Counter point. I had a customer call me back in the day when I was working tech support. Complained that his new computer wasn’t working. Plugged in, light goes on but the screen just stays blank. Turns out he only bought a monitor. Thought the guys at the store were trying to scam him into “buying two boxes” that he didn’t need. When I tried to explain he got mad saying I must be in on the scam.
Bonus points: when the call first connected his question was "why is my email not working?” Took a while to work that back to the actual issue.
Reminds me of the time this lady came in carrying the PC and the CRT monitor saying it didn’t work, I plugged it in, turned it on, the tower did all the right noises and lights, but the screen was black. I thought for a second, then reached for the brightness control and voila, there it was. The embarrassment of the poor lady!
I used be a computer technician at a small town computer shop around 2008-2011. More than half of our customers were over 60.
Sometimes I needed to take some tech support calls, and sometimes I needed to make house calls to troubleshoot the folks issues.
Literally every support call started with “Why doesn’t the email work?” while the actual problem ranged from ISP issues, and modem faults, PC faults, Windows configuration errors, to dead monitors or a broken mouse. Literally any computer fault could be described as a failure to access their email.
Depends on how what dummy proof is. Not being able to shoot yourself in the foot and main line success case is easily navigable by people that are bad with tech is dummy proof to me. Not possible with all programs ofc.
Another counterpoint: When you start implementing all that dummy proofing, you make the software more and more tedious to work with for people who know what they’re doing.
I think it’s quite obviously an issue that needs balance. Some software is meant to be seamless to get started with, so that users can get something done once in a while, some software is meant to be used long-term by professionals and requires productivity. And yet, many people jump on anything they don’t immediately understand as bad UX.
“A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.” - Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Addams
“A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.” - Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Addams
I used to blindly believe that but man, it’s just impossible sometimes. And I started thinking about how we don’t hold a lot of other industries to the same standards. It’s tough to think that the same person who can’t fill a basic online form is allowed to operate guns or heavy killer machines (cars) daily.
Gut-driven design. People could conduct usability tests, but neither their “data-driven” management, marketing, design, nor the development department care about that since it’s only “worthless” “additional” workload. Nevermind that usability testing reveals valuable insights about the people the business is supposed to generate value for. Or that usability testing identifies flawed designs before developers write any protoype code, designers draw sketches, etc. Or that usability testing nullifies unnecessary meetings about hypothetical scenarios littered with incorrect assumptions about reality. Usability testing is undervalued.
Shit take: If you dont make the UI dummy proof then its the programmers fault not the user
Counter point. I had a customer call me back in the day when I was working tech support. Complained that his new computer wasn’t working. Plugged in, light goes on but the screen just stays blank. Turns out he only bought a monitor. Thought the guys at the store were trying to scam him into “buying two boxes” that he didn’t need. When I tried to explain he got mad saying I must be in on the scam.
Bonus points: when the call first connected his question was "why is my email not working?” Took a while to work that back to the actual issue.
Reminds me of the time this lady came in carrying the PC and the CRT monitor saying it didn’t work, I plugged it in, turned it on, the tower did all the right noises and lights, but the screen was black. I thought for a second, then reached for the brightness control and voila, there it was. The embarrassment of the poor lady!
I used be a computer technician at a small town computer shop around 2008-2011. More than half of our customers were over 60.
Sometimes I needed to take some tech support calls, and sometimes I needed to make house calls to troubleshoot the folks issues.
Literally every support call started with “Why doesn’t the email work?” while the actual problem ranged from ISP issues, and modem faults, PC faults, Windows configuration errors, to dead monitors or a broken mouse. Literally any computer fault could be described as a failure to access their email.
Haha preach brother
There is no wuch thing as “dummy proof”
Depends on how what dummy proof is. Not being able to shoot yourself in the foot and main line success case is easily navigable by people that are bad with tech is dummy proof to me. Not possible with all programs ofc.
Another counterpoint: When you start implementing all that dummy proofing, you make the software more and more tedious to work with for people who know what they’re doing.
I think it’s quite obviously an issue that needs balance. Some software is meant to be seamless to get started with, so that users can get something done once in a while, some software is meant to be used long-term by professionals and requires productivity. And yet, many people jump on anything they don’t immediately understand as bad UX.
When you make something idiot proof, the world will find better idiots.
“A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.” - Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Addams
“A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.” - Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Addams
I used to blindly believe that but man, it’s just impossible sometimes. And I started thinking about how we don’t hold a lot of other industries to the same standards. It’s tough to think that the same person who can’t fill a basic online form is allowed to operate guns or heavy killer machines (cars) daily.
Nah man, you dumb down the interface and the users get dumber to match :|
Gut-driven design. People could conduct usability tests, but neither their “data-driven” management, marketing, design, nor the development department care about that since it’s only “worthless” “additional” workload. Nevermind that usability testing reveals valuable insights about the people the business is supposed to generate value for. Or that usability testing identifies flawed designs before developers write any protoype code, designers draw sketches, etc. Or that usability testing nullifies unnecessary meetings about hypothetical scenarios littered with incorrect assumptions about reality. Usability testing is undervalued.
No, it’s obviously the (L)user’s fault! My command line interface is perfectly fine!