views:

453

answers:

10

Hi,

I find that most of microsoft's new programs are very hard to use.

Microsoft Office 2007 (word especially) I find to be hard to use. Microsoft IIS 7.0 is a PAIN, I never remember which icon to click on, things are just to cluttered and hard to find.

As a programmer, we have to design according to what people are used too, what exactly is MS telling us to do?

+3  A: 

Well, Microsoft has to balance this. On one side, users scream for new features and change-for-change's sake in a lot of MS software. On the other, lack of backwards compatibility (including subjective UI compatibility) is a deal breaker. Really no way to win there.

That said, I don't think we need to design according to what people are used to; neither does Microsoft. Change will never happen if we just do what has always been done before. IIS is not developed for programmers; it's developed for IT people. And the new interface serves them well. Likewise, Office is designed for office drones, not programmers, and the new Office is very discoverable for that particular group.

DannySmurf
+6  A: 

Look, I'm just a simple caveman, scared by your post-modern architectures and vroom vroom machines go honk. I'm used to the simple life of the paleolithic era; charcoal cave paintings and bone-based technology. I can't make heads or tails of your fancy ribbon UIs and pointy-clicky icons. That's why I'm never upgrading from DOS. The old ways were always the best, and learning new ones bad like fire.

Will
Achievement Unlocked: You made a point head-on!
thenonhacker
Well, look: We have the right interface *just for you:* Microsoft BOB :-)
Joey
+3  A: 

I think they take a while to get used to, but I do like them. (Althought I will fully admit I am a mac person and I like the mac UI a lot better).

The biggest thing I've seen about the UI that is difficult is the fact that it is so much different from previous versions (I'm talking about the current version of Office). That seems to be where most of the rub is.

The rule I was taught about UI design is that things need to be familiar to the user (that's really is what makes it "intuitive"). MS broke that rule ......but from a business perspective they are allowed a little leeway when doing this simply because they control so much of the market share. Ultimately, they know that a radical change won't cause a loss of much market share because for most people and businesses there isn't a real viable alternative. (I know there is open office, but migrating a mid to large office to it will cost as much money or more as it will to just continue using the same product).

Do we have to design according to what people are used to, yes we kinda do. Does this mean we have to make it look like what MS is doing now, not necessarily. What we have to do is create a design the users can relate to. They have to be able to make a jump of logic from what they know already to using the products we create. If not, they most likely won't use the application unless they are absolutely forced to.

Kevin
+15  A: 

we have to design according to what people are used too

Well that's a slight misconception. You're not wrong that people familiar with something will appreciate the interface remaining familiar, but not all change is bad. You have to weigh the power of the change up against the harm it does to veteran users.

Lets take Office 2007 as an example.

The ribbon interface is a huge departure from the interface Office has used for as long as I can remember but there is sound logic behind it.

  • User functions are grouped by activity and it's very easy to change which set of functions you're looking at.
  • They're also contextual so some thing only show up when you're on a table or an image (etc).
  • These both help keep the clutter down - something really quite useful as these apps grow in feature-sets. Rather than spending hours choosing and customising a set of toolbars, you have access to everything through the tabs.

And Microsoft did this all the right way. They tested the interface on lots and lots of real people. They listened to see what worked and what they should fix or drop. They also kept some legacy keyboard shortcuts for seasoned pros.

The redesign effort was targeted at making life easier on beginner and intermediate -level users. Mission accomplished. The problem you're having is overcoming your familiarity but I can't be more helpful than say: It'll happen in time, but you'll manage it in the end.

Oli
As for Office 2007: It took me about two weeks of daily usage to get to grips with the new interface. And most rarely-used functionality if so much easier to find while it also more prominently shows what I'm needing the most (styles, for example). However, the initial shock that everything looks different can be hard to overcome for some people.
Joey
+1  A: 

It's interesting because there was a lot of talk about the usability testing that went into the design of the Ribbon controls, but along with almost everyone else I know I find them very difficult to use. I keep losing controls that I need and not being able to get them back until I've cycled through another three or four document views looking for them. I instinctively move my mouse to menus that no longer exist.

I wonder if they would be easier to someone not accustomed to the earlier office products- maybe this is who they did their usability testing with. I don't think the design of the new interfaces is bad as such, but it is different enough that for those of us who don't spend our whole time staring at Office but have been using the product for a long time it makes life difficult. I guess most real power-users would be doing most tasks from keystrokes anyway which presumably haven't changed too much.

The business problem is really that they need an incentive to upgrade and so they keep adding new features ( who do you know that uses all the features of Word ) and then they need to find ways to present those without making the application impossibly cluttered, which was certainly happening in the previous version of Office.

I'm not sure what we take from this as developers- maybe it's that we should design for usability from the start or find ways to make the transition between old and new functionality as easy as possible for our existing users.

glenatron
A: 

I find that most of microsoft's new programs are very hard to use.

If you feel so, do yourself a favor and change to Mac. I did it and wont go back to windows. So much time wasted to achieve little things with Windows.

And Apple has Style Guides for GUIs. You dont have to stick to them, but as far as I can tell most developers do.

To prevent a Mac-Windows-Flamewar I would like to point out that this is totally my opinion. Please dear Windows user, do not feel attacked by my opinion.

+3  A: 

User interface and user experience are totally separate concepts. (Simon Guest; User Interface Blog.)

Microsoft did quite a bit of research in the raw usability of Office 2007, and found that while there is a learning curve for people like yourself, or me, who are experts in the tool, newer users and non-experts experienced much greater discoverability of more advanced features, and wound up using more of the application's features and power. Yes, there is a learning curve if you knew Office 2003 inside-out (which, frankly, few of us really did).

Now I'm not making apologies -- Microsoft's UIs haven't always been easy to use, and sometimes they fail miserably. (Personally I think not standardizing all of their office products on the Ribbon is a classic example -- there's a large context switch in my brain when I open Project or Visio, compared to when I open Word.)

As for what developers are "supposed" to do: Bear in mind that the ribbon isn't ideal for every scenario. If you're using it as a glorified, prettified toolbar, it's being used incorrectly. It's designed to help you organize literally hundreds (if not thousands) of commands in a way that makes them discoverable to your end user. It's supposed to reinforce the traditional experience of discovering the abilities of your application in a safe way (see any edition of About Face), when the depth of your application is too great to function within menus.

Aside from that, bear in mind that we should generally be making the most appropriate UI for our own audience, as Microsoft is attempting to do for its own audience. Again, we may find these things more difficult to use, as we are used to doing things a set way -- but it's the right thing (typically) for Microsoft to do. Remember that we programmers are not the target users of most UI. (How many of us turn off visual themes, for example? Now how many normal end users? BTW, I don't fall in that camp; I'm one of the few who actually finds Vista moderately attractive.)

Again, at the end of the day, what Microsoft does matters only to the extent that it becomes what your users expect, and then only if you can't educate them that "your way" is better. In any event, if usability is truly critical for you and your users, it's time to invest in usability testing and ensure that your application really is as usable as you think it is. And start reading usability sites. (You don't have to agree with them all, but understand them.) Here are some samples:

John Rudy
I'll just add as an addition to that list of sites, getting a copy of "Don't Make Me Think" by Steve Krug gives a really great overview of practical usability principles and how to implement them.
glenatron
I forgot about that one; good call!
John Rudy
A: 

I wish they had given the option to show the menus for us old fuddy duddies.

I had a meeting with one of the Microsoft Office guys last year when I brought up the same points. His point was that the number of features had grown so much that a new method of displaying them was required. I was not entirely convinced and found it amusing that Microsoft are so touchy about the problem that he had a very nice, well-prepared PowerPoint presentation to give to try and explain it.

BlackWasp
Yes! Give us the option. I don't mind if other people like the ribbon, and maybe over time I'd get used to it, but it's so counter-productive to do all that clicking around and searching. Actually, I know many of the menus by keystroke. That's next to impossible to figure out on a ribbon.
DOK
+1  A: 

Microsoft IIS 7.0 is a PAIN

I'm relieved to hear that others have found the new IIS UI a challenge. I stumbled into it without being forewarned, and was completely discombobulated. There is so much clicking around. You have to memorize where the feature is, or click and click. I don't know of a way to see all of the IIS settings at once (not that you could before, either, but at least you could stay in the single tabbed dialog).

I think it is really hard to adapt to an entirely new UI when you are so familiar with the old one. I am similarly disoriented by the ribbon menus. More clicking around to find the features. And not everything is in the ribbon. Some is in menus accessible from other entry points, such as file properties.

For new users who never saw the old UIs, it probably isn't so much of a problem.

I guess what I really dislike is having to spend the time learning the new UI, at the least convenient time. There is an immediate loss of productivity when you have to learn the new UI. You can't just drop into IIS, configure the website, and be on your way. The first few times, it's going to take a lot longer. Maybe with growing familiarity, we will come to like the new UIs better.

DOK
A: 

MS is trying to give users more power by being able to click this to do this or that and try to make what others may see as very advanced functions simpler to use and more powerful than the previous ones. I remember going from IIS 3.0 to 4.0 where suddenly, there are all these new buttons to click and things are different but it is kind of better. I also remember going from Windows 3.11 to 95 having its own shock of updating things.

Did you ever try watching a movie on VHS and on DVD or go from cassette to CD? Remember how the DVD suddenly had all these new features like chapters, no need to rewind, bonus features that you could just go to and not have to fast forward to find? Similarly how a CD organized things so much better than a cassette? Another point would be to look at TVs where it used to be very few options on a TV: There were 2 dials, the power and volume where combined into one place, and a few other knobs were all we had but now you have TVs where you can store favorites, closed captioning options, sound setting, and color style that could scare some people that remember the old days where you had to physically pull a knob to turn on the machine.

JB King