September 4, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Comments posted to this topic are about the item How Important Is Usability?
September 5, 2008 at 1:47 am
very
September 5, 2008 at 2:25 am
They actually put people in a room, they video and audio tape their actions, even retinal scanning at times to see where people are looking and evaluable their designs before building tools.
Then throw all the results away and just let the developers get on with it?
To be fair, lots of things *have* improved since the days of, say, NT 3.51 but I'm sure pretty much every reader will be able to think of an example of a current product they've used recently, if not use daily, where there's been little or no apparent thought given to how the program in question is actually likely to be used by the people at the sharp end.
Microsoft aren't the only ones guilty of this by a long shot but by not leading by example either, I think many other software houses think they can get away with selling "challenging" software as well.
Note, I don't expect *developers* to know how admins (etc.) might need to use a product but they should be guided by people how do. It sounds like RedGate are on the case here and I and I'm sure many admins thank them for it!
September 5, 2008 at 3:22 am
For technical software I think it is a very different approach to that required for consumer software.
In a technical application I want it to be VERY easy to get up and running with it - there is a huge amount of software out there wanting my attention, if you want me to buy your product you need to be able to not only convince me that it would be useful, you also have to be able to demonstrate this in my environment in a very short period of time.
I see too many expensive tools which require me to mess about with config files, add items to build scripts, use a custom scripting language (however simple it may be) etc etc. You should be providing at the least a wizard for fast and easy setup of your trial software so I can know in 20 minutes if this application is worth looking into in more detail. I'm a busy developer and DBA and don't have the time to spend a half-day investigating some useful looking tool I spotted on the web.
However, when you hit phase two, where I have decided to make a purchase, I'm now willing to put in the work to truly understand HOW it works. I'll learn your custom scripting, I'll spend time messing with configurations as I want it to be working in the best, most streamlined and upgradable way possible.
In short, you don't have to make your application super-usable from end to end. But you do need to ensure it is easy to get started and that your documentation is first-rate. This gives ease of entry with total control.
September 5, 2008 at 5:11 am
Hi Steve -
I believe that usability is massively important. Companies that spend time making products 'discoverable' benefit by reducing the load on their support staffs and documentation teams.
From a customer perspective I'm concerned by how fast can the software be productive. If I have to burns hours or days (as I did with Reporting Services configuration), it leads to delayed, or worse, no implementation of key software components.
Joy
September 5, 2008 at 5:48 am
Hi Steve,
Cool editorial. Usability is king. If done correctly it should save the user time and that's really what it's all about - especially if it's something one uses a lot.
A lesson learned from tuning SQL queries / sprocs: it's not the one query that takes 45 minutes to run and executes twice per day that's killing performance; it's the one that takes 1.5 seconds that executes 8,000 times per day. You shave that 1.5 seconds to 0.25 seconds and you've done more for your users than knocking the 45-minute process down to 2 minutes.
And it's more than just the math.
Those "little" things happen while users are thinking. If you can speed up the app's response in little ways you improve the user's ability to use the app at the "speed of thought". It's not so much that the application has the potential to speed up one's thinking; it's about diminishing the application's tendency to slow down the user's thinking.
:{> Andy
Andy Leonard, Chief Data Engineer, Enterprise Data & Analytics
September 5, 2008 at 6:54 am
Does READABILITY count? How usable is an editorial that is difficult to read? I don't mean to get on your case Steve, but each editoral has some major spelling and/or grammar issues.
I suggest proofreading.
I appreciate your insights on editorials, but sometimes I need to read portions twice.
September 5, 2008 at 7:12 am
Prime example of "challenging" software: Toad Data Modeller. 🙂
I love this program, I hate this program. It does let me visually layout my database (essential), it does generate correct SQL, even the fiddly bits (essential), it is scriptable (important), and it gets the job done (bottom line). Also, it costs 1/4 of the other tools out there. So it's hard to complain too much.
However.
From a usability standpoint this program sucks. Badly. It is slow, balky, uses outdated dialog presentations and forces you to work on one table/field/index/whatever at a time. Things like entity names (tables, indexes, relationships) are difficult or impossible to customize, forcing me to rename *everything* by hand--or simply give up and use TDM naming conventions.
Now Quest does listen (eventually) and they do improve the product. But as in most programmer-driven companies they're more concerned with technical correctness than usability. And don't even get me started on documentation! Minimalist, confusing, and with examples for things I'll never use and no examples for the things I *want* to use!
Contrast this with Microsoft's development tools, such as Access. Love it or hate it, call it a toy compared to SQL Server, but what you can't do is question it's usability.
Intellisense on the scripting side. Simple spreadsheet-like dialogs for creating tables, with index management reducted to a single dialog, or simple button clicks. Form and report editors that reward experimentation with immediate feedback.
The difference between something like TDM and Access is nearly as great as the difference between command line DOS and the graphical Macintosh.
Microsoft might not get everything right from a usability POV, but their mantra is dead-on.
"Common tasks should be done automatically. Simple things should be simple, difficult things should be as easy as possible. Don't make the user do the computer's job."
September 5, 2008 at 7:12 am
When I was a young programmer for an LA-based Healthcare company in the late 70's, I was also going to school and we were required to take User Interface Design and Usability classes. There was a big focus in those days on these factors and this was before any graphical interfaces. It's even a bit funny to think back on heated discussions we had about how to order input fields on a non-graphical interface, or whether buttons should be labeled "Start/End" or "Top/Bottom". That is, would a user understand "End of file" better than "Bottom of file"?
The software world has come a long way of course and usability is a major factor, but there are times I wonder if "cool" gets way too much attention and usability gets sacrificed in this day and age.
Have you ever been given a gift of one those "25 in 1" tools? You know, its a hammer, pliars, wrench, screwdriver, and martini mixer all in one? My dear late Grandmother was famous for those. Problem with them is that if you go to use the hammer, the wrench is in the way. If you go to use the wrench, the screwdriver is in the way, and so on - so as to make the tool completely useless overall.
I think that is the problem with some of the software on the market today. Those who developed it were so focused on "cool" and feature-packing that usability went right out the window. There is a very popular CD/DVD copying software package that I just recently returned after finally giving up on it. Sure the interface was beautiful and very "cool" - but you couldnt get a darn thing done with the package let alone figure out how to do the most basic tasks. I just wanted to copy some CDs and DVDs and eventually found some freeware that did that perfectly with a great, simple interface.
Usability is absolutely essential. But within that, some companies need to realize that simplicity is often far more desirable than flash, sizzle, and coolness. After all, if you had to plant a small flower in your front garden, a backhoe is very impressive, flashy, cool, and loaded with features... but a small trowel will do the job in minutes - while the backhoe couldnt do the job at all.
Without good usability - features, coolness, flash, sizzle, etc - is all just "noise" that drowns out the purpose of some software.
September 5, 2008 at 7:27 am
roger.plowman - excellent points
Usability is extremely important - but not any fun from a development perspective. Part of the problem is the way we train developers. In my "programming 101" class, we had the following exercises:
"Hello world" (cute)
Animation: Take a little stick figure and make it move across the screen (fun).
Final project: Design a "blackjack" game (really fun).
Then you get to the real world. "Take the following procedure which receives sales figures and make it subject to business logic rules a,b,and c." This is boring for many people. The only fun we get is when we can be involved in the interface. When you give the interface away to a small group of "experts" who often have their own lingo and who often don't take responsibility for performance, an interesting job becomes just work.
Don't get me wrong - as a software engineer, I understand the importance of usability. I'm just saying that we have a management problem more than a technical one. We're going to have to find a way to motivate people to comply with the systems that we create to enhance usability, as well as comply with other systems that enhance quality.
___________________________________________________
“Politicians are like diapers. They both need changing regularly and for the same reason.”
September 5, 2008 at 7:49 am
http://www.cooper.com/journal/2008/08/alans_keynote_at_agile_2008.html
Take a break and look at what Alan Cooper does. His flash slideshow, is "spot on" for the most part. It discusses "interaction design" which is what their company is all about. There's also lots of agile development discussion and "why management sucks so badly" that is an absolute riot. Try not to fall out of your chair laughing (or crying if it hits too close to home).
Personally, I've found that I have no idea what the user wants to see. When I develop software, I'm always amazed at how wrong I can be with user interaction expectations.
have fun.
September 5, 2008 at 8:31 am
Users need usable products. We techs are users. Figure it out!:):P:)
Have a good weekend!
Miles...
Not all gray hairs are Dinosaurs!
September 5, 2008 at 8:42 am
Usability is critical.
When I used to be responsible for a front-end application, as well as the database behind it, I used to do things like watch actual users in their cubes as they used the program. Lots of useful design changes and new features came about from "user stalking". A few features went away because of that too, when I found that features were too complicated or were unused.
Even from a purely database point of view, the database's user-friendliness had better be good, or devs will start building junk procs and views on top of it to make their jobs easier. And the fields had better be designed for the end-users and their actual needs.
As far as the tools I use, there are a couple of things I wish I could change in Management Studio, and a few in BIDS, but overall they are pretty okay. I definitely prefer them over Enterprise Manager.
When I first started using Management Studio, there were a couple of features of Query Analyzer that I missed, but I can't even remember what features they were. I just remember missing them. Guess they can't have been too important.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
September 5, 2008 at 8:57 am
Usability is extremely important. The key to usability is that the interface is designed for the target users. If the target users are more technical the interface may very well be different than it would have been if designed for less technical users. The key here is that usability is defined by what's most usable to the users. Design for the "wrong" users, and you'll likely encounter unhappy people.
Personas, anyone? 😉
September 5, 2008 at 9:22 am
Usability is very important and a key factor in this is consistency with other products (even if they are not your products!).
<Gripe mode="on">
One of the reasons I hated to use Lotus Notes (when I had to) was that all it's shortcut keys were unique to Notes (as far as I could tell). For example EXIT was Ctrl-W instead of the a Microsoft convention of Alt-F4; as I recall, there wasn't a single key sequence that matched! As far as I was concerned, this makes it virtually unusable! Even if you think a hotkey sequence like Alt-F4 is awkward, things like this are standard and should be followed.
I recall an incident many years ago using a helpdesk application written to run on Notes, where one of the IT staff accidently launched an email virus a user had forwarded because a single click on the attachment was interpreted as a request to run the attachment rather than a simple selection!
On the subject of 'cool' interfaces, my other complaint is programs that have a very flash looking interface using custom buttons and odd windows shapes. It might look very good and be great to program, but for most things I just was a plain interface that fits in with the standard appearance of my desktop. Why does iTunes (one of the less garish offenders) need a custom title bar, etc?
</Gripe>
Derek
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 24 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply