Are computers for absolutely everybody? (S5E16, LRL USA)

[Aq]

Is there a point at which it's reasonable to say that software cannot be simplified further and that if some users can't grasp it, it's just not for them? Can free software meet every user's need -- can <em>any</em> software meet <strong>every</strong> user's need? Or is it reasonable to say that some people are just not suited for computers?

[slibuntu]

I think that level has been reached, look at the Eee PC OS, that has to be the base level, theres no way someone wouldn't be able to figure that UI out, altho I'm sure I'll be proved wrong!

[garwaymatt]

The asus launcher thing I agree with, but the applications/configuration stuff, then I don't agree. Half the crap could be cut out of dialouge boxes to make them more streamlined. Also the default office suite is Openoffice, which is not a simple application for someone who knows *nothing* about computers. I think the lowest common denominator would be something like pyroom, just a screen where you write, no options or unnecessary bits of screen clutter.

[spmccann]

Everybody is a lot of people with varying degrees of ability. Just like there are people who cannot drive a car there are those for whom computers are just too difficult. Even with the advances in usability theres still a lot of crap you have to learn before you can use the "intuitive" interface.

[lofty]

Is there a point at which it's reasonable to say that software cannot be simplified further and that if some users can't grasp it, it's just not for them? Can free software meet every user's need -- can <em>any</em> software meet <strong>every</strong> user's need? Or is it reasonable to say that some people are just not suited for computers?

Some software just isn't meant for every user - e.g. matlab. But it doesn't make it a bad thing that people write this software. And some people just don't like computers - there's a good friend of mine who can't be described as stupid, but refuses to have anything to do with computers because she just doesn't like the way they make her think. I don't regard this as a failing of hers because she's pretty switched on about other things - just a difference.

[Allix]

I think to say that everyone should know how to use a computer was either a joke i failed to laugh at or vastly missing the developing world and forgetting the luddites.

Learning is the key to anything, with even a little interest in computers , anyone can learn to use linux.
One of the changes happening in technology is the way you do interact.... ok we are talking about traditional old fashioned computing, where the very things you want to do on them, need some basic computer concepts ,eg icons, buttons, widgets, mouse cursor .... . Using a word processor is not with enough time too difficult, its like a typewriter , just with buttons to do different things. There are buttons on televisions, phones, games consoles , its no different on a computer, just more of them.

If its to get a job done , naturally your take the time to learn.

[oojah]

Can free software meet every user's need -- can <em>any</em> software meet <strong>every</strong> user's need?

Evidently some software is too complicated for some people

Seriously though, I'm inclined to say "it depends". Mostly it depends on the task that you're trying to carry out. If you aren't sure of how to go about doing what you want to do, you're going to struggle either way. Obviously the software can help out (a red eye removal wizard in a graphics package for example) but there are cases where this won't work.

The more open ended the task, the more difficult it is to cover all of the bases. This is why lofty's example of Matlab is a good one. What would you say to someone who said that they had no knowledge of programming or programming concepts but they wanted to create say a graphics editor? Whilst it would be possible to write a tool that could hide most of the difficulties of programming from them, hiding the actual programming concepts themselves wouldn't be possible. I believe a couple of the LR presenters have on occasion said "I just don't get programming", so let's extrapolate from that and say that some tasks are just too complicated for some people / don't fit into the way their brain works.

Cheers,

Roger

[haakin]

Hi,

In my humble opinion, one of the problems with usability is that it's oriented to a certain kind of people, who have better skills to work with the computers that exists today. I mean, I have a good visual memory. On the other hand, my sister is much better remembering things when she listens to them than when she reads them. I'm completely useless remembering oral information. That gives me an advantage in front of a computer because computers use much visual information, sound is never used in 9-to-5 software.

I'm sure that emacs is good for people with very good muscle memory, but I'm useless trying to remember C-X M-A-y and so. Does It make me more stupid? I don't think so (emacs users could disagree). It's just a matter of finding the right program with the interface that fits better to my brain. Exploring new ways to interact with computers will make more people less stupid in front of a computer.

Once I read an explanation about why games had so good interfaces and office programs so bad. The reason is that programmers and users love to play, but nobody wants to use office software.

Javier

[andyfrommk]

....the default office suite is Openoffice, which is not a simple application for someone who knows *nothing* about computers. I think the lowest common denominator would be something like pyroom, just a screen where you write, no options or unnecessary bits of screen clutter.

My Dad could get along happily with STWriter (think maximised GNU nano) on my Atari but struggled on Windows 98, even with shortcuts and startup entries.

Does anyone feel spoilt growing up with simple computers and then graduating onto more and more complex machines?
I learnt at school on a 32K BBC Micro and had a Atari ST at home, a lot of peoples first computer is one running XP so they're flung into the deep end.

..perhaps a computer with just a web broswer would suffice so they could browse net, use google docs,Gmail?

[garwaymatt]

The ST rocked I feel sorry for people who's first experience of using a computer is one that runs XP, it could be so much better. Maybe a computing appliance would be useful, but the problem arises when someone wants to do something slightly different from the application set that they have on that appliance.

[Ryan]

There should be an interface available to everyone who WANTS to use a computer, if they can do without a computer such as the person who's brother is good with bikes but doesn't have an interest in using a computer. They could probably do with a really simple interface to achieve what they need to do.

Instead of making complicated applications easier why not just create a simple application from the start?

[Fisky]

I think there is a point, but we haven't reached it yet, or only in a few specific areas. The important point to note is that as it becomes simpler to use, the functionality declines. Ie Command line vs simple GUI

ie You could simplify email to an extent that would have a text box and a send + cancel button, 90%+ of the 5-75 years old population should be able to work this. The people that can't, are probably the ones, that can't find the power button, or silly stuff like when you say "click the start menu button in the left hand corner of the screen" they get confused. If people can't follow even basic instructions like that, then they are either not meant to ever use a computer or just get very nervous in front of one. I think the later point is quite important, since I have seen many people just freak out and give up when they see an error message without even reading what it is saying.

This "simplifying" has to be an add on though, or a separate application, otherwise it will annoy the people who do know what they are doing. People want computers for different things and these is where the key issue lies. Its all about assuming defaults and presenting a single option. Most tasks on a computer are fairly simple, IF (and thats the big IF) you know where to look and what options need to be set. If you can work out what most people want to do, set the defaults and stick it all behind one big button. You have just simplified the task. The Red eye reduction mentioned previously is a great example of this. To manually remove red eye is quite difficult. But when you know the defaults and what commands need to be run to reduce red eye in pictures, you can stick that all behind one button. Next step is so that when you plug your camera in, it prompts to download and then prompts to reduce red eye. The simpletons can go....."oh yes I don't like red eye", the techies can say...."I don't want red eye, but I want to remove it myself", this prompt would also be able to be turned off in the advanced options somewhere, as so not to annoy the techies.

Things like flickr/myspace/facebook/youtube, although not part of the local computer have made it easy for people to do things previously reserved for the techies, this is a good example of where usability can be improved, by moving the back end admin tasks off the local machine and onto the internet where techies can do it for people.

So to summerise, yes there is a limit, however I think it is a lot lower than most people think. But at that level the "computing experience" will be radically different to what you and I know.

[t0m]

Yes computers are for everyone, however the best user interface is another human being.

Everyone has to interact with a computer at some point in the modern world, even if indirectly and increasing access is important to keeping society cohesive. The problem is that making computers accessible means reducing functionality, however this is always has to be the case. I may have access to an entire box of butterflies http://www.xkcd.com/378/ and have ultimate control over my system, however instead I choose to use Firefox, an application built upon many many layers of (simplifying) abstraction to make this post. If I could not use Firefox (as, say, I was physical disabled) I may have to use a movement switch and voice box and ultimately, the most accessible interface is another human being who understands the computer for me.

Command lines and guis all have their place, offering varying levels of power and grace however neither paradigm will ultimately "win" as it is impossible to successfully strike the balance between ease of use and scope which can satisfy everyone.
Experts want ultimate/butterfly control whilst newcomers will want decisions made for them.

We should keep trying to make things easier, but perhaps we shouldn't be surprised when we fail.

[lofty]

Everyone has to interact with a computer at some point in the modern world, even if indirectly and increasing access is important to keeping society cohesive.

I don't quite agree with this - I think it's good to teach people how to use a computer if they want to learn, but they shouldn't be forced to if they don't. The example I'm thinking of is the computer system they now have in Job Centres, which in my opinion is worse (at least when I saw it after they first brought it in) than the old racks of printed cards.

The system I saw was a set of ten touch screen terminals which asked you about ten questions to narrow down the jobs you were looking for to a very small list. If there was nothing in that list, you had to go through all the questions again to find what you were looking for in another sub-sub-sub...category.

Whereas with the old cards, several people could stand in front of a rack (a multi-user system 'for free') and just scan through to find something they were interested in, without having to interact with an (expensive) computer. I think people don't think enough about things like this - there's just an idea around that computerising things makes them more efficient which isn't really questioned enough.

[jezra]

The problem with computers and software, as far as usability and simplicity are concerned, is that the ease of use was decided by an engineer who thinks all of the nifty bells and whistles are required to be at the users fingertips at all times, even though the user may only use 3 or 4 of the most common functions of the app/hardware.

For example: The remote control for my DVD player has 44 buttons on it. Of those 44 buttons, I commonly use about 6 and infrequently have used up to 16. At some point in the development of the DVD player, an engineer said "ohhhhh this button would be really useful, oh and this one is useful too! and this on and this one and this one.", and then another engineer or project manager thought that some more buttons would be useful and so, in an attempt to please the largest market base, they have created a monstrosity of unused buttons that confound the users.

What is missing in the development process, is a UI/usability designer whose sole purpose is the creation of the interface for the product that the engineer is creating.