Of course, they ended up taking the superficial element of the concept too far with the Smart Tags. Talk about missing the point.
                       
                      Jade Ohlhauser
                      Product Manager
                      RPM Software                                 
                      www.rpmsoftware.com 403-265-6727 x704
                       


                      <cut>

                    • Jade Ohlhauser
                      Well if you re fishing then I guess you caught me :) I can say for first reaction the faux wood backgrounds and gradients around the controls really turned me
                      Message 10 of 21 , Nov 3, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Well if you're fishing then I guess you caught me :)
                         
                        I can say for first reaction the faux wood backgrounds and gradients around the controls really turned me off as did the non-standard widget look and file browse UI in Windows. You would think being a self-proclaimed usability guy I'd try to put my preferences aside and wait for the test data.
                         
                        Jade Ohlhauser
                        Product Manager
                        RPM Software                                 
                        www.rpmsoftware.com 403-265-6727 x704
                         


                        From: agile-usability@yahoogroups.com [mailto:agile-usability@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jon Kern
                        Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 9:13 AM
                        To: agile-usability@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: Re: [agile-usability] user expertise and progressive usage (was RE: norman)

                        <disclaimer>
                        okay... I had something to do with this UI. i went phishing for some initial reactions.
                        </disclaimer>

                        we deliberately threw out all manner of UI convention and tried to start from scratch with a "zero mass" design... it was based on seeing our "moms" (really) struggling horribly with all manner of "standard" photo apps.

                        just like the aeron chair was met with distaste at first, it grew on people after they began to really use it. you can get a feel for the software by looking at the 10-minute "walkabout" viewlet. But even better to try it out.

                        if you give tidepool a spin, try to organize a few hundred images, create some stories, and share photos with friends, maybe you would have a different opinion from your first gut reaction.
                        -- jon
                        
                        


                        Jon Kern said the following on 11/3/2005 8:24 AM:
                        "Nice find with that photo app Jon, oh man is that bad. It's almost too painful to compare it to something like Picassa 2. "

                        btw: yes, it is a bit exploratory as far as the UI goes, i think. i bet it is going for a different audience and is purposely trying not to look like every other photo program on the planet (like Picasa). They wanted to make the ability to organize and tag photos through simple "who/what/where" info via drag-n-drop or simple type to get a list of tags or create tags. and to make it so your "Mom" can even share photos with friends.

                        it's actually easy to use and I don't mind not having a stupid "file" or "edit" or "help" menu. click one button to share one or more photos... click tags to sort: "Jonny" "Mountain" "Nepal" to narrow down to all pics of Jonny, then Jonny with Mountains, then Jonny + Mountains + in Nepal.

                        And praise for Word? That squiggly is what IDEs have been doing for a while: catching errors as you make them.

                        -- jon
                        
                          


                        Jade Ohlhauser said the following on 11/2/2005 1:12 PM:
                        Well said Larry.
                         
                        I agree having a single control that changes the UI or other sort of interface "expertise" modes is not a good idea. You're asking the user to make a decision without a lot of information on what the consequences and rewards are and what their own needs are. Also, it's a disruptive jump moving "up to the next level". It's not quite back to square one, but it's a real and/or perceived step backwards in the user's journey to application mastery. Finally, I think if there's something so bad about something that it needs to be removed from the UI for a so called "beginner" user, then it should probably be redesigned.
                         
                        Nice find with that photo app Jon, oh man is that bad. It's almost too painful to compare it to something like Picassa 2.
                         
                        And if I may slip in one more UI praise for Word that in my opinion makes up for a lot of bad, the red squiggly. I'm talking about underlining misspelled words right away instead of waiting for a spell check. Brilliant. Of course, they ended up taking the superficial element of the concept too far with the Smart Tags. Talk about missing the point.
                         
                        Jade Ohlhauser
                        Product Manager
                        RPM Software                                 
                        www.rpmsoftware.com 403-265-6727 x704
                         


                        <cut>

                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.