03-22-2006, 08:00 PM
|
|
Swami
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,303
|
|
Complex Gadgets: We Are Not Worthy? Doh!
"Half of all malfunctioning products returned to stores by consumers are in full working order, but customers can't figure out how to operate the devices, a researcher said on Monday. . The average consumer in the United States will struggle for 20 minutes to get a device working before giving up, the study found. [A researcher] gave new products to a group of managers from consumer electronics company Philips, asking them to use them over the weekend. The managers returned frustrated because they could not get the devices to work properly."
Quel surprise? I wonder if this was before or after Philips rebranded to focus on 'sense and simplicity'? :lol: It would be nice to think that managers actually had to use thier own products during their development cycle, i.e. ate their own dog food. If this happened all the time then perhaps then we would have more powerful and elegant gadgets that were simple to use? I'm doubtful, but what do you guys think? Do we need simpler gadgets or should we demand smarter users? Now excuse me while I search out the 300 page instruction manual supplied on CD-Rom with my new gadget. :?
|
| |
|
|
|
03-22-2006, 08:27 PM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 118
|
|
PEBKAC
In My opinion, there is not enough development going on on gadgets and many programs for the 'user experience' only that it technically works. The person usually ends up being a 'human emulator'. The user has to be taught to use an application. If that is a program like Photoshop or a VCR, 20 minutes doesn't cut it, but it should if the interfaces are designed intuitively. That's why On Screen programming was such a hit when it came out, or better yet, the VCRs that remove the flashing 12:00AM but someone realizing a time-sync 'channel' existed and decided to use it.
I figure there should be MUCH more going on under the covers to automate as much as possible for users so that they enjoy spending the $500 or $1000 or whatever on the newest gizmo and only using it to 10% of its functionality because that was all they could understand. It shouldn't need to be the uber-geeks that have the amazing sound systems or PVR systems or even the Handhelds. If the interface was easy, millions will buy it, ask Apple.
So the end result is Yes, the Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair, however if the interfaces were intuitive and easy to use, from a development side, you'd see a lot more Gadgets being sold, driving more innovation and more user-experience development. A not-so-vicious circle...
AXE
|
| |
|
|
|
03-22-2006, 09:01 PM
|
|
Ponderer
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 93
|
|
in the software that i use i want everything to be completely customizable. for example, why should i have to use third party software to change the softkeys of the today screen? why can't i choose to hide the systray? who determines which items i want to see in the taskbar? these are only a few GUI related examples. there is much more, but unfortunately, sometimes, simplicity means restrictions, and i don't like that. i want to always have the ability to go to "Expert Mode"
|
| |
|
|
|
03-22-2006, 09:15 PM
|
|
Theorist
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 267
|
|
I think the primary interface of ALL devices should always be Grandma mode with an option to go expert mode that is still logical.
I like simplicity for entertainment that's why I'm one of the millions of sheep that use an iPod video despite the Creative player blows it out of the water in features. I just want the damn thing to play my music.
At the same time I just picked up an iMate JAM and appreciate the full customizability of PI 2005 Pro and other programs I have on it.
It all depends on what you want out of your device 
|
| |
|
|
|
03-22-2006, 09:51 PM
|
|
Pontificator
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,043
|
|
It's an old complaint, but really, standards are a huge part of the solution. Look at the basic icons of audio/video playback and recording for example. The Play, Pause, Record and Stop icons have been standardised on 95% or more machines and software interfaces with these features for many years now. Same for Fast Forward and Rewind. Extending this sort of uniformity to many other functions would go a long way towards helping users figure out new devices.
In computers, the Save and Open icons have been standardised, more or less, for PCs at least. Though a floppy disk was not the most long term sensible solution, there is enough recognition among users to make it useful. The folder opening icon is a little more generic, which is good. A few other common elements exist, but soon it breaks down, especially when it comes to association-grabbing installed software. And it seems too many hardware makers still want to be cute and 'original' when it comes to laying out buttons and icons. A recent personal example; I've been testing the Recorder2 for Neuros, and the first remote they sent out was very slick, easily intuitive as to functions of most buttons. The manual made the one or two unclear functions known with little effort. The next recorder was almost the same, but the utterly re-designed remote had a host of custom icons, almost none of them working as my guesses had them. After hours studying the manual I was still often hitting the wrong buttons! Why? It seems (I don't know yet) that they were trying to be useful in ways particular to the recorder, not paying attention to tradition and common expectations. The result is virtually unusable within the first hour or more. A radical decrease in fun resulted. Of course, the thing is still in the development stages, and one hopes that further changes will be made based on tester feedback - and Neuros is more responsive than almost any company I've encountered previously.
Could there not be some survey done, some global poll taken by all the big OEMs, and then a set of standards based upon the results? Perhaps universities and governments could participate. A world design expectation referendum, that'd save billions of hours of wasted effort in learning unnecessarily complex and obtuse interface designs. Surely such a savings should appeal to almost every level of authority! Think of how that time might better be spent... like, actually using the products!
|
| |
|
|
|
03-22-2006, 09:55 PM
|
|
Pupil
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 14
|
|
I like the complexity.....this is a business opportunity....gadget training
It's the American way.
|
| |
|
|
|
03-23-2006, 01:54 AM
|
|
Pontificator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,202
|
|
Re: Complex Gadgets: We Are Not Worthy? Doh!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jonathon Watkins
"Half of all malfunctioning products returned to stores by consumers are in full working order, but customers can't figure out how to operate the devices, a researcher said on Monday.
|
I think the researchers are giving the manufacturers too much credit. I have returned fully functioning devices before, not because I couldn't figure them out, but because the device didn't work as advertised. In my mind the device was defective - it didn't do what it was supposed to, but I'm sure it worked as the manufacturer intended, just not near as well as they marketed it.
Too often consumers are sold devices based upon marketing hype that either don't do what is advertised or do it very poorly. How many people have purchased PMPs only to return them when they found out it wasn't possible to easily copy their DVD collection to to the player? How about that video card that was supposed to provide the "fastest" 3D graphics, but in reality is couldn't run the latest and greatest games. Perhaps if tech companies starting requiring the marketing department to use these devices before writing ad copy then we all wouldn't be oversold particular gadgets.
|
| |
|
|
|
03-23-2006, 02:17 AM
|
|
Ponderer
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 93
|
|
remember that question mark button that used to be in some of the dialog boxes with the close, maximize, minimize buttons in older windows versions? do you remember how it worked?
if you didn't know something about the program, you clicked on that "?" and then clicked on the textbox, button or whatever object you didn't understand and it gave you a brief explanation of the purpose of that object. this is a great feature for learning-on-the-go. no one has the time to go through the extended help files. when i don't know something, i want the explanation to be right there in front of me. it would be great if this feature was adopted as a standard for all applications so that it reliably works. then, consumers may actually put trust in it and start to use it...
|
| |
|
|
|
03-23-2006, 09:38 AM
|
|
Sage
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 810
|
|
I don't think gadgets are too sophisticated for people.
The problem is that we have too many nerds and uninterested businessmen with no clue designing them. Nerds and businessmen with no sense of aesthetics, and no instincts in regard to intuitive design and human vs. hardware interface dynamics.
We need people who have both the mind of a geek and the soul of an artist designing products. Apple would be the closest example of this.
|
| |
|
|
|
03-23-2006, 03:27 PM
|
|
Neophyte
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 7
|
|
Re: Complex Gadgets: We Are Not Worthy? Doh!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by whydidnt
Too often consumers are sold devices based upon marketing hype that either don't do what is advertised or do it very poorly. ... Perhaps if tech companies starting requiring the marketing department to use these devices before writing ad copy then we all wouldn't be oversold particular gadgets.
|
Hear hear!!! I second this motion. Before buying anything electronic I make sure the retailer will take it back if it doesn't do what I want it to - regardless of what the pretty brochure says. Maybe the return codes that the clerks have available need to include "assertive consumer not fooled by exuberant marketing."
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
