September 5, 2008 at 9:40 am
Its too bad that printed manuals are going the way of the dinosaur because at one time, many users would say that a program's usability was in direct relation to the number of pages in the users manual. Eg, the more pages, the less usability.
We use a very popular but highly frustrating reporting tool that seems to adhere to this old formula. But in deference to the software maker I would like to be Crystal clear that I will not mention its name. 😀
September 5, 2008 at 10:06 am
To answer the question, I'll ask another. Why have software that is NOT usable?
An application, generally speaking, serves a specific need for the user and if the user cannot easily obtain desired results, the application is doomed to failure.
The last application I built started as an idea to help parents keep track of grades and attendance for their students. We built the application from a teacher's point of view rather than from the parent's point of view. When we launched it, we did put a message on the front page that we wanted input from parents on how to improve the application to help them. We never had "valid" complaints from parents but did receive MANY requests for changes. It took about six months of modifications to make most parents happy.
While this is not necessarily the best way to approach new application development, it is sometimes the only way. Our users simply didn't have the time to meet with us during the day to help us design the original product. Likewise, we had families and did not make ourselves available for evening meetings to fit into our user's schedule.
Where I'm at now, I have only been doing DBA work but it sounds like I'm going to be crossing the aisle to develop a new intranet site. The best part for me is the userbase is at most 100 users and I have access to them all day, every day to make sure it is the best it can be when I make it live.
September 5, 2008 at 10:14 am
To me, usability counts for everything no matter what kind of product is being built or who your target audience is.
It seems that many companies that create products for developers assume that those developers have all the time in the world to learn how to use their products. WRONG!
The reason I'm buying the product is to make my life easier. If I have to spend two days figuring out that I need to make 17 tweaks to the config file to get the product to work on my system that is not helping me. Not to mention the amount of time I'll have to spend training others how to use it.
Of course I just take my business elsewhere to a more usable product.
September 8, 2008 at 1:47 am
Well, I'm going to buck the trend and suggest that usability is NOT critical. Important, yes, but essential, no.
Why? Because it's only part of the equation. What we as technical users need are tools that help us with efficiency. If you find a product that is easy to use but doesn't do what is required of it, it's useless to you. If you find a product that's effective, but awkward to use, it's useful. If you find an effective AND extremely easy to use product, it's more useful still.
I've used all kinds of software tools and, like most others, prefer something that doesn't need me to fight with the user interface. However, I've often sacrificed some "useability" to gain further utility. A good example is the frequency with which, on either UNIX, LINUX or Windows platforms, I've dropped back to a command prompt rather than use the GUI in order to achieve a particular result. Yes, a useable and powerful system is the nirvana, but in practice it's a balancing act between those two parameters and the only way to judge how useful a piece of software may be is to rate the net overall benefit derived.
Semper in excretia, suus solum profundum variat
September 8, 2008 at 3:53 am
majorbloodnock (9/8/2008)
Well, I'm going to buck the trend and suggest that usability is NOT critical. Important, yes, but essential, no.
I've used all kinds of software tools and, like most others, prefer something that doesn't need me to fight with the user interface.
To be honest, I have to agree with you. Usability is important but not critical. The real annoyance for the user (or developer using someone else's product) is when there is no alternative to a product with a poorly designed, inflexible or just plain irritating interface!
I too am from the 'old school' and often prefer to use a command line tool, edit a configuration file or change a registry setting rather than work through a dozen pages of a graphical 'wizard' to do something. Unfortunately, many programs no longer give the user the option to redefine how they work.
Derek
September 8, 2008 at 6:56 am
I'd argue that having command line options is a part of usability. Just like every program I wrote years ago had to respond to "/?" from the command line, just having that option is key. (PS - I'm a scripting/command line person myself).
Usability is key for me to work quickly. Having keyboard shortcuts, allowing scripting/command lines, those things are important. The GUI is included here and it's very important, though not necessarily critical. If options are missing from either the GUI or command line, or the flow doesn't allow me to easily understand what's happening, then there are problems with the design that can impact my ability to get work done.
September 8, 2008 at 7:25 am
GUI != Usability (or any other representation of "not equal to" as preferred)!
Rhetorical question - Lotus Notes, as mentioned above, is an interesting example and I'm not sure of the exact history (only having used it in Windows (3.11 initially)) but for a multi-platform application like Notes, should the shortcuts / menu layout follow the convention for the application (which may have originated on a different platform) or for the platform it's now running on?
I'd agree that for technical users, the highest levels of usability probably aren't critical - we're smart chaps (of both genders) and can probably work stuff out if we have to *if* there's reasonable help and some decent examples. Whether we have *time* to waste on applications which don't have our best interests in mind is another matter entirely.
September 8, 2008 at 7:33 am
Critical - If it is not a usable tool I am going to do something different or create something myself. So, being that I take such a strong stand, I make it a point to always involve myself in customer feedback surveys so that I can provide the appropriate responses regarding usability. I recently submitted some for the vendor that runs this site and I hope that they would, as well as all others, take the responses into consideration as it is the customer feedback surrounding usability that makes them a viable product / company.
David
@SQLTentmaker“He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose” - Jim Elliot
September 8, 2008 at 7:48 am
Perhaps a good analogy can be seen in Network Operating Systems.
Netware Directory Services was far more awkward to understand and less user-friendly than NT domains, but people put up with that because of the clear benefit in overall functional potential. The only way Microsoft could compete significantly was to increase the functionality of its offering, which it did with Active Directory.
However, it's also pretty obvious that AD is still less powerful than NDS, but people are prepared to live with that because it's more useable, making the net benefit greater than the Novell offering.
Of course, this is still a little simplistic, but it serves well enough as an illustration. Useability isn't the be-all and end-all any more than the length of the feature list. The only thing that matters is the combination.
Semper in excretia, suus solum profundum variat
September 9, 2008 at 7:51 am
Graham Mulholland (9/8/2008)
Rhetorical question - Lotus Notes, as mentioned above, is an interesting example and I'm not sure of the exact history (only having used it in Windows (3.11 initially)) but for a multi-platform application like Notes, should the shortcuts / menu layout follow the convention for the application (which may have originated on a different platform) or for the platform it's now running on?
Apologies for answering a rhetorical question...
My view is that a multiplatform application should normally follow the conventions on the platform it's running on, as most people use multiple applications on one platform (as opposed to the same application on multiple platforms) and would find it easier if they all work in a similar fashion. Of course, if the application want's to implement a secondary mode where it's consistent across platforms, that's fine; it just shouldn't be the default.
In another reply, majorbloodnock is right that, as with most things, usability is a tradeoff with other factors such as functionality, efficiency, etc. Users will put up with a tool being harder to use if it can do things the 'easier' tool just can't manage.
Derek
Viewing 10 posts - 16 through 24 (of 24 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply