The evolution from complex to simple
It has long been thought spinning in my head that the PC is too universal and complicated to be comfortable. This is the main cause of all user problems that generate a vast amount of often absurd and illiterate questions (which in turn give rise to misanthropy in technical support circles).
However, a technically illiterate user in many cases may not be to blame for his conscious ignorance. Of course, this does not apply to those cases when it comes to professional issues. Everyone should understand his field of issues well, but outside of it is not at all necessary. The reluctance of users to delve into the essence of the problems is often fully justified by the fact that they don’t need these problems with their essence. The device of the operating system, the nuances of fine-tuning some kind of hardware or installing software are not interesting information for them. In the same way as for an average boom, detailed instructions for growing dill in the middle lane may not be interesting.
When the user may need to type text, it can be entered into a deep stupor by MS Word about whether or not to include macros in the document being opened. When he wants to “look at the pictures” on the Internet, he may not have a clue what a non-Russian word is - browser. And why are some strange people with a fiery gaze saying that some Firefox is correct, and Internet Explorer is not (by the way, ~ 70% of the non-technical specialties I have seen are not even able to repeat these words). Well, when the user wants to have emoticons in ICQ, he doesn’t have a business, that it’s not ICQ, but Miranda, which is better for a number of abstruse reasons, and which needs a special plugin (yes, ICQ and the plugin are also often incomprehensible :)).
')
User problems do not lie in the plane in which computer technology operates. And for this reason they speak in different languages, which constantly causes bewilderment on both sides. The reason for this is the complexity of the software and hardware architecture and interfaces. When buying a computer, an “average” user gets a super-fancy mega-device, while he wants a home appliance. Simple as TV or iron. For someone who is not inclined to be interested in technical delights, computer requirements are often the same as household appliances. Iron buy such a well-ironed. And the computer - so that the toys worked and the windows were beautiful. But not at all, in which there is, for example, a video card with 512 Mb DDR3 on board, and two DVI interfaces that work without any problems in Windows Vista.
However, due to computer complexity and, often, the propensity for software and hardware glitches, it can be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve effective work without an understanding of technical details. And until the situation with the architecture and ideology of building computer equipment is radically corrected, the caliper will regard users as moral monsters. And users will continue to successfully maintain their dubious image and, most unpleasantly, have all the same everyday problems with misunderstanding, why it still doesn’t work as it should “this stupid bucket”.
By ideological change, I mean approximately that a computer for a user and a computer for a developer must be fundamentally different things and correspond to real needs, not hypothetical ones. Due to the narrowing of the audience of users of the software and hardware on which it will work, based on this principle, it is possible to significantly reduce the number of problems. Developer professional machines are essentially the PCs that exist at the moment. Domestic computers are still found only in the form of game consoles, various gadgets and built-in equipment. Although they have simple interfaces, they are usually sharpened strictly for certain tasks. As for office computers, “simple” computers that have enough (but not unnecessarily) wide capabilities, combined with a low level of complexity for the user, in my opinion, are not there yet.
There is, of course, Apple, which makes ideologically correct computers at the moment, but its products are not very common. And the migration of a real organization to a new platform is generally in most cases a utopian idea that can bring very large costs. The transition should be smooth, not intermittent. And not based on the change of the entire fleet of equipment, but on the evolution of software. Only then can we talk about the possible materialization of such an idea.
PS: In conclusion, just in case, I emphasize that technical illiteracy and unwillingness to think with your head are fundamentally different things. The first of them in some cases can be justified by lack of interest and unwillingness to spend time on someone else's work. The second - almost never can be justified.
However, a technically illiterate user in many cases may not be to blame for his conscious ignorance. Of course, this does not apply to those cases when it comes to professional issues. Everyone should understand his field of issues well, but outside of it is not at all necessary. The reluctance of users to delve into the essence of the problems is often fully justified by the fact that they don’t need these problems with their essence. The device of the operating system, the nuances of fine-tuning some kind of hardware or installing software are not interesting information for them. In the same way as for an average boom, detailed instructions for growing dill in the middle lane may not be interesting.
When the user may need to type text, it can be entered into a deep stupor by MS Word about whether or not to include macros in the document being opened. When he wants to “look at the pictures” on the Internet, he may not have a clue what a non-Russian word is - browser. And why are some strange people with a fiery gaze saying that some Firefox is correct, and Internet Explorer is not (by the way, ~ 70% of the non-technical specialties I have seen are not even able to repeat these words). Well, when the user wants to have emoticons in ICQ, he doesn’t have a business, that it’s not ICQ, but Miranda, which is better for a number of abstruse reasons, and which needs a special plugin (yes, ICQ and the plugin are also often incomprehensible :)).
')
User problems do not lie in the plane in which computer technology operates. And for this reason they speak in different languages, which constantly causes bewilderment on both sides. The reason for this is the complexity of the software and hardware architecture and interfaces. When buying a computer, an “average” user gets a super-fancy mega-device, while he wants a home appliance. Simple as TV or iron. For someone who is not inclined to be interested in technical delights, computer requirements are often the same as household appliances. Iron buy such a well-ironed. And the computer - so that the toys worked and the windows were beautiful. But not at all, in which there is, for example, a video card with 512 Mb DDR3 on board, and two DVI interfaces that work without any problems in Windows Vista.
However, due to computer complexity and, often, the propensity for software and hardware glitches, it can be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve effective work without an understanding of technical details. And until the situation with the architecture and ideology of building computer equipment is radically corrected, the caliper will regard users as moral monsters. And users will continue to successfully maintain their dubious image and, most unpleasantly, have all the same everyday problems with misunderstanding, why it still doesn’t work as it should “this stupid bucket”.
By ideological change, I mean approximately that a computer for a user and a computer for a developer must be fundamentally different things and correspond to real needs, not hypothetical ones. Due to the narrowing of the audience of users of the software and hardware on which it will work, based on this principle, it is possible to significantly reduce the number of problems. Developer professional machines are essentially the PCs that exist at the moment. Domestic computers are still found only in the form of game consoles, various gadgets and built-in equipment. Although they have simple interfaces, they are usually sharpened strictly for certain tasks. As for office computers, “simple” computers that have enough (but not unnecessarily) wide capabilities, combined with a low level of complexity for the user, in my opinion, are not there yet.
There is, of course, Apple, which makes ideologically correct computers at the moment, but its products are not very common. And the migration of a real organization to a new platform is generally in most cases a utopian idea that can bring very large costs. The transition should be smooth, not intermittent. And not based on the change of the entire fleet of equipment, but on the evolution of software. Only then can we talk about the possible materialization of such an idea.
PS: In conclusion, just in case, I emphasize that technical illiteracy and unwillingness to think with your head are fundamentally different things. The first of them in some cases can be justified by lack of interest and unwillingness to spend time on someone else's work. The second - almost never can be justified.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/8037/
All Articles