ke2y@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (02/14/90)
My two cents:
I, for one, am strongly against modifying the user interface such that things
such as system errors are better explained. I feel that this could be a HUGE
mistake.
In my job, I deal with hundreds of users each day, most of which use the
Macintosh like they would a toaster, microwave oven, or automobile: while
knowing the basics of using it (if I'm lucky), they have ABSOLUTELY no clue
as to how it works. It just does. That's all that they care.
Except when it doesn't.
Then, they will either come to an operator or consultant and ask us for
help or will panic, do something incredibly stupid which does even more
damage, and then come to an operator or consultant and ask for help.
Needless to say, I prefer those that come to us first - chances are we
can fix what they've done. Those who try to 'fix it themselves' usually
end up with a greater mess than what they started with - frequently one
that we cannot help them to recover from.
(To see how common this is -
USER: 'Hi. I wanted to change the font, so I selected all the text.
Then it all disappeared. (I might have hit, like 'Tab', or some
other key.)
So I saved it. Can you help me get my text back?'
OP: 'Um... You SAVED it??! Did you have a backup? 'Undo'
isn't working... Um - sorry.')
Anyway, to 'improve' the user interface so that system errors were better
explained would mean that the average user would have even more chance for
problems - it sounds more like something they could fix themselves.
The current system error method works well - it's cryptic enough to
scare them into asking a consultant.
It works and works well. Again, if you are a power user, there are simple
remedies such as the wonderful 'System Errors' DA (Now up to v2.5)
Sorry to waste all this bandwidth, but I didn't want to leave this topic
untouched.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| John T. Chapman | DISCLAIMER: The opinions presented |
| | above are exclusively mine. |
| ke2y@vax5.cit.cornell.edu | If Cornell wants them, |
| ke2y@crnlvax5.bitnet | they'll have to start paying |
| | me more. |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------mjkobb@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Michael J Kobb) (02/15/90)
In article <3453.25d9361c@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> ke2y@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes: [...] > > Anyway, to 'improve' the user interface so that system errors were better >explained would mean that the average user would have even more chance for >problems - it sounds more like something they could fix themselves. > The current system error method works well - it's cryptic enough to >scare them into asking a consultant. > It works and works well. Again, if you are a power user, there are simple >remedies such as the wonderful 'System Errors' DA (Now up to v2.5) For the "computer for the rest of us," the term "Power User" should be undefined, or at best redundant. I can't disagree more strongly with the sentiment of "just ask us and we'll fix it." This removes the power that using a computer was supposed to give to these people, and puts it in the hands of a consulting elite. This serves only to increase the mystery with which some people view these machines. The machine should work like a toaster, and I don't know of any such thing as a toaster consultant. --Mike
nebel@wam.umd.edu (Chris D. Nebel) (02/16/90)
In article <1630@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> mjkobb@media-lab.media.mit.edu (Michael J Kobb) writes: >For the "computer for the rest of us," the term "Power User" should be >undefined, or at best redundant. I can't disagree more strongly with the >sentiment of "just ask us and we'll fix it." This removes the power that >using a computer was supposed to give to these people, and puts it in the >hands of a consulting elite. This serves only to increase the mystery with >which some people view these machines. The machine should work like a >toaster, and I don't know of any such thing as a toaster consultant. If something goes wrong with your toaster, do you know how to fix it? Most people don't. They take it to their local toaster consultant, aka appliance repair service! So Mac consultants will probably always be necessary. This is not to say that things can't (or shouldn't) be significantly improved, but the majority of people will still have to go to someone else when something goes wrong. The real solution is to make things go wrong less often. (Consider: how often does your toaster fail to work? Now how about your Mac?) Chris Nebel nebel@wam.umd.edu A layman knows he has to kick it. An amateur knows where to kick it. A professional knows how hard. And a wise man knows when to kick it.
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) (02/16/90)
As quoted from <1630@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> by mjkobb@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Michael J Kobb): +--------------- | which some people view these machines. The machine should work like a | toaster, and I don't know of any such thing as a toaster consultant. +--------------- I don't know of any toasters that bomb with System Errors. ++Brandon -- Brandon S. Allbery allbery@NCoast.ORG, BALLBERY (MCI Mail), ALLBERY (Delphi) uunet!cwjcc.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery ncoast!allbery@cwjcc.cwru.edu
mjkobb@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Michael J Kobb) (02/16/90)
In article <1990Feb16.005707.16822@NCoast.ORG> allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) writes: >As quoted from <1630@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> by mjkobb@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Michael J Kobb): >+--------------- >| which some people view these machines. The machine should work like a >| toaster, and I don't know of any such thing as a toaster consultant. >+--------------- > >I don't know of any toasters that bomb with System Errors. You've never burned toast? At least the Mac tells you nicely that it's dead, instead of ruining your breakfast. :-) My point was that people should be given as much information as possible. If it's simply impossible in the Mac ROMs to give a friendlier error message, then Apple should certainly include a list of System Error codes and Sad Mac codes somewhere in their docs for those people who want to know why their Mac is crashing (it would be a great help in diagnosing problems; maybe they should add them to their troubleshooting checklists: "Bomb with System Error ID=2 indicates..."). Consulting on computers is a delicate thing. It's ultimately more helpful to the user if you don't "just fix it for them," but if you fix whatever problem they're having, and show them how you did it. Then they can help themselves. It's sort of like Third World hunger: ultimately, it doesn't help as much to send food as it does to teach them how to grow it (and provide any tools that are lacking; maybe those of us who do this kind of thing should keep xeroxed lists of error codes around to hand out...). I've seen too many people driven screaming from UNIX by the cliques of knowledgeable people who know how the system works, but are unwilling to empower other users with that knowledge (Case in point: There's a legend of a person who, when asked for help, would recite the following keyboard incantation: "unset lineedit; <fix whatever>; clear; set lineedit." For those of you who don't do UNIX (I can't imagine that that's many of you), this prevents anyone from looking at what he did to fix the problem! What a jackass!) I'm not saying that any of the folks in question here do stuff like that, but we have to guard against a priesthood of Mac gurus, or we'll be the only ones using this machine, and I think that that would be a shame. --Mike
tonyrich@titanic.cs.wisc.edu (Anthony Rich) (02/16/90)
In article <3453.25d9361c@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> ke2y@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes: > I, for one, am strongly against modifying the user interface such that things > such as system errors are better explained. I feel that this could be a HUGE > mistake. [Example of a user handling a simple error improperly omitted here.] > Anyway, to 'improve' the user interface so that system errors were better > explained would mean that the average user would have even more chance for > problems - it sounds more like something they could fix themselves. > The current system error method works well - it's cryptic enough to > scare them into asking a consultant. I strongly disagree. The problem with something like ID = 03 is that although it may represent a problem only a technical person can solve, the everyday user has no way of *knowing* that from what is presented. Rather ordinary errors have been reported by number throughout computing history, unfortunately. *Nobody* likes having an uninterpreted number dumped out with no explanation of what's wrong or what to do about it. So the user's reaction is frustration and helplessness in the face of a serious problem. User-friendliness has evaporated at a time when it's needed most! Confidence in the whole machine is suddenly undermined. I agree that a complex technical explanation is inappropriate because it may lead to exactly the situation you describe -- a well-meaning but inept attempt to fix it which actually makes things worse. But the user should be treated with respect, not "scared into asking a consultant." (What if there's no consultant? These computers are used in all sorts of situations, some of them time-critical.) A courteous, nontechnical message should be presented which tells the user that a problem has occurred that he or she is not expected to understand or solve, but it should ALSO say what the user can and should do that will lead to a solution if the problem persists. How about something like: "A complex internal technical problem has been detected. Try restarting the machine. If the problem persists, notify a qualified technician that SYSTEM ERROR 03 occurred; the technician will need that information." This tells the user that: 1. It's not a simple problem and probably isn't the user's fault. 2. The problem might go away or it might persist. 3. It's a technical problem the user is not expected to handle. 4. The error number should be remembered but need not be understood. It's important that the user is left with something constructive to do: remembering and reporting the error number, restarting the machine, noticing whether the problem persists, and notifying a technician if it does. A technical problem on the machine's part need not lead to a what-do-I-do-now problem on the user's part, and it shouldn't. I think that sort of error notification would be much more satisfying. Tony -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Email: tonyrich@titanic.cs.wisc.edu Phone: 608-271-8450 Disclaimer: The opinions above are mine. Others may agree or disagree. ------------------------------------------------------------------------