Replies: 10 comments
I totally disagree that users want a clean desktop. Almost every user in my workplace (novice to pro) launches programs from icons on the desktop. They DO NOT customize their 'Start' menu, resulting in their Start menu being a bloated mess that cannot be navigated because it lists every program ever installed under labels the software manufacturers chose. In fact, when new software is installed, they request that an icon be placed on their desktop. When they don't need an icon, they drag it to the trash, cleaning up their desktop by themselves.
Myself, I launch from the Start menu, but store all of my work files on the desktop. So as cluttered desktops go, I probably have everyone beat. I wouldn't have it any other way. My next PC will be Linux, or dual-boot. I'm discovering Linux has alternatives to every piece of software I rely on.
Posted by JS @ 10/21/2001 11:04 AM EST
In other words, a clean desktop would be a major paradigm shift for the computer users I know.
Posted by JS @ 10/21/2001 11:09 AM EST
Microsoft is still trying to attract the millions of people who have yet to use a computer. I'm betting that number is still higher than the number who do have Windows experience. If not in the USA, surely in the rest of the world.
And I agree with JS on his point that users love desktop icons. It's just easier for them. I see happen like that all the time.
Posted by Mike @ 10/21/2001 01:32 PM EST
I must agree to with JS to the point where customization is a problem. Severely computer challenged people aren't even aware of folders beyond "My Documents" and "Desktop". Therefore, they save everything in these folders for fear of losing their files.
Nevertheless, clutter on the desktop is still clutter. MS should concentrate on making it easier to customize the Start menu. I would suggest the management of the Start menu to be handled like the Add/Remove Programs. In essence, shortcuts in the Start Menu should be handled as program elements, rather than files.
Posted by Francis @ 10/22/2001 09:27 AM EST
The core problem is that most computer users do not understand the basics of how an operating system functions. e.g., they can't even do file management. Deleting and recovering a file is a mystery to them.
If you wanted a simplied system, it would have two components - a program launcher and a file searcher. Imagine how those components could be reworked if they constituted the whole interface (with perhaps a token 'Advanced' button for all the other stuff).
Posted by JS @ 10/22/2001 10:02 AM EST
I believe that while we do want our consumer/customer/computer user to become more educated and sophisticated, this is separate from arguements advocating the streamlining and simplification of user interfaces. A simple, well-designed interface is the mark of a well thought out system. It is not always a question as to whether our audience "knows" how to customize or simplify their interface, but rather that if given the choice they'd prefer not to (ala Krug's "Don't Make Me Think")
Posted by Jeff @ 10/22/2001 12:03 PM EST
I don't think a "clean desktop" means the user themselves is forced to keep it clean. Rather, it means it doesn't come with fifty friggin' icons from Microsoft and every software company with which the OEM has a partnership -- most of which I'll never use if not immediately uninstall -- jampacked onto my desktop.
Many mainstream users -- e.g. home consumers -- don't know enough about customizing their interface to know that they can remove icons, re-arrange icons, etc.
Which brings me to the real point: Market penetration doesn't necessarily indicate market depth. MSFT's monopolistic strategies nailed them market penetration -- 90%+ of computers have a Windows OS.
But how many people actually use their computer for anything other than games, email, browsing the web, and the occasional word processing? I'd wager that games alone account for over half of home computer usage.
What they need to turn their focus to -- and may be attempting with XP -- is leveraging that market. Now that a significant portion of homes have Windows computers, MSFT has to get people using them, and -- more importantly -- using the apps that generate revenue for MSFT, e.g. through MSN, through Passport/Hailstorm/.NET, through licensing agreements with music publishers leveraging the .WMA format instead of .MP3, etc etc.
The systems are in the homes. Now people need to use them more. And to get people to use the system, you gotta focus on usability.
Posted by Greg @ 10/22/2001 07:22 PM EST
Re: JS's comment "The core problem is that most computer users do not understand the basics of how an operating system functions":
That's just utterly wrong. The core problem is that to use a contemporary computer effectively, most computer users need to understand the basics of how an operating system functions. In a usable world, they *shouldn't need* to know that.
A cliche comparison: I don't need to understand how a car engine works to drive. The interface to a car has removed the need for the user to understand the "car's operating system."
The goal of usability should be to make the device as transparent as possible, so the users need to know very little about how it works "under the hood" to use it effectively.
Posted by Greg @ 10/22/2001 07:26 PM EST
Customizing your 'Start' menu or copying and deleting files *are* functions that users *should* need to know about in a usable world. Comparing that to a car engine is silly. It is more like knowing what your speedometer indicates and how to start the car by sticking the key in the ignition. Or how to operate a stick shift. Most people are driving around in this world with their car lurching around and stalling out.
Posted by JS @ 10/23/2001 08:14 AM EST
Er, and in case my point was missed, the lurching stalling cars are not literal, they are Windows PCs.
Posted by JS @ 10/23/2001 08:15 AM EST