Counter point. I had a customer call me back in the day when I was working tech support. Complained that his new computer wasn’t working. Plugged in, light goes on but the screen just stays blank. Turns out he only bought a monitor. Thought the guys at the store were trying to scam him into “buying two boxes” that he didn’t need. When I tried to explain he got mad saying I must be in on the scam.
Bonus points: when the call first connected his question was "why is my email not working?” Took a while to work that back to the actual issue.
Reminds me of the time this lady came in carrying the PC and the CRT monitor saying it didn’t work, I plugged it in, turned it on, the tower did all the right noises and lights, but the screen was black. I thought for a second, then reached for the brightness control and voila, there it was. The embarrassment of the poor lady!
I used be a computer technician at a small town computer shop around 2008-2011. More than half of our customers were over 60.
Sometimes I needed to take some tech support calls, and sometimes I needed to make house calls to troubleshoot the folks issues.
Literally every support call started with “Why doesn’t the email work?” while the actual problem ranged from ISP issues, and modem faults, PC faults, Windows configuration errors, to dead monitors or a broken mouse. Literally any computer fault could be described as a failure to access their email.
I used to blindly believe that but man, it’s just impossible sometimes. And I started thinking about how we don’t hold a lot of other industries to the same standards. It’s tough to think that the same person who can’t fill a basic online form is allowed to operate guns or heavy killer machines (cars) daily.
Another counterpoint: When you start implementing all that dummy proofing, you make the software more and more tedious to work with for people who know what they’re doing.
I think it’s quite obviously an issue that needs balance. Some software is meant to be seamless to get started with, so that users can get something done once in a while, some software is meant to be used long-term by professionals and requires productivity. And yet, many people jump on anything they don’t immediately understand as bad UX.
It’s literally impossible. I’ve seen programs ask three times to confirm a deletion, with big warnings, really emphasized. Saying it’s permanent all three times.
Then the fuckers contacted us at tech support and go all like “hurr durr I just deleted my project can I have it back”.
NO YOU LITTLE DIPSHIT YOU CANNOT. We did have backups though, most of the time (if it was recent) but it took well over a couple hours to properly restore, so we only did it if they asked nicely and behaved.
TL;DR People are stupid, no such thing as dump proofing. What needs to be done is hold people to higher standards and force to educate themselves or GTFO.
I feel like that anger should be directed at the people who made the software, not the people who use it.
The foolproof solution here is to… give people the option to restore what they deleted without contacting tech support. It’s obviously needed.
Nobody can expect anyone to read multiple warnings asking them if they’re really really sure whether they want to perform a reversible action they set out to do.
That’s a textbook example of a poor design that breeds more people desensitized to warnings.
What if we cannot afford the space of keeping everything backed uo forever? What if it has been a year? Where do we put the limits to “okay, this is stupid” and “this is perfectably reasonable”? What if the action cannot be reversed, and after deletion you need to anonimyze particularly sensitive data?
I say to all that, READ THE FUCKING MANUAL. If you are not apt enough to read and research about the software, you are not apt enough to use it.
Same with hardware. You cut your finger because you didnt follow instructions clearly laid out for you not to cut your finger when using a saw? Maybe sawing was not for you mate
What if we cannot afford the space of keeping everything backed uo forever?
You enforce a reasonable data retention policy, or charge for it.
What if it has been a year? Where do we put the limits to “okay, this is stupid” and “this is perfectably reasonable”?
If you fail to recover data for everyone, then the data retention is too low.
If you succeed to recover data for everyone, then the data retention is too high.
Pick a data retention policy that leans towards long enough that you can recover data for most people, or charge extra for it.
It’s not that complicated.
What if the action cannot be reversed,
Tech support can reverse the action in this case, so I don’t see how this is relevant.
[…], and after deletion you need to anonimyze particularly sensitive data?
Most software doesn’t process credit card transactions, so I don’t see how this is relevant. Even if they did, they probably have to keep the data around due to regulatory requirements.
I say to all that, READ THE FUCKING MANUAL. If you are not apt enough to read and research about the software, you are not apt enough to use it.
People should at least try to make usable software first, but manuals are fine.
Same with hardware. You cut your finger because you didnt follow instructions clearly laid out for you not to cut your finger when using a saw? Maybe sawing was not for you mate
Yeah, shit happens, assuming they receive proper training and the saw complies with safety standards.
Its just true. People become desensitized to warnings and ignore them. Putting three of them is an example of bad UX because at that point you need to do something else.
I’m sorry but people have to have a bare minimum of a awareness and understanding of the tools they use literally every day. I work in tech support, you have to stop cutting people slack at some point and make sure they understand it’s their fault.
Depends on how what dummy proof is. Not being able to shoot yourself in the foot and main line success case is easily navigable by people that are bad with tech is dummy proof to me. Not possible with all programs ofc.
“A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.” - Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Addams
“A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.” - Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Addams
Gut-driven design. People could conduct usability tests, but neither their “data-driven” management, marketing, design, nor the development department care about that since it’s only “worthless” “additional” workload. Nevermind that usability testing reveals valuable insights about the people the business is supposed to generate value for. Or that usability testing identifies flawed designs before developers write any protoype code, designers draw sketches, etc. Or that usability testing nullifies unnecessary meetings about hypothetical scenarios littered with incorrect assumptions about reality. Usability testing is undervalued.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)
Rules:
Posts must be relevant to programming, programmers, or computer science.
No NSFW content.
Jokes must be in good taste. No hate speech, bigotry, etc.
Shit take: If you dont make the UI dummy proof then its the programmers fault not the user
Counter point. I had a customer call me back in the day when I was working tech support. Complained that his new computer wasn’t working. Plugged in, light goes on but the screen just stays blank. Turns out he only bought a monitor. Thought the guys at the store were trying to scam him into “buying two boxes” that he didn’t need. When I tried to explain he got mad saying I must be in on the scam.
Bonus points: when the call first connected his question was "why is my email not working?” Took a while to work that back to the actual issue.
Reminds me of the time this lady came in carrying the PC and the CRT monitor saying it didn’t work, I plugged it in, turned it on, the tower did all the right noises and lights, but the screen was black. I thought for a second, then reached for the brightness control and voila, there it was. The embarrassment of the poor lady!
I used be a computer technician at a small town computer shop around 2008-2011. More than half of our customers were over 60.
Sometimes I needed to take some tech support calls, and sometimes I needed to make house calls to troubleshoot the folks issues.
Literally every support call started with “Why doesn’t the email work?” while the actual problem ranged from ISP issues, and modem faults, PC faults, Windows configuration errors, to dead monitors or a broken mouse. Literally any computer fault could be described as a failure to access their email.
Haha preach brother
I used to blindly believe that but man, it’s just impossible sometimes. And I started thinking about how we don’t hold a lot of other industries to the same standards. It’s tough to think that the same person who can’t fill a basic online form is allowed to operate guns or heavy killer machines (cars) daily.
Another counterpoint: When you start implementing all that dummy proofing, you make the software more and more tedious to work with for people who know what they’re doing.
I think it’s quite obviously an issue that needs balance. Some software is meant to be seamless to get started with, so that users can get something done once in a while, some software is meant to be used long-term by professionals and requires productivity. And yet, many people jump on anything they don’t immediately understand as bad UX.
It’s literally impossible. I’ve seen programs ask three times to confirm a deletion, with big warnings, really emphasized. Saying it’s permanent all three times.
Then the fuckers contacted us at tech support and go all like “hurr durr I just deleted my project can I have it back”.
NO YOU LITTLE DIPSHIT YOU CANNOT. We did have backups though, most of the time (if it was recent) but it took well over a couple hours to properly restore, so we only did it if they asked nicely and behaved.
TL;DR People are stupid, no such thing as dump proofing. What needs to be done is hold people to higher standards and force to educate themselves or GTFO.
I feel like that anger should be directed at the people who made the software, not the people who use it.
The foolproof solution here is to… give people the option to restore what they deleted without contacting tech support. It’s obviously needed.
Nobody can expect anyone to read multiple warnings asking them if they’re really really sure whether they want to perform a reversible action they set out to do.
That’s a textbook example of a poor design that breeds more people desensitized to warnings.
What if we cannot afford the space of keeping everything backed uo forever? What if it has been a year? Where do we put the limits to “okay, this is stupid” and “this is perfectably reasonable”? What if the action cannot be reversed, and after deletion you need to anonimyze particularly sensitive data?
I say to all that, READ THE FUCKING MANUAL. If you are not apt enough to read and research about the software, you are not apt enough to use it.
Same with hardware. You cut your finger because you didnt follow instructions clearly laid out for you not to cut your finger when using a saw? Maybe sawing was not for you mate
You enforce a reasonable data retention policy, or charge for it.
If you fail to recover data for everyone, then the data retention is too low. If you succeed to recover data for everyone, then the data retention is too high. Pick a data retention policy that leans towards long enough that you can recover data for most people, or charge extra for it. It’s not that complicated.
Tech support can reverse the action in this case, so I don’t see how this is relevant.
Most software doesn’t process credit card transactions, so I don’t see how this is relevant. Even if they did, they probably have to keep the data around due to regulatory requirements.
People should at least try to make usable software first, but manuals are fine.
Yeah, shit happens, assuming they receive proper training and the saw complies with safety standards.
Based on your last sentence, was that supposed to be sarcastic?
Its just true. People become desensitized to warnings and ignore them. Putting three of them is an example of bad UX because at that point you need to do something else.
I’m sorry but people have to have a bare minimum of a awareness and understanding of the tools they use literally every day. I work in tech support, you have to stop cutting people slack at some point and make sure they understand it’s their fault.
There is no wuch thing as “dummy proof”
Depends on how what dummy proof is. Not being able to shoot yourself in the foot and main line success case is easily navigable by people that are bad with tech is dummy proof to me. Not possible with all programs ofc.
When you make something idiot proof, the world will find better idiots.
“A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.” - Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Addams
“A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.” - Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Addams
Nah man, you dumb down the interface and the users get dumber to match :|
No, it’s obviously the (L)user’s fault! My command line interface is perfectly fine!
Gut-driven design. People could conduct usability tests, but neither their “data-driven” management, marketing, design, nor the development department care about that since it’s only “worthless” “additional” workload. Nevermind that usability testing reveals valuable insights about the people the business is supposed to generate value for. Or that usability testing identifies flawed designs before developers write any protoype code, designers draw sketches, etc. Or that usability testing nullifies unnecessary meetings about hypothetical scenarios littered with incorrect assumptions about reality. Usability testing is undervalued.