parnass@ihuxf.UUCP (08/24/83)
The argument has been made that novices remain novices for a
short period of time, hence it is not worth the effort to
design interfaces for them. I assert that this novice
period plays a critical role in the product's acceptance.
Permit me introduce a common scenario to illustrate:
1. There exists a common task, such as text editing, that
many people need to perform.
2. People may choose from a plethora of tools to
accomplish this task.
3. A tool developer constructs a new tool to perform this
task, which is purported to be more powerful than
existing tools in this category, and the claim is made
that use of this tool will increase the users'
productivity.
4. This new tool is difficult to learn.
5. A set of potential customers try using this new,
powerful tool, but initial difficulty in learning it
discourages a large subset of them.
6. This discouraged subset of potential users abandons
this tool, and resumes using less productive tools.
In the above scenario, almost everyone loses.
Potential customers are usually novices with respect to the
tool being "sold." As powerful as a tool might be, it's
harder to "sell" a tool that's difficult to learn.
--
============================================================================
Robert S. Parnass, Bell Laboratories ihnp4!ihuxf!parnass (312)979-5760 eric@aplvax.UUCP (08/25/83)
I certainly agree that you should not ignore the needs of the novice, but neither should you ignore the needs of the experience user. It is true that most sales are made to novices. But continued use of the product depends on the power and ease of use for experienced users. I have seen too many products that look good to start with, but after a little time with them, their "user-friendly" interfaces are either time consuming or restrictive. The trick is to balance the needs of both user communities. This may be as simple as developing two sets of documentation, one an introductory guide for new users, and the other a complete guide for the more experienced. Perhaps the most telling argument in all of this is that Unix is certainly not an easy system for novices, but there seem to be an awful lot of people sticking with it (including all of us). eric ...!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!eric
mark@umcp-cs.UUCP (08/25/83)
The argument has been made that novices remain novices for a
short period of time, hence it is not worth the effort to
design interfaces for them. I assert that this novice
period plays a critical role in the product's acceptance.
I think the general concern here is right, but that it is at too
low a level. Novices play a critical role not in PRODUCT acceptance
but in product CONCEPT acceptance.
The first computer text editor had to be easy to get started on because
people had to be convinced that they should even want to edit
text on a computer. Now days the concept of computerized text editing
is sufficiently established that difficult-to-get-started on editors
like vi and emacs are the norm. (They don't take weeks to learn,
but it isn't minutes either).
(The first car had to be easy to drive. Now it takes quite a bit
of training to be a successful car driver, in spite of 80 years of
honing of the user interface).
(It is interesting that one of the very major contributions that the
Wright brothers made to aviation is the concept that flying an
airplane was a skill that had to be learned. They practiced steering
for many many hours on gliders before trying powered flight.)
So, yes, novices are important when you introduce the very first
of a new kind of tool. For an established tool niche, novices
don't matter--casual users do.
--
spoken: mark weiser
UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!mark
CSNet: mark@umcp-cs
ARPA: mark.umcp-cs@UDel-Relay