Designed to a Fault

computer columns

Designed to a Fault

It's not you. It's them. Computers, while simpler than you might think, are harder than they ought to be. Yet the popular misconception that computers are "smarter" than us is misleading. When things go wrong, we blame ourselves --rather than look for the problem's roots in faulty design.

Why is this a problem? First, it distracts us when we need our full reasoning power. Second, it diverts our attention from the real culprits: manufacturers and our own passivity.

In June, Dr. Michael Dertouzos, head of MIT's computer lab, told The New York Times that calling PCs "user friendly" because of their fancy features, "is tantamount to dressing a chimpanzee in a green hospital gown and earnestly parading it as a surgeon." Other industry gurus agreed that modern PCs sport too many trivial, burdensome, unwanted features.

How has this happened? In part, it's because the PC industry is a child-less than 20 years old. Early airplanes crashed as often as did early hard drives; we have to give it time. In part, it's because engineers and programmers can't resist the chance to prove what they can do. Finally, overly complex PCs come onto the market because we are willing to buy them. Needing bigger PCs to house and run all that fancy software, we have surrendered our right of refusal-and instead deployed PCs as status symbols.

Dr. Ben Shneiderman, head of the Human-Computer Interaction Laboratory at the University of Maryland, College Park, has spent his career sorting out these issues. Live Wire spoke with him this summer, and herewith shares his common-sense perspective. We'll continue the conversation in November.

Q: Why are computers so complicated?

A: Because some designers are insensitive to the needs of a wide range of users. The designers (often a lot of young guys) appreciate the complexity and the challenge of elaborate systems. But it's like the thrill of white-water rafting-it's great fun, but it's not for everyone. Most people want a more reliable ride-maybe on a ferry or a barge-down a deeper river.

Also, because software has become easier to change, there's a temptation to add more features -- and insufficient attention to a level, structured approach to design that would enable novices to gracefully acquire new capabilities. For example, let's start with a screen. It could have limited choices that expand as you become more skilled.
I should add that there's some vested interest [in complexity] by computer gurus who've mastered the complexity. Their fraternity, their professional power, is an impediment to change.

Q. So things don't have to be the way they are?

A. No. We can do better, we can improve the quality of interfaces. I hope you alert the public to complain more vigorously. [As it is now] users feel inept, dumb, guilty. They should be angry. They should look at Ôthem' first.

Q. Why do you think people find computers so intimidating?

A. Because of the invisibility of the internal design. We need to make the inner workings more visible; understanding leads to more control, which leads to responsibility.

Q. How can readers first approach these fearsome machines?

A. They should turn to a human trainer, to a knowledgeable friend or colleague, for a personal introduction to computing. Also, they should make salespeople give them the time they need to learn how to use the machines.

My other advice is to start slowly and build on your successes; set manageable goals. And don't be intimidated by people who flaunt their knowledge! Ask the questions that you want to ask and make sure that you get your answers.
By the way, I'd like to explode the myth that younger people are better at computers. Research shows that with training, older users can do very well; it's just that younger people are more familiar with computers.

Q. Some critics say that computers don't make us smarter; they just encourage us to develop very narrow skill sets. Is this true?

A. The critics have a good point, but that shouldn't stop people from using computers. To me, computers are no smarter than a pencil, but at their best they make very complex tasks-such as air-traffic control and stock brokering-feasible and accessible. So the question is, how do you give people the [computing] tools that allow them to do their work? How do you make a better design? How do you empower users?

Q. How do you think the average computer user can make a difference?

A. I'd like to see a computer-industry version of the consumer's movement. Think of yourself as a consumer, not a user-just as you would with your car. Write letters to computer companies. Speak out publicly. Organize computer unions. Also, I'd like to see more reporting on this subject in the media, and I'd like to see government contracts that push for good design.

Next: Dr. Shneiderman sorts out the computer industry's hopes from its hype.

1037 Whetstone Court | Raleigh, NC 27615 | 919-676-9116 | Fax: 919-676-9950

Live Wire Links	Designed to a Fault It's not you. It's them. Computers, while simpler than you might think, are harder than they ought to be. Yet the popular misconception that computers are "smarter" than us is misleading. When things go wrong, we blame ourselves --rather than look for the problem's roots in faulty design. Why is this a problem? First, it distracts us when we need our full reasoning power. Second, it diverts our attention from the real culprits: manufacturers and our own passivity. In June, Dr. Michael Dertouzos, head of MIT's computer lab, told The New York Times that calling PCs "user friendly" because of their fancy features, "is tantamount to dressing a chimpanzee in a green hospital gown and earnestly parading it as a surgeon." Other industry gurus agreed that modern PCs sport too many trivial, burdensome, unwanted features. How has this happened? In part, it's because the PC industry is a child-less than 20 years old. Early airplanes crashed as often as did early hard drives; we have to give it time. In part, it's because engineers and programmers can't resist the chance to prove what they can do. Finally, overly complex PCs come onto the market because we are willing to buy them. Needing bigger PCs to house and run all that fancy software, we have surrendered our right of refusal-and instead deployed PCs as status symbols. Dr. Ben Shneiderman, head of the Human-Computer Interaction Laboratory at the University of Maryland, College Park, has spent his career sorting out these issues. Live Wire spoke with him this summer, and herewith shares his common-sense perspective. We'll continue the conversation in November. Q: Why are computers so complicated? A: Because some designers are insensitive to the needs of a wide range of users. The designers (often a lot of young guys) appreciate the complexity and the challenge of elaborate systems. But it's like the thrill of white-water rafting-it's great fun, but it's not for everyone. Most people want a more reliable ride-maybe on a ferry or a barge-down a deeper river. Also, because software has become easier to change, there's a temptation to add more features -- and insufficient attention to a level, structured approach to design that would enable novices to gracefully acquire new capabilities. For example, let's start with a screen. It could have limited choices that expand as you become more skilled. I should add that there's some vested interest [in complexity] by computer gurus who've mastered the complexity. Their fraternity, their professional power, is an impediment to change. Q. So things don't have to be the way they are? A. No. We can do better, we can improve the quality of interfaces. I hope you alert the public to complain more vigorously. [As it is now] users feel inept, dumb, guilty. They should be angry. They should look at Ôthem' first. Q. Why do you think people find computers so intimidating? A. Because of the invisibility of the internal design. We need to make the inner workings more visible; understanding leads to more control, which leads to responsibility. Q. How can readers first approach these fearsome machines? A. They should turn to a human trainer, to a knowledgeable friend or colleague, for a personal introduction to computing. Also, they should make salespeople give them the time they need to learn how to use the machines. My other advice is to start slowly and build on your successes; set manageable goals. And don't be intimidated by people who flaunt their knowledge! Ask the questions that you want to ask and make sure that you get your answers. By the way, I'd like to explode the myth that younger people are better at computers. Research shows that with training, older users can do very well; it's just that younger people are more familiar with computers. Q. Some critics say that computers don't make us smarter; they just encourage us to develop very narrow skill sets. Is this true? A. The critics have a good point, but that shouldn't stop people from using computers. To me, computers are no smarter than a pencil, but at their best they make very complex tasks-such as air-traffic control and stock brokering-feasible and accessible. So the question is, how do you give people the [computing] tools that allow them to do their work? How do you make a better design? How do you empower users? Q. How do you think the average computer user can make a difference? A. I'd like to see a computer-industry version of the consumer's movement. Think of yourself as a consumer, not a user-just as you would with your car. Write letters to computer companies. Speak out publicly. Organize computer unions. Also, I'd like to see more reporting on this subject in the media, and I'd like to see government contracts that push for good design. Next: Dr. Shneiderman sorts out the computer industry's hopes from its hype.

	\| home \| expertise \| about us \| testimonials \| computer columns \| contact \|
copyright 1992-2006 Live Wire Communications	1037 Whetstone Court \| Raleigh, NC 27615 \| 919-676-9116 \| Fax: 919-676-9950