this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

61263 readers
4025 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] JordanZ@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

This study was only with 234 people.

"A number of the participants in the survey were IT professionals, while most of the other participants were highly competent IT and computer users. Nevertheless, they encountered these problems, and it turns out that this involves some fundamental functions,"

As someone that works in IT the amount of people I’ve come across that have little to no technical ability to be in that field is staggering. It had a high paycheck so they showed up. Doesn’t make them competent computer users.

Lemmy pointed me to another study a bit ago. It was ~216K people ages 16-65 and multiple countries.

One of the easy tasks was to use the reply-all feature for an email program to send a response to three people

According to that study this is where 43% of the participants skills ended(or didn’t even reach cause I stuck level 0 and 1 together).

This was the most depressing part…

The numbers for the 4 skill levels don’t sum to 100% because a large proportion of the respondents never attempted the tasks, being unable to use computers.

So my above 43% is really 69% of users. That’s where their abilities taper off.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It's actually simple.

HIG, UX, ergonomics, all that - it doesn't build up. Acceptable complexity of a pretty mechanical normal 80s' UI\UX is the same as of a modern one. Humans don't evolve over decades, they evolve over spans of time which are as good as eternity. They still need the same kind of complexity in tools they use.

A control panel for a loader that a factory worker should be able to use is as complex as a workflow on a computer can be. And that's very explicitly accounting for the fact that loader's or lift's control panel doesn't change every fucking day and the user remembers it, so computer UIs should be simpler than those of lifts and loaders!

You just don't make UI\UX more complex than that. There are things humans can learn to do, and there are things they often can't and they shouldn't.

The issue is that this creates a bottleneck for clueless project managers, UI designers and such. They can't throw together some shit in 30 minutes. They have to choose. They have to test. They don't want that. And no regulation makes them do that, because if a loader has an unclear UI\UX, you might kill someone, while if an email program has that, you'll just get very nervous.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

A control panel for a loader that a factory worker should be able to use is as complex as a workflow on a computer can be. And that’s very explicitly accounting for the fact that loader’s or lift’s control panel doesn’t change every fucking day and the user remembers it, so computer UIs should be simpler than those of lifts and loaders!

I design control panels. I try to keep the workflow consistent not because I see value in it, but because some asshole decided that they didn't want to pay for retraining. Really I don't care, having to retool slightly every decade or so is pretty reasonable. Especially given that the tech is always changing.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Especially given that the tech is always changing.

Humans don't. Changing things is fine, making using them more complex for the same result, because another decade has passed, is not.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago

It has to get more complicated, more edge cases have popped up and the process is more complicated.

Look basic example. I made an uncoiler and needed to add in a reverse override. Why? Because someone one time loaded it in wrong.