MORE READERS WHO SAY 'RIGHT ON!' OR 'HOLD ON!'
Technology columnist Stephen H. Wildstrom asked for readers to respond, and respond they did. Several hundred comments flooded his E-mailbox in response to "A Computer User's Manifesto" (Technology & You, Sept. 28, 1998), which proposes the adoption of IBM researcher Clare-Marie Karat's Computer User's Bill of Rights. To supplement the letters printed in the October 19, 1998, issue of Business Week, here's a much larger sampling (but still just a fraction of the total) of what readers had to say, on both sides of the issue.
I'm a retired U.S. Air Force Officer and have been a computer user for less than a year. During this 10-month lifetime, I have cried to an Internet service provider tech-support helper, been dumped by my ISP for making more than 40 help calls, and watched money run through my fingers like sand while paying for technicians to fix my problems. I've made endless mistakes, cursed the day I ever bought this contraption, and feel like a circus fat lady that was forced through the eye of a needle. I've fantasized about your User's Bill of Rights and congratulate you for a perfect credo.
Joe Kuehn
Salem, Ore.
Hooray for Karat. I am tired of being treated like it's all my fault and having vendors blame each other. I am fed up with meaningless error messages that seem to pop up randomly. I am fed up with compatibility issues -- for hardware and software that is claimed to be compatible -- which surface out of nowhere. And I am fed up with making the AT&T shareholders wealthy while waiting on hold (always long distance) for tech support. I am pretty savvy with hardware and software. And still it's a continual struggle to accomplish things.
Rick Cunnington
The User's Bill of Rights addresses my own pet peeves -- poor documentation and not-so-supportive (and expensive) user support. However, I do have an issue with the first item: The user is always right. The question is which user? If a particular software application has thousands of users, they will have different views on how the system should behave. Although it's nice for interfaces to be customizable, it's also expensive. Are these users who want their software to behave a certain way willing to pay for it, knowing that they will also have to pay for it to behave the way other users want?
Item 10, "Products should be natural and intuitive to use," comes closer to the mark, although again we need to recognize that what is intuitive for one user may not be intuitive for another.
There's a techno-social contract here: Software companies need to do sufficiently broad usability testing to assure fairly general ease of use. Users need to be willing to learn how to use the system (with the aid of complete and readable documentation and good support).
Chuck Chace
Reading Wildstrom's article, I thought back to the original commercials for Nissan's Infinity line of luxury automobiles. The ad said nothing about what was under the hood. There were no performance statistics, no mention of engine size. The emphasis was on the experience of driving an Infinity. Indeed, even the most recent ad extols the virtues of a well-placed cup holder. The advertisers recognized that there are many drivers who do not care what is under the hood or how fast it can go from 0 to 60 mph. Infinity aims straight for the drivers who want nothing more than a car that will start and drive comfortably down the road every time they turn the key.
This is what manufacturers and engineers have to realize: Only when PCs operate intuitively, with a minimum of technical savvy required, will they become as ubiquitous as the automobile. Let's hope that Karat succeeds in her efforts.
Frank Roso
Arlington, Tex.
As one who lives on the bleeding edge of technical communication, I am thrilled to see signs of unrest among users and even more thrilled to find that unrest receiving such high-level attention.
My company has a team of information designers and writers. We specialize in "translating" between engineers and the real world. We recognize that some technology companies will never care about whether people understand their products. We no longer try to convert them. In fact, we avoid them. But sometimes we find like-minded clients who believe people should not just buy their products, they should use them. And we rejoice in the experience of designing and writing for such clients and their customers.
Susan DuMond, PhD
Partner, Northern Connections
Can any vendor produce a product that can ensure Karat's points? I seriously doubt it. Software is developed by technical people who can only provide what has been requested. Users have the right to a wonderful system that does everything they want, but they rarely know how to describe what they need. Human beings are indecisive creatures, and when they see one function on a screen, all of a sudden they want something else. How can anyone possibly please 100 people who want the same program 100 different ways?
There has to be some common-sense precepts on both sides of the fence, not just on the part of software and hardware companies, even though I would agree work is seriously needed in the technical industries. Using this Bill of Rights is a set of goals to strive for; however, probably much more difficult to achieve.
Edmund L. Thralls Jr.
Atlanta, Ga.
As a writer in the software industry, I was amused by your use of "the user." You write about the user as if this was one person. Users are as diverse as their fingerprints. After 15 years in this industry, I know one absolute truth: No matter what you do to explain to the user how something works, you will have someone who can't understand and someone who complains.
With this diversity, I can also say that no one will ever be able to write software that's completely intuitive. We do not live in a Babylon 5 world where we can easily use our human skills on a Mimbari computer. We live in a world where there are different users with different ways of looking at things. Until we live in a truly homogeneous world (heaven forbid), developers are going to continue to do our best to please most of the users most of the time.
Betsy Shoolbred
Enterprise Computer Systems
Making technology idiot-proof is truly the next big revolution in the computer industry. Then, the half of all U.S. households currently holding back from computer purchases will be more likely to embrace this generation of products. A windfall awaits whoever gets there first, and I believe it won't be IBM, Apple, or Microsoft, but a convergence of all that now exists into that which will be.
Karat doesn't make known what platform or what software she uses. And it doesn't matter. What matters is understanding that convergence is an idea whose time has come, and the User's Bill of Rights hits a home run in that direction.
Glen Alden
Ormond Beach, FL
Amen! I depend greatly on a computer, but I also need to use my company's information technology experts regularly for troubleshooting. In fact, my midsize employer pays at least six people handsome full-time wages to do nothing but keep the technology going. This same company has a highly sophisticated telephone system, a heating/air-conditioning system, and a fire detection/alarm system -- none of which need full-time maintenance. Consider for a moment the savings for businesses worldwide if computers were as reliable as they should be.
Kay Hughes
I agree with Karat. However, as a computer implementer, designer, and analyst, there must also be a Designer's Bill of Rights:
1. The designer will be provided a set of requirements that do not change over time.
2. In cases where No. 1 is not possible, timelines must be allowed to slip as requirements change.
3. Developers have the right to expect that the user act reasonably and not ask for solutions to problems they cannot explain.
4. Developers have the right to charge for their efforts.
5. Per No. 4, accept the User's Bill of Rights will increase the cost of software.
I have worked with users who know what they want, or at least are willing to discuss what they might want. And I have worked with users who have no idea what they want or need but know they need something because, "Heck, I have computer. It should do something for me."
Doug Weglarz
Your article certainly hit home. I am a 3D graphics modeler and have worked in the visual simulation industry for more than 20 years. Although I am not a software or hardware engineer, I am computer literate. I thought it was just me who thought that software and hardware were designed for engineers. Karat is absolutely correct. But I don't think she goes far enough. Some new points:
11. Upgrading the operating system should not render currently installed software obsolete or nonfunctional.
12. Standardize cables for cryin' out loud!
13. Optimize software applications to take up less memory. Memory may be getting cheaper, but software is definitely bloating at a faster rate.
Bill Preskar
MultiGen Inc.
Your 10 rights were good, but I was surprised you did not include the right to uninstall a program without damaging debris of programs being left to occupy hard-disk capacity (at best) and to interfere with and damage other software (at worse). If a person ordered and installed a refrigerator in the kitchen, discovered that it cooled only fitfully, and had the manufacturer remove it -- and later discovered that the installer had added an electrical switch in a distant room, which remained after removal -- the damage to the would-be customer would be recognized by most courts. But such situations take place every day with software. Any software that is not as easily and completely uninstalled as it was installed should be labeled defective at the point of original sale.
Brian McPhillips
While reading the Manifesto, I pictured the masses of computer users nodding their heads in enthusiastic agreement. My reaction: a definite no. Karat views computers as something they are not: one-size-fits-all, out-of-the-box solutions. It is this expectancy on the part of a majority of users that, in my opinion, makes computers unreliable and frustrating.
When a user has a task, he or she buys the software that is expected to accomplish the task, and expects an instant solution. What a user rarely considers is that millions of other users, each with a slightly different task in mind, have rushed to the stores to purchase the same software. The designer did his best to accommodate all the users, creating a monstrous application that no one user will fully utilize and that the designer is himself unable to fully understand. The software is full of bugs, and it frustrates users who call tech support, forcing the company to introduce code patches that are even less understood than the original code. In the worst case, the process escalates until the company is forced out of business. In the best case, the bugs go undetected until the software outlives its usefulness. Neither case is acceptable.
Am I a programmer? Only by hobby. I expect the same from each user. Everyone should realize that it's the demands for "user friendliness" that are escalating this complexity in the first place. Demand less from software and more from yourself.
Maciek Kozyrczak,
Los Altos, Calif.
I am one of those horrible software designers. I am also aware of the problems we create when we design software (and hardware) and don't think about the user. Although I have always requested to know about user's requirements prior to any design, but middle and top managers diminish that kind of thinking, commenting that "they know better what the user wants." The truth is: They don't know users' desires -- or about the tools that exist.
I agree that users must have rights. But as long as top management has the power to say go or stop with what they think people need, it will be difficult to obtain these rights.
Miguelangel Alcazar
Mexico
What backs up the rights? What penalty is there for violating any of these rights? Do you expect users to rise up and boycott the company? Won't happen. If you follow any Net newsgroups, you can see that no matter how many complain about an issue, there are an equal number who claim they don't have any problems. There are so many users and software is sold so cheaply, that a manufacturer can afford to piss off tens of thousands of users without penalty. There's no way to ensure responsibility. And responsibility is something that everyone strives to avoid in the 1990s.
J.W.
As a 72-year-old retired CPA, I have been using a PC for about five years. In that period, I have seen some great improvements in ease of use. Nevertheless, in the past six weeks, as I struggled unsuccessfully to install and use Win 98, it is clear a long road lies ahead. I have incurred more than $70 in long-distance charges to speak to Microsoft engineers, only to find I am between two conflicting parties, Microsoft and the utility software providers, each pointing at the other. Worse, these experts have lead me to erase my C:drive, install Win 98 three times, buy upgrades that later I am told need patches, and then am told to disable them to avoid conflicts. I have seen the "You have performed an illegal operation" message at least 50 times, yet never have I been informed as to what I need to do to avoid performing the illegal act.
The vaunted Plug and Play has been unable to identify my scanner. And the song goes on.
Jim Shriver
I have just finished a months-long effort to get Gateway to replace my Mother's monitor. This thing has been bad since she got the system a year and a half ago. She is 75 and cannot do technical battle with the tech-support folks at Gateway, so I volunteered to intervene. It seemed that every time they talked to her, they told her it was not the monitor, rather it was AOL's software, or Windows, or the video card that was causing the colors to be off -- all the time.
I work with PCs all day, and I can speak the language. So no confusing misdirects when I talk to them. This is quite different from my Mom's calls: After hours on the phone, she was left confused and felt like she'd been finagled again. After three calls from me and after performing some diagnostics over the phone, they finally agreed to replace the monitor. I am convinced that if they were dealing with my Mom, they would still be trying to push the problem back on her. It's a shame that you have to know so much to get what's rightfully yours in this world of corporate bottom lines.
I recommended Gateway to my Mother because I heard so many good things about its customer service. I'd have to say now that the company is not really set up to handle folks who don't know what's inside that box. I should have told her to buy a Mac!
Mark Madrak
I was thrilled by your Bill of Rights. If manufacturers made this Manifesto the law, a computer revolution would take place. This is the only tool in the world in which it is hip to keep users at bay. (If my Black and Decker drill were this complex to use, I would have drilled a hole in my head!) However, I take umbrage at your "zing" at tech support. We do not write code or make the promise that "your grandmother could use it." We do our best to help you decipher the hieroglyphics and fix your broken dreams.
Bob Beaulieu
A few months ago, I bought a PC as a present to myself for my 75th birthday. Before retiring, I was a managing executive for a major corporation. I thought I was up to the challenge: I opened boxes, hooked up wires, and took the manuals as study tools. No senior-citizen classes for me. Where was the Bill of Rights when I was taking a graduate course in frustration and possible nervous breakdown?
At first when going for tech support, I thought I was dumb, then I started to catch on. It was the support people who needed more help than I. Posing the same questions three, four, or five times, as a test of the "techies," they came up with different answers.
Your article filled me with hope. If you get through to the hardware, software, and tech-support people that normal everyday folks are real people who can think and do, just be fair to us. We've grown from caveman days to exploring the moon, and with the Bill of Rights, we mere mortals will even be able to master PCs.
S.H.
Your Manifesto touched a raw nerve. I am a one-man consulting business, operating from my home. I use word processing, spreadsheet, database, E-mail, and two graphics programs. I am now on my fourth PC, a Pentium. At least two-thirds of the installations I've done -- primarily hardware upgrades such as additional memory, i/o cards, modem cards, Zip drive, and most recently, a CD re-writable drive -- have not worked without multiple calls to tech support. I have more than once been near tears at 2 a.m., because a project was due the next day, I could not install or modify some device or software needed to complete the work quickly, and tech support was closed.
I thought IBM or some other large company was bringing out a two-way communication technology that would allow tech-support operators to search the caller's computer, diagnose the problem, and suggest -- or if necessary -- transmit a fix on the spot. I would pay for that, just for the time it would save. Technical problems, no matter how small, stop work output until they are resolved. Unlike large businesses that have on-site tech support, most small businesses either sit on hold for tech support -- with all the problems your article mentioned -- or wait a few days for a visit from a local tech support provider. If Web sites can put cookies on my PC to learn how I use it, why haven't hardware and software manufacturers developed some similar technology to reach out and touch me when I'm in need?
I agree that manufacturers have not acknowledged the difference between the technically sophisticated early adopters of computer products, and the rapidly expanding market of nontechnical users. This is a barrier to true user friendliness. However, as long as companies seek brand differentiation instead of industry standardization, users will suffer through time-wasting incompatibilities.
I hate it when tech-support people [imply] that if I really want my computer to work, I should spend more time learning about it. I spend my time learning how to service my clients better. I buy high tech sparingly because I can't spend as much time currently required for mastery. When the computer industry makes its products easier to use, I'll buy more.
Frank C. Walker Jr.
I am reminded of a quote from H.L. Mencken, "For every complex question there is a simple answer... and it is wrong". I am president of a software company that sells enterprise-wide systems for running distribution companies with hundreds of users. I agree with many of the concepts expressed in the Bill of Rights, but they are an oversimplification of a complex problem. Executives who create unreasonable budgets and buy the cheapest products are often surprised to find they did not get the best software and services for their company.
People who buy software often want to buy a Lexus for the price of a Saturn, because they do not understand what they are getting. They buy the Saturn, because it has four wheels and an engine, then wonder why is doesn't drive and perform like the Lexus their neighbor has. I refer back to the quote. Simple answers are easy to write on a blackboard, now try and deal with the real world.
Barry Christian
President, IBS-US
Why must we hold tenaciously to the tenet that computers and software must be as easy to use as toasters? That's absurd! Computing is complex. Toasting bread is simple. Most people do not understand computing. That's O.K. The problem is that they do not understand what to do when something goes wrong. Insisting that hardware and software never fail for any reason and that the user has no responsibility for anything is not justifiable.
Consider the automobile. Most people do not understand the internal combustion engine. That's O.K., too. They must get a license to operate the system, and when things go wrong, they are accustomed to taking it to a shop for repair.
Let's promote the same concept for computing. Instead of trying to force the round peg of complexity into the square hole of simplicity, let the market dictate what the user will buy. My simple advice: Save the box!
Howard Bromberg
San Francisco, Calif.
I am an engineer-turned-programmer (32 years experience in program design, coding, software and system test, documentation, tech support, system installation, and technical leadership of other programmers), and I admit that most program interfaces could be improved. But Karat is oversimplifying the solution. Count me among the ones who got a laugh.
R. Bruce McCallum
Given the broadness of the charter, the problem of mixed suppliers comes into question. If my computer crashes, whose fault is it? The PC supplier? The OS supplier? The application software supplier? If you look at a computer and all its hardware and software components, it would make Heath Robins' contorted creations seem like products of top-quality engineering and design. There are so many components from so many suppliers that a failure in one component (such as a poorly written video driver software) may well cause the failure to appear in another (say, MS Word). In this scenario, I blame Microsoft, while the main problem is the video driver software writer.
I believe that computing technology is at a stage in evolution similar to that of the car in the very early part of the century -- they were complex and only really suitable for the technologically savvy. Computing has a lot of evolution to go yet before this changes, if it ever does.
Dave Murphy
England
I have been writing a technical document using Microsoft Word for a couple of months. This is just a simple ordinary document. It does use color graphics, but so did Gutenberg's bible. One of my problems is that Word keeps crashing. I have derived a formula for the average number of crashes per hour:
C = exp(c * P) - 1
Where P is the number of pages in the document, and c is an empirical constant, for my document that's about 0.007.
You'll see that editing a 100-page document produces about one crash per hour. Crashes are not the only problems: Word has the habit of scattering pictures to the four winds. A mop-up operation usually finds them somewhere else in the document, but occasionally a picture enters warp space.
Once I found that Word had replaced all my bitmap pictures with large red cross-outs, like some futuristic censor. I had to cut and paste them back from an earlier version. Then I had to abandon the whole file because Word got a memory fault every time I tried to save the document. This is not an attack on Microsoft. More often than not, most software does not work right.
What's the problem? The same reason your supermarket does not sell moldy potatoes. Is it because the owner is an honest, upstanding citizen? Because the law forbids the sale of moldy potatoes? Because the supermarket offers a Bill of Rights? No.
Your supermarket does not sell moldy potatoes because people don't buy moldy potatoes. If people did, then your supermarket would carry nothing else. I personally think that the gnomes buying the moldy potatoes have mostly been corporate purchasing agents. They have done a lot of damage over the years to the industry, to ordinary computer users, and certainly to themselves.
Harry Ohlson
Vancouver, Wash.
I am in information technology and have been saying for years that technical people have arrogant, condescending attitudes toward the end user, which is bad for the growth of the industry. They need to understand that unless people feel comfortable using technology, they will always be reluctant to use it.
Such a state of affairs will not last much longer, though, with or without a Bill of Rights, thanks to free enterprise. Where there is a demand for a product, the demand will be satisfied by the market. Soon appliances will begin to take the place of the PC and the user will be able to compute without the customary headaches. I relish the advent of this looming change. Technology is supposed to help us, not make us want to slit our wrists in frustration.
Patrick Rohan
I found your column pretty funny. The idea that an IBM researcher has developed a Bill of Rights is hilarious enough. But your suggestion that the computer industry, which portrays itself as the last bastion of ruggedly individual companies, should agree to follow such a tenet had me rolling in the floor.
Then I read your statement: "The industry first has to change its way of thinking and then has to redesign products from the bottom up, with ease of use as the No. 1 priority." That's when I got the feeling that your whole column was some sort of extended joke. You know that the computer designed with the user as its top priority has been on the market for 14 years. It's Apple's Macintosh. It was also the computer that the marketplace soundly rejected because a computer that easy to use had to be a wimpy toy.
Will any current computer company go as far out on a limb as Apple when it created the Mac, just in the name of making an easy-to-use computer? Maybe, if and when some market researcher finds conclusive evidence that people who are not computer owners today will buy a computer that's easy to use. Most people who buy computers do so because they have a need that only a computer can satisfy. For most, computers are easy enough to use. No matter how much we complain.
Barry House
Chatham, Ill.
You are absolutely right. I'm in the computer industry and feel we have done an abysmal job making software easy to use. In fact, it is embarrassing. I'm fluent in DOS, Windows 95, and Apple systems. Only Apple and its Mac operating system approach the intuitive simplicity you describe. Nothing from Microsoft comes close. I've got both a Mac and a laptop with Windows 97. I've given up trying to install anything on a Windows machine. That's what help desks are for!
Marc Liebman
Loved the article. Sign us up. Unfortunately, it probably won't fly in an industry that is dominated with the likes of Bill Gates. Computers can be very helpful, but they are often difficult for average folks to operate. We have to take days of classes and seminars to learn new programs for our company -- even for the user-friendly Mac computers. Although I'm not for more government regulation, some standardization in the computer industry would be helpful to consumers. Techies need to wake up and realize that they need to be more aware of consumers' everyday needs. Good luck convincing them of this.
Luckily for us we have a great part-time computer consultant who is able to interpret much of the techno-speak.
Suzanne L. Penegor
As a software developer, I couldn't agree more with your assessment about the lack of user-friendly software. There was a system introduced over a decade ago that tried to address the exact problems you've mentioned -- it was the Macintosh. Its user interface is far superior to anything Windows has, with much of the same functionality.
If Apple had won the PC war, there is no doubt that it would've continued down the path of making the computer an appliance. Instead, 10 years later, the Windows systems we're all using barely approach the Macintosh in terms of ease of use. Apparently, most users didn't think enough of the ease-of-use factor and bought Wintel computers instead of Macs. This is a free market. If users think that ease of use is important, they should put their money where their mouths are and buy Macs.
Andy Hsiung
Santa Monica, Calif.
I agree 100%. We are moving from computers that cost thousands of dollars to those costing hundreds of dollars. The computer industry is fooling itself into thinking this will open the market to the masses. They have missed the point: The masses right now do not possess the educational background to be able to read complicated instructions and follow them! The most important thing manufacturers can do is simplify.
I run Office 97. This program is complicated, cumbersome, and takes up a lot of megabytes. Worse, it has bugs, doesn't install correctly, and crashes. The fix, of course, is on the Internet. All you need to do is download it from the Microsoft Web site. Simple? Ha.
First you must have a modem. Buy one, install it, install software, configure it, find an ISP, choose the ISP, download the browser software (figure out how to download first), install software, figure out how to use the browser, find microsoft.com, find the patch, download the patch, open the patch, oh, it is zipped, need a zip program, find a site -- all to fix a program that has way too many features that neither I nor 90% of the public will ever use!
As you can see it is absolutely ridiculous how we expect people to function. Instead of adding hundreds of features, software companies should concentrate on making their programs simple to use.
Wonder who the next Microsoft will be? The company that strips away all of the BS Microsoft has added to its programs and instead provides a simple, useful, stable program, including Internet access
and the most common utilities.
Apple's iMac seems close to this, but if you want to make a lot of money, copy the concept for PCs.
Robby Gaines
Karat's Bill of Rights is misdirected and naive. No doubt she found her first experience of driving a car "natural and intuitive." Part of my business is getting new users started in the computing world. A user's positive computing experiences are directly proportionate to the time they invest in learning the system and software. Nearly all software and hardware comes with manuals, detailed help files, demos, and/or tutorials that generally are ignored. Any tech-support person can quote an amusing "Is it plugged in?" story, underscoring the source of the problem. Although there are instances of complete befuddlement to the most technically able, the fact is users are rarely right. It shouldn't take a PhD to understand that a few hours initially invested in learning about the computer and its software will make subsequent products intuitively usable.
Paul Roger
Frankly, I had a hard time getting past point No. 1. Is "the user is always right" a clarifying principle that will cause all the confusion relating to interfaces to drop away? Is it possible that Karat is using the same hyperbole that software marketer's use when they hawk products?
Organizations in the past have used this motto to counteract the assumption that the customer is stupid. However, software development is not a service industry. It is an immature science where some areas, like interface development, are more like art than science. Would you expect any artist after being told "just paint something everyone will like," to produce better art?
"The user is always right" gives the software designer no help in
developing better products. Is the customer right when he tries to use the product for something that it was never intended? Should the vendor recode the interface to satisfy the whim of every user?
My observation is that software designers are motivated by professional pride (and greed) to do a good job. The fact that they fail is due to the difficulty of the task and the ruthless pace of innovation that crushes anyone who tries to win with quality.
I hope Karat is just trying to generate a little energy on the subject. My fear is that she lives in a self-generated reality distortion field that allows her to believe that platitudes like "products should be natural and intuitive to use" can somehow help designers correct their errors. From Wildstrom's statement that "the first point is the key to all," I wonder if he, too, might be suffering from a little distortion.
Vance Harwood
I do not agree with the notion that the user is always right. Sure, there are times when it is the software or hardware that causes problems. But in my experience, 90% of the time the user either did not follow the instructions or didn't pay attention to error messages. I realize that computers are supposed to be easy to understand and operate, but the reality is that computers are complicated machines. Although most software and hardware designers do have the end user in mind, there is no way they can create products with every user in mind.
Learning to use a computer requires the user to be open to change. I admit that technology changes too fast. But the bottom line is, that's the reality of using a computer.
Rodney Sohngen
It's great to offer Rights for users, but with rights come responsibilities. Users have some duties as well:
1. Read the manual
2. Stay calm
3. Return registration cards and reader-response cards
4. Practice often
5. Constantly upgrade
6. Read the manual
7. Know your system
8. Backup data
9. Scan the disk and defrag it often
10. Network with smart friends
The most important thing to do is to get involved: Sign up to be a beta tester. Send comments to customer service. If you can repeat an error, log it and send it in. If the interface drives you crazy, tell someone.
It is the job of the computer industry to listen, to work harder, to be less intimidating, and to be smarter about making systems that are downright user-seductive. We can't get there without feedback.
Garret Romaine
Beaverton, OR
I've been a software developer for close to 15 years, and the manifesto hits close to home. But let's not paint the user blameless. The industry is not always the one at fault.
We can't possibly anticipate the irrational actions and attitudes that a user might have, and we don't have the technology to, cost-effectively, idiot-proof every piece of software, yet. People used to get broken arms while cranking their cars 70 years ago, because the crank would occasionally kick back. I'd say that's a lot more user-hostile than an arcane error message on a computer monitor. But cars eventually got smarter. Computer technology will get that way as well.
Computers are too hard to use. I have stories that would frighten linebackers and lumberjacks. But the company that decides to make user friendliness a reality is going to make a fortune, and the rest of the industry is going to trip over itself trying to emulate it.
Whil Hentzen
A User's Bill of Rights sounds appealing. But without a means of enforcement, it would be ineffective. The industry would probably give it plenty of lip service, but as for providing better service, you have amply illustrated the industry's attitude about this.
Instead, how about an Ombudsman's office -- funded by the industry and accountable to an independent body? The better the industry's product, the fewer the complaints, the lower the costs of operating the Ombudsman's office.
John Hanlon
I applaud Karat's efforts! However, I would go further by advocating laws to punish the software industry for its standard practice of releasing products full of "bugs." The term "bug" is used as a catch-all phrase to describe and make light of manufacturers' lack of understanding of the user, poor design, poor quality control, and lack of responsibility. Their standard method of dealing with complaints is to say it will be fixed in the next version (which you have to pay for). I believe that software companies should be required to fix all bugs in their products at no charge to the consumer for five years. If not, they should refund the consumer. This would be similar to the "lemon laws" for automobiles in California.
S. Jordan
Adopting such a Manifesto is not enough. It is important to develop power -- to pressure the techies, to put a number of the issues on the agenda for market leaders like Microsoft, and to break their arrogance. Take the millennium problem. Instead of admitting that is has been an enormous lack of responsibility, the techies push the responsibility on the users. "You are a bad manager or entrepreneur if you are not dealing with the millennium problem in your company."
That is a crime. Users need pressure and probably a number of legal cases to shift the balance of power.
Jan Lantink
The Netherlands
Interesting idea. Here's why it won't work:
There are two types of programmers: those that design low-level software that interacts with hardware and other software, and those that design software that humans interact with.
The first group designs device drivers, server-to-server communication tools, operating system code that deals with network connections -- the kinds of things that are reliable in how they will work because the interaction is between two controllable things.
The second group of programmers design the products we work with: the User Interface (UI). Although the first group may design the way Microsoft Word displays text on a page, the second group designs the buttons, dialog boxes, and programming routines that allow us to tell the software what text format we want and what error messages we see.
The first group has a much easier job because the variety of responses that it needs to program is limited. And they already know how the other side (the other computer part) is going to react. The second group, the UI programmer, has a much harder job, because every human is different. Who knows when someone will try to choose a font style and, at the same time, hit a key to print? Or try to quit without saving -- or try to quit while saving? The UI programmer needs to think of all of these variables.
Now, guess which programmer has more respect in the industry? Which job pays more? It's the first group! The computer industry puts more value on those people, and that's why UIs and user manuals are such a mess! The industry doesn't care about the high-level programmers -- the ones whose work we see at every move -- as much as the ones that do the stuff that is always predictable and much easier to do.
That is the problem and why things will never change until that weird reversal of programmer's status is changed.
Rahm Tamir
Karat's concept has one basic flaw: It fails to recognize that computer manufacturers and publishers have found their help lines to be an excellent source of income. They have a vested interest in not making products easy or intuitive to use. As competition has driven hardware and software prices to rock bottom, free help has dried up. Microsoft stands out among developers by still offering free product support, though the user pays the phone bill. Regardless, I believe a Bill of Rights is desperately needed.
Bill Steinbicker
Minnetonka, Minn.
Your Manifesto struck a chord with me. Here are some points:
1. All machines should be easy to use.
2. Not all machines are (or ever will be or ever should be) easy to use.
3. Users are not always right.
4. Hardware and software companies could do better to make things easier.
In a dream world, I should be able to pick up any machine and use it. However, I cannot operate a lathe, a crane, or a Boeing 747 without some training. Even the automobile requires some training (which pedal is the gas, brake, and clutch and how are each used -- especially in combination with each other).
I do not foresee the day that personal computers, as multifunction workstations, will get appreciably easier. Single-purpose computers will become easier, because they will do one job very well, possibly contributing without the user ever even knowing there's a computer involved. However, multipurpose computers will become more complex. They do more stuff.
That said, computer manufacturers could better document their systems and error messages. The problem: The potential set of error messages is at times so extensive that it's not possible to ensure things will work in every case. Although error-free software is possible, the costs are staggering. Not only can most software companies not afford that code, but neither can most consumers. Consumers want software for less than $200 and want to have it be perfect. Not going to happen. You can't have it both ways. If it's that cheap, it'll have bugs. Guaranteed.
Mark Mathias
Users could easily get all of the things on that list -- if they don't mind paying about 100 times more for software than what they pay now and if they don't mind waiting 5 to 10 years for that software to come out.
Sorry, but reality has to intrude on this fantasy Bill of Rights. Consumers get what they pay for. When consumers feel that they can afford to wait and pay more for better software, they'll get better software.
So you want a program that always does what you want it to do? Simple, hire a programmer, or a team of them. But be prepared to spend a lot of money doing so.
Brad Elmore
I'm in favor of the industry adopting Karat's Bill of Rights. However, it's hard to believe that the computer industry will ever redesign products with the current work force. Generally, designers design for other designers. Geeks for geeks. Take Microsoft -- employer of the brightest minds in America. Unless that company rethinks how it hires, we'll never get easy software and tech support.
My solution? More dummies in Redmond. I'll volunteer to be the first recruit. I'm your basic middle-age computer user. I use my machine mostly for word processing and basic spreadsheet programs. Microsoft should hire 10 of us dummies -- young, old, funny, sad -- and put us in the tool shed on campus. They could even hurl verbal abuse at us for scoring less than 1,590 on the SATs.
Seriously, computer design for the rest of us will begin when they start hiring the rest of us.
Bill Kelly Jr.
Return to main story
| 
