zurko@glivet.DEC (09/06/84)
>Now I have some objections to that word [user friendly]. >It doesn't, for example, capture the notion of "expert friendly" >(UNIX's traditional strength) or the notion that different sorts of users >want the programs to behave differently. I certainly agree that the term "user friendly" doesn't carry the connotation of "friendly to all users". Unfortunately, it's the term that everyone recognises, and it sells. Perhaps we should start going into terms such as "easy to learn" (naive user friendly) and "easy to use" (powerful and elegant). >A naive user wants things cut and dry, very simple; I don't agree there. They merely need advice on how to accomplish the specific task at hand. I think every naive user knows they're going to have to learn SOMETHING about the system they're working with. If the system is designed to accomplish their specific task, and they are able to get task/context specific help, then they don't need menus, or icons, or mice, or anything else that might slow an expert's work rate. And a naive user should not be on a system not designed to do what they want to do. >an experienced one wants all the flexibility out in the open. I'm not sure what you mean by "all the flexibilty out in the open". Sure, as an expert I want all the flexibility to exist, but I don't want it in my way when the defaults are good enough. A (more) naive-user friendly system does not HAVE to be expert-user unfriendly. There are some aspects of "generic user friendliness" that all users could profit from. Mnemonics for example (Unix has got to be the least mnemonic system I've ever seen). And an intuitive overall design. An on-going study at DEC suggests that systems as typically unfriendly as operating systems (VMS in this case) can actually be MORE naive-user friendly that systems specifically designed to be easy to learn (such as Star and Lisa). This is because VMS has gone through an iterative design process; it's been told by the users what is not intuitive, and it's been changed. >Someone who uses the system infrequently will want more prompting, but not >neccesarily more handholding. By more prompting I take it you mean quick, context/task specific help. Definately. I think EVERY sysem should have it. >Does anybody know details of what AT&T are doing to create UNIX-friendly >users? Unfortunately, I can't answer your real question. But I'd be interested too. And I'd like to know what most companies/groups consider to be "user-friendly". M E Zurko DEC