TOC Linux

[Rick Tomaschuk]

Computers have so infiltrated our lives some of us feel its our
birthright/entitlement to be instantly given all that is required to
complete a task when we switch on the computer. Who decides the
interface is lousy? Maybe an application was written before a new
component was added. Its up to the employer to hire and train qualified
personnel to use the machines or spend the money required to update and
application to be easy to use. Someone out there will always get
confused with a computer with the latest bullet proof interface. I'd
like to have employees/operators who have some sense of reasoning skills
or the intelligence to know when to ask for help. Why do some feel
switching on the computer is the point we switch off our brain?

On Fri, 2006-03-03 at 12:03 -0500, phiscock-g851W1bGYuGnS0EtXVNi6w at public.gmane.org wrote:
> > Training can be very powerful, useful and time-saving, even if its
> training > in IE and Excel.
> >
> This is true. Unfortunately, training is often used to compensate for a
> really lousy human interface design. Two examples of my experience:
> 
> - A purchase order entry system that was designed like a dungeons and
> dragons game so that users were required to take a half-day training
> course before purchasing so much as an HB pencil.
> 
> - An inter-library loan system that was so badly designed that even
> computer professionals (not just me) couldn't figure it out without
> another half-day training course. In the second case, the vendor
> apparently had not done any useability testing before releasing the
> product. (To its credit, the library involved recognized the problem and
> fixed it.)
> 
> Generally, if the user interface, help system and documentation are done
> properly, users should be able to figure out the program with minimal
> training. One can find out very quickly if the program meets this
> requirement by putting it in front of some naive (but assumed to be
> intelligent) end users, and watching what happens.
> 
> I was part of a useability test for some teaching software (an extreme
> test, since profs are significantly less capable of operating software
> than students ;), and within minutes I had (unintentionally) sent the
> thing to never-never land. At least the program designer had the sense to
> test it.
> 
> Unfortunately, end users are often sufficiently intimidated by computer
> technology that *they* think of themselves as stupid when in fact the
> problem is with the program design.
> 
> It's much easier to blame the end user than to figure out how to make a
> program bullet proof and easy to use.
> 
> Peter
> 

--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml