Regular readers of develop may know that, while I always use the latest hardware and
software at work, my home system is woefully out of date -- at least it was until I
recently upgraded to a Power Mac. The initial setup wasn't too hard, once I got used to
flipping back and forth between the manual for the computer, the manual for the
monitor, and the online updates; when all else failed, I relied on common sense. But
when I moved beyond hardware setup into software installation, it seemed as if I was
expected to know much more than I did. The modem software installer, for example,
would just name a software module and say "click OK if you want to install this," with
no mention of which module(s) provided the basic modem capabilities (which is all I
wanted). What to do? I recently had this same feeling while trying to learn a new
e-mail application at work: though I immediately saw how to address mail to anyone on
any network in the known world with barely a keystroke, I couldn't tell how to simply
enter an address for someone here at Apple. In these and many similar cases I've
encountered recently, I couldn't figure out how to perform basic application functions
without the intervention of an experienced user. The manuals and online help were
somewhat helpful, but they were limited by the design of the software, which was the
problem in the first place. Common sense was no help at all.
Naturally I griped about this to my " friends in the industry." I think one of them hit
the nail on the head when he said the problem is that too many products are being
designed by experts who, consciously or not, design for experts. Designing with
experts in mind ends up complicating everything, even the features that should be sim
- ple. Bud Tribble, when he managed the software group at NeXT, used to tell
programmers, "Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be
possible." It seems increasingly true these days that designers are trying to make
complex things simple, but as a result are making simple things complex. Design by
experts for experts is not the answer: developers need to find out what real users
want, and focus on their needs.
Is develop guilty of a similar problem? When I looked at the feedback we gathered at
Apple's Worldwide Developers Conference this year, I noticed that some develop
readers are asking for more entry-level articles, saying that a lot of what we publish
is over their heads. While we're limited by what types of articles are submitted to us
for publication, the develop Review Board does get to say which ones are accepted or
not, and the Board is largely made up of "expert" programmers. Do we consequently
tend to decide in favor of the more advanced articles? We'll keep an eye out for this
from now on.
I often recall the days when Steve Jobs envisioned that the Macintosh would be as easy
to use as a home appliance. Sure, we don't want to go back to that first oversimplified
product, but maybe we should all ponder whether we've gone a bit too far in the
opposite direction. I'd like to believe there' s still a place for common sense.
CAROLINE ROSE (crose@apple.com) has been a Mac enthusiast ever since she started
writing the original Inside Macintosh in 1982. After a reorganization that suddenly
changed the entire managerial hierarchy above her (up to and including Steve Jobs),
she left Apple, but like so many other formerly disgruntled employees, she eventually
returned. This year, again, a reorg happened that changed the entire managerial
hierarchy above Caroline. At least there's some stability in her home life, where her
cat Cleo remains the boss after 15 long years. *