Survey Results

FirstPrevNext

Ease of use always Michael P Butler22-Mar-04 23:33 Michael P Butler 22-Mar-04 23:33  If your app is easy to use then the users don't tend to worry too much about Speed and Reliability or a Good looking UI Michael But you know when the truth is told, That you can get what you want or you can just get old, Your're going to kick off before you even get halfway through. When will you realise... Vienna waits for you? - "The Stranger," Billy Joel Level of user's satisfaction Vladimir Afanasyev23-Mar-04 1:19 Vladimir Afanasyev 23-Mar-04 1:19  Even application is desktop application it can be not easy inside. Some tasks may be a very complex and as a result it's impossible to do it "Ease of use always". The good criterion it is level of user's satisfaction but it is not always mean "ease of use". Many console applications are easy of use but users often are not satisfied because UI. Of course "ease of use" is important but not always. Re: Level of user's satisfaction Curi0us_George23-Mar-04 4:41 Curi0us_George 23-Mar-04 4:41  Most users do not find console applications to be easy to use. They don't like entering menu selections as numbers rather than simple mouseclicks. They don't like trying to navigate complex hierarchies of menues in a console environment. (I don't, either. It's too slow.) But ease of use is relative. Extremely complex tasks cannot typically be reduced to a single click, but they can always be implemented with varying degrees of difficulty for the user. Straight-forward implementations will please the customer a lot more than a convoluted one. The challenge is to decide what really constitutes straight-forward. Re: Level of user's satisfaction Vladimir Afanasyev23-Mar-04 5:20 Vladimir Afanasyev 23-Mar-04 5:20  Curi0us_George wrote: Most users do not find console applications to be easy to use. They don't like entering menu selections as numbers rather than simple mouseclicks. They don't like trying to navigate complex hierarchies of menues in a console environment. (I don't, either. It's too slow.) I work with developing shop system (Point-Of-Sale). The interesting fact that some manufacturers of POS still creates this POSes with MS DOS (for example, Siemens). If it is not suitable and not ease of use why they still do it. In our supermarkets exists a lot systems with Windows created with good UI but what about those wellknown firms that still use MS DOS for it. If console apps. and MS DOS apps. is not ease for use may be they think that ease of use is not so important? Some times ago I wrote test for thermal printer, our boys from workshop tested these devices for input control. The command line was only number of serial port but in the result app printed some lines and figure on printer and puts some lines on screen with thermal head temperetures that changed during printing. Of course, it can be console app but for the end I created GUI app. with temperature graph. Really boys was satisfied (no need to read numbers and compare it). What is it: ease of use, UI or user's satisfaction? Speed can be a very important. But not application speed. I talk about speed of creating new application that is important. We all know what is it competetion. And it is very important to be first as said old duke thinking about tradition of First Night. Re: Level of user's satisfaction Curi0us_George23-Mar-04 5:31 Curi0us_George 23-Mar-04 5:31  The best interfaces developed for DOS all emulate a windowed environment. All of the productive ones I've ever seen, at least. At that point, it's got a GUI, and does not qualify as a console application. Re: Level of user's satisfaction Vladimir Afanasyev23-Mar-04 5:45 Vladimir Afanasyev 23-Mar-04 5:45  You are right it "does not qualify as a console application. " But for this POS implemented menu system. "They don't like entering menu selections as numbers rather than simple mouseclicks. They don't like trying to navigate complex hierarchies of menues in a console environment." Sometimes even vice versa the system for POS created in Win GUI but like DOS UI. Re: Level of user's satisfaction Curi0us_George23-Mar-04 6:28 Curi0us_George 23-Mar-04 6:28  Agh. I just realized I misspelled "menus". I've never seen a well-designed windows application which emulated the console. (Excluding the actual command prompt emulators such as cmd.exe, of course.) Going through a graphical interface with the mouse is typically far faster then going through a console interface, especially at first, before the users really get familiar with the app. But ease of use is relative. Vladimir Afanasyev23-Mar-04 21:33 Vladimir Afanasyev 23-Mar-04 21:33  "But ease of use is relative." This your thought is really good and I absolutely agree with it. In my opinion it very important to understand what it means "ease of use". I have no notebook but sometimes use it. It is very good and useful thing but I still don't like trackball and every time I connect mouse. Many linux-funs like command line and think that it is really "ease of use". Another thought - "ease of use" can brake progress. For example one "mad scientist" creates 3D display. Another "mad scientist" creates Mobius band window (or form) so we can see front side of form from all side of display. May be it is will be "ease of use" (or "ease of use" for some people) but may be not. For most people it will not "ease of use" as well as trackball is not "ease of use" for me. And "ease of use" for developer is not the same as "ease of use" for end user. Re: Ease of use always Andrew McCarter23-Mar-04 4:36 Andrew McCarter 23-Mar-04 4:36  "Hey, it doesn't matter if it doesn't work. It's easy to use!" "Hey, this thing works great! I just have to figure out how to use it!" Chicken and Egg! Re: Ease of use always Rui Jiang25-Mar-04 14:04 Rui Jiang 25-Mar-04 14:04  If it crashes every now and then, then it does matter. Re: Ease of use always Anonymous25-Mar-04 20:26 Anonymous 25-Mar-04 20:26  Simplicity wins. I agree. At the same time, application must be reliable, otherwise I will look for other application. Application that is easy to use is likey to have a good UI anyways. Missing choice Skond22-Mar-04 22:00 Skond 22-Mar-04 22:00  This poll misses one choice: the ability to handle the user's needs. Let's call it 'completeness' Re: Missing choice Peter Mares23-Mar-04 22:39 Peter Mares 23-Mar-04 22:39  I believe that would fall under "extensibility" considered the fact that you will NEVER cater for all user's needs in the first or second release... www.kinkycode.com [Glossary Manager] [AfterThought Backup Lite] 99 little bugs in the code, 99 little bugs, Fix 1 bug, recompile.... 101 little bugs in the code... Reliability then Speed John M. Drescher22-Mar-04 19:25 John M. Drescher 22-Mar-04 19:25  Just as the title says.. John Re: Reliability then Speed Navin23-Mar-04 4:53 Navin 23-Mar-04 4:53  Well, it does depend on the app. Something like a real-time video player really needs more speed than reliability. I don't care if a couple pixels are off on a frame or two, but I do care if the thing takes forever to play and looks like it is in slow motion! But for many other apps, speed isn't much of an issue compared to reliability. Remember, even if you win the rat race, you're still a rat. ease of use PJ Arends22-Mar-04 19:14 PJ Arends 22-Mar-04 19:14  If your users don't find your app easy to use, they won't use it, and all the other options are moot. Sonork 100.11743 Chicken Little "You're obviously a superstar." - Christian Graus about me - 12 Feb '03 Within you lies the power for good - Use it! Re: ease of use Paul Watson22-Mar-04 21:47 Paul Watson 22-Mar-04 21:47  Qualifier: We are talking about general-public apps. Not apps for us nerds. I eventually chose that option too but I came very close to choosing reliability. Your app can be dead easy to use but if it falls over every 5 minutes then it is no use either. Of course a reliable but hard to use app is useless as well. So reliability and ease of use? regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass South Africa Christopher Duncan quoted: "...that would require my explaining Einstein's Fear of Relatives" Crikey! ain't life grand? Einstein says... Re: ease of use Anonymous23-Mar-04 13:31 Anonymous 23-Mar-04 13:31  But an application that fails and requires a user to restart often, is not easy to use IMHO. Re: ease of use Navin23-Mar-04 3:35 Navin 23-Mar-04 3:35  I was very close to choosing "Ease of use". But it's a chicken and egg thing - how will you know what's easy to use until customers actually see it? You can spend all the time in the world designing a UI that you think is great and easy to use. Then you get it out to the customers, and they use it in a totally different way than you expected. So that's when maintainability comes into play - you'll have to be able to change that program efficiently once you realize you got the interface wrong the first go-around. Remember, even if you win the rat race, you're still a rat. Re: ease of use Cisco432124-Mar-04 20:20 Cisco4321 24-Mar-04 20:20  Thing is, I do a lot of work (in my spare time) for several doctor's offices. They each use the same software. Not cause its the best even because they like it. They use it cause its the only piece of software that they can use for their specific notes. Its the only thing. Scary, but it kind of kills the "they have to like it" part. Re: ease of use Michael Flanakin25-Mar-04 6:51 Michael Flanakin 25-Mar-04 6:51  So true Michael Flanakin Web Log Speed Steve McLenithan22-Mar-04 17:38 Steve McLenithan 22-Mar-04 17:38  Slow apps suck. // Steve McLenithan Cluelessnes:    There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots. Re: Speed Navin23-Mar-04 3:36 Navin 23-Mar-04 3:36  Steve McLenithan wrote: Slow apps suck. What? Somebody mentioning Longhorn? Remember, even if you win the rat race, you're still a rat. Get a better machine Daniel Turini23-Mar-04 5:38 Daniel Turini 23-Mar-04 5:38  Slow machines suck Perl combines all the worst aspects of C and Lisp: a billion different sublanguages in one monolithic executable. It combines the power of C with the readability of PostScript. -- Jamie Zawinski Re: Get a better machine Steve McLenithan23-Mar-04 18:15 Steve McLenithan 23-Mar-04 18:15  Touche;P // Steve McLenithan Cluelessnes:    There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots.

Last Visit: 31-Dec-99 18:00     Last Update: 5-May-24 8:21 Refresh ᐊ Prev1234 Next ᐅ

General    News    Suggestion    Question    Bug    Answer    Joke    Praise    Rant    Admin   

Use Ctrl+Left/Right to switch messages, Ctrl+Up/Down to switch threads, Ctrl+Shift+Left/Right to switch pages.