From: mike@isgtec.com (Mike Sellers)
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
Subject: Re: GUIs Considered Harmful
Date: 28 Aug 92 20:49:31 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: ISG Technologies Inc., Mississauga Ontario

spitzak@gree.Eng.Sun.COM (Bill Spitzak) writes:
> I have seen and used what I considered a very good GUI, one that was quite
> nonobstrusive and as easy to interact with as any I have ever seen, and it
> could be done in 2 colors!  It would never get past marketing however, they
> would throw fits about it being difficult for novices.

How many of the users of this UI (and the product behind it) could be
considered novices (either with computers or in the domain)?  If there
are very many at all, then your desire to provide a "simpler" interface
may be misplaced -- the UI should serve the needs and desires of the *users*
not the developers, no matter how silly you may think their needs are.

> "Buttons" were simply words (or images) with
> *nothing* around them.  If a "button" was "on" it had a box drawn around it.
> Clicking an "off" button turned it on.  Clicking an "on" button did nothing
> (there were no toggles, see below).
> 
> "Text fields" looked exactly like "on" buttons.  Clicking in them placed the
> text insertion cursor (which incidentally was a inverse box covering the 
> letter to the right) at that point.
> 
> If you were confused whether something was a button or a text field, clicking
> on it would tell you.  If it was a down button nothing happened.  If it was a
> text field the cursor appeared.  Both operations were harmless.

This is a *classic* misunderstanding about UIs and the user.  Listen closely:

  MOST PEOPLE *WILL NOT* TRY SOMETHING THAT THEY ARE UNSURE OF, NO MATTER 
                         HOW HARMLESS IT APPEARS.

*Anything* that requires a "just try it" attitude will cause many users
to freeze up, become anxious, and ultimately stop using your product.  If
you don't believe me, go observe and ask some of your actual users (what 
a concept!).  Unless they're _very_ experienced users (as in they write 
their own compilers), they will tell you by their words and/or their actions
that they are not comfortable trying things to clear up places where 
they may or may not be confused -- in fact, they may not even realize
when they *are* confused.  

> [...]  I demonstrated
> this system to many people, most did not even notice that they were not using
> the NeXTStep interface, despite the total dissimilarity of the graphics, and
> none had any trouble updating the data in a panel.

By what measure?  Did you silently observe them?  Did you choose an 
appropriate range of potential users?  Did you provide specific tasks
for them to try?  What sorts of comments did they make?  Did you not find
*anyone* who had trouble with your UI? (Hint: If you didn't, you're almost
certainly over-interpreting your data or turning a blind eye to those who
had difficulty with the system, or you haven't asked enough people yet.)

> If the UI thought police would let me, I would love to implement more systems
> with this "flat" interface.  

Which thought police would that be?  Let your users be your guide.  If they
like it and will use it, go ahead with it -- but don't try to ram it down
their throats because *you* think it's better.

> Bill Spitzak

--
              Mike Sellers      User Interface Team Leader
           mike@isgtec.com      ISG Technologies, Toronto, Canada
              "Actum ne agas" -- Do not do what has been done.
                         Furare tantum ab Optimis