Re: The Myth of Seven, Plus or Minus Two

["Chuck Martin" <cm -at- writeforyou -dot- com>]

"Goober Writer" <gooberwriter -at- yahoo -dot- com> wrote in message
news:221693 -at- techwr-l -dot-  -dot-  -dot- 
>
> > > But you assume that by designing for the majority
> > that
> > > you are giving the majority what they want, which
> > is
> > > never (or hardly ever) the case.
> > >
> >
> > Why not?
>
> You don't design a product with what people want in
> mind. You design a product with a solution to a
> problem in mind. What people want and what people need
> are two completely different concepts, and should
> never, ever, tango together.

No, designing for "solutions" isn't the right approach either.

Good design means understanding user goals--and those goals usually have
nothing to do with the use of the product. Good design means users reach
their goals without pain, without difficulty. Good design leaves users
satisfied, not frustrated.

>
> For example, and I'm theorizing here ONLY...
>
> For years now, a slight majority of FrameMaker users
> have WANTED multiple undo. Adobe has not provided it.
> My guess as to why is that there is too much
> processing overhead (not to mention programming time)
> in putting in a multiple undo feature. This would
> result in compromised speed when using FM with, say, 8
> changes in the current session's history. So, users
> WANT multiple undo, but they don't NEED a decrease in
> performance.

With the capability of today's computers--or even yesterday's--there is
absolutely no reason why this feature cannot be implemented. Doing it right,
doing it so that performance is "compromised" minimally (if at all), takes
work.

Question is, how to FrameMaker users work? Do they commonly go back and undo
manually some task thet they just completed? And if so, do they even notice
it consciously, or are they so used to working that way that the concept of
"undo" doens't occur to them when they are asked what new features they want
in the product? I don't know the answer, but it can't come from user
surveys.

>
> Also, take Word. It certainly wasn't designed with
> what most users WANT in mind. How many people who use
> Word WANT section breaks, outlining features, and
> such? The NEED for these features was not to satisfy
> the majority, but to give a minority of power-users
> additional functionality to do their jobs better.

Word in itself was designed to meet the needs of many different types of
users. User-facing features in the out-of-the box package, however, aren't
there to meet many common needs, but to make it easy for sales to show off
cool whiz-bang features. Fortunately, Word can be (relatively) easily
customized to give easy access to the features *you* need to do *your*
work--whoever you are and whatever your work.


-- 
--
Chuck Martin
User Assistance & Experience Engineer
twriter "at" sonic "dot" net          www.writeforyou.com

"I see in your eyes the same fear that would take the heart of me. The day
may come when the courage of Men fail, when we forsake our friends and break
all bonds of fellowship. But it is not this day! This day, we fight!"
                    - Aragorn

"All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given you."
                    - Gandalf



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

ROBOHELP FOR FRAMEMAKER TRIAL NOW AVAILABLE!

RoboHelp for FrameMaker is a NEW online publishing tool for FrameMaker that
lets you easily single-source content to online Help, intranet, and Web.  
The interface is designed for FrameMaker users, so there is little or no
learning curve and no macro language required! Call 800-718-4407 for 
competitive pricing or download a trial at: http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l4

---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot-  Visit
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.