Comments on: Is ‘user-friendly’ and ‘intuitive’ software really simpler?

By: L.

L. — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 16:17:56 +0000

This post makes me think,”Easier said than done.” If you’re producing a document mostly on your own, or within a cluster of specialized users, then fine. But Word has gained prominence partly because it addresses the needs of multiple types of users. In my small company, for instance, a document is written by someone who also fulfills many other roles–analytical, managerial, etc. It’s run by execs who are handling many projects. And, while it has to look good, it’s going to be given to people who care much more about the content than the appearance.

Word is good enough for everyone. The execs can make edits, comment, track changes, the documents look fine. We all spend a lot of time with Word on a daily basis, but we’re not specialists and don’t really need to be. And no one’s going to invest the time in learning something like LaTeX unless the returns are really significant. Not only that, but for people like the execs, I think learning something like LaTeX would involve more than just training on that particular program; they’d have to acquire a new perspective on programs as a whole that just wouldn’t be worth their (very expensive) time. And, if the execs aren’t using it, we’re not a big enough company to justify converting documents back and forth, with all the mess that entails.

“Good enough” is sometimes what you really need.

By: Kevin W

Kevin W — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 01:38:36 +0000

I remember using a DOS version of Lotus 123 before there were mice. Wow, people could really fly and work extremely fast. Now, with the GUI and mouse, creating spreadsheets is sloooow.

By: Weekly links roundup by Communications from DMN

Weekly links roundup by Communications from DMN — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 10:37:00 +0000

[...] Is user friendly and intuitive software really simpler? [...]

By: mike

mike — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 02:44:48 +0000

There is definitely a business case for intuitive software. If users have a choice between easy to use software that gets the job done and highly specialized software that takes hours to begin using basic features the large majority will choose the easy to use software. Therefore, the more intuitive a company can make its software the larger its user base will be.

By: tod

tod — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 20:23:02 +0000

Unfortunately, your article is ridden with undeclared assumptions about usability and efficiency.

There are enough comments already, but I want to add that what’s good for one person doesn’t automatically make it good for others. I can (and often do) use my keyboard for 80% of navigating around my Windows PC because it’s faster and more efficient “for me.” I develop and test software so I use a multitude of programs every single day. Thus I took the time to learn how to do those things efficiently, just as you did.

Most people use their mice…because they surf the web, write/read email and then work with the occasional word processing or spreadsheet program. They would probably consider it a waste of their up-front time to learn keyboard commands and such when they can just do a few mouse clicks.

Neither one is wrong, just different.

By: klutzgrrl

klutzgrrl — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 21:05:08 +0000

lol… we had some great stuff on those old machines. I really liked the Lotus Smartsuite- it worked just fine.

At the moment I’m using Open Office. I’ll have a look at LaTex but it’s probably pointless if I can’t convince the rest of the family to use it.

DH has to use a particular program for footnoting his university essays, I forget what it’s called.

By: Sandra

Sandra — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:56:42 +0000

Boy, do I miss WP for DOS. I used it until it became completely untenable. I had great macros i created for bibliographic entries and some other things, was able to do things simply, and kept a function key guide on my keyboard. WP for Windows still seems better to me than Word. For instance, the only way i can figure out to single-space on Word is to change the style set to Windows 2003, and doing a hanging indent takes several steps.

By: Sheldon

Sheldon — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:02:14 +0000

I teach music production at a music college. I have found, in music software especially, that as manufacturers attempt to make their software more idiot-proof, they inadvertently make some features idiotic. It’s become common in music software to either eliminate advanced features or make project files “default” to preset set-ups that effectively decrease productivity. On the consumer side, think of the frustrations involved in simply pointing many photo or media-players to a folder on your hard drive rather than to the application’s “media library”.

By: Laura

Laura — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:08:35 +0000

Back when I was applying for technical writing jobs (late 90s), I made a rule that I would not apply to any job that put “Must know Microsoft Word” in the ad. Word can do a lot, but you have to use the templates, and most people have never been trained to use them. It’s not their fault, really. It’s fine if you just want to do some simple text or put out a short report. If you want to create a user manual or 50+ page book or anything like that, use Framemaker.

By: brouwr

brouwr — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:49:36 +0000

I’m with addicted_to_clutter about LaTeX and LyX.

LyX is much more intuitive and simpler than Word. You just write stuff down and insert chapter and paragraph headers when needed, as well as footnotes and pictures. The output is a beatifully typeset pdf – you just can’t go wrong. That’s what I call basic word processing.

Word, on the other hand, allows you to fully control the layout, which should be considered an advanced feature. For short documents it may be OK, but with longer ones it’s hard to keep everything consistent.

By: Daniel Howard

Daniel Howard — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 06:03:04 +0000

Complicated video games tend to feature a tutorial mode. Maybe office software should, as well.

The paper clip can offer to take you by the hand for the next hour or so, and introduce you to a new world of possibilities. Then it can get the fudge out of your way and let you get the job done!

-danny

By: obo

obo — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 02:35:25 +0000

What about the middle ground – in the Word vs. LaTex argument, the DTP software, Scribus or InDesign or Quark that lies between Word’s high-level intuitiveness and LaTeX’s low-level efficiency?

Intuitiveness isn’t a binary switch, and software isn’t a single function – individual features, much less entire programs, aren’t simply intuitive or unintuitive.

Truly understanding _when_ to use _which_ tool is craft. The more tools available, the better – what’s more important is understanding _why_ the tool and each of the different methods are important.

Why is typography important? Is it a priority for my task? Do I need control over ligatures? That’s what needs to be answered first. Deciding on the proper tool for the job follows neatly.

By: addicted_to_clutter

addicted_to_clutter — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 02:33:33 +0000

Word processors are frustrating because they entrust users with a task that they have no understanding (and great misconception of) and that is document setting. LaTeX produces great results because it takes the decision-making part of producing a document and leaves it to the application preset, and lets the user focus on one thing and one thing alone: content. It really shouldn’t be any other way.

LyX, a LaTeX distribution, offers the best of both worlds, coupling the functionality of LaTeX with the comfort and simplicity of a simple, Word 2003-like GUI.

By: steve

steve — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 02:10:35 +0000

I learned LaTeX back in the 80s as a CS grad student, and I’m so glad I did. I took some doing — several hours and the first 50 or so pages of Leslie Lamport’s book — but ever since then, its flexibility and (yes) simplicity has stood me in good stead. I’ve seen a lot of bad LaTeX, and I sometimes have to fix co-author’s errors, but that’s easy to do with LaTeX, because I can see what they did and have complete control.
On the other hand, I have had to relearn MS Word several times. It is not intuitive at all to me, and I only use it when I absolutely have to. The autoformatting drives me crazy and never seems to do what I want. I have spent hours trying to fix the formatting on relatively simple documents. Don’t even get me started on bulleted or numbered lists!
I find it perverse that so many of my colleagues use Word for technical writing. Taking the time up front to learn LaTeX was definitely worth it.

By: Courtney

Courtney — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:57:27 +0000

Another grad student here (math) who adores LaTeX! I especially like that there are a billion different ways to create figures with different packages–completely customizable if you’re willing to get your hands a little dirty (but that’s the fun part, anyway).