Re: [WSG] [OT] users - IT literate?
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 8:13 AM, Elizabeth Spiegel < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The challenge for us as designers/builders is to build sites for the way > people really use the internet, not the way we wish they did! Excellently put. :) -- - Matthew *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] [OT] users - IT literate?
Hi all I can't agree that it's generational: a couple of years ago I was involve in user testing for a site aimed at young people - 18 to 25 years old; daily internet users. A number weren't aware of the convention that a corporate logo in the top left corner of the screen is almost always a home page link; one who complained of the size of the text wasn't aware of the fact that she could re-size it (of course it doesn't help that so many sites make this more difficult than necessary). For most tasks, most people look for a solution that one of my management texts called 'satisficing': rather than keep looking for the best solution, they stop when they get to one that is good enough. When I was in IT training, I would often lean over someone's shoulder and say 'why don't you do it this way?' - some people would then change their practices but many wouldn't - it was easier to keep doing whatever it was the way they were used to. The challenge for us as designers/builders is to build sites for the way people really use the internet, not the way we wish they did! At the same time I'd like to think we take every opportunity to educate them - to let them know that there are easier/better/more efficient ways of doing things. Elizabeth Spiegel Web editing 0409 986 158 GPO Box 729, Hobart TAS 7001 www.spiegelweb.com.au -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Lecoat Sent: Friday, 16 May 2008 8:27 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] [OT] users - IT literate? On 16 May 2008, at 06:50, Matthew Pennell wrote: > In my experience, a large proportion of computer/web users struggle > to understand online concepts that we expert users take for granted. > Many regular surfers have no idea how to interact with a scroll bar > - and there are lots of people who don't know how the address bar of > their browser works! Matthew, my experience tallies with yours. At least half of the people I work with (I mean clients, not co-workers) are not very IT-savvy at all. It brings to mind the Blackadder line: "I am one of these people who are quite happy to wear cotton, but have no idea how it works." In some extreme cases this seems to extend to an almost willful ignorance, as if they feel that learning how to operate their computer would somehow diminish them. It is certainly true that the older the client the more likely this seems to be -- although I would certainly not generalise too much as I know plenty of completely computer- literate 'silver surfers'. I find it frustrating when they stubbornly refuse to learn what the most basic controls are on their browser, but unless it has a negative impact on the project I generally ignore it. In any case the evidence would suggest that it is a generational thing, and that should come as no surprise. As someone born at the back end of the 60s, I can understand it, because I personally find the more leading edge web technologies hard to keep up with - much more so than, say, people 15 years my junior who live and breathe that stuff. It's a matter of degree, I guess. People absorb information at a fundamental level early in their lives, and I think that beyond a certain age they stop absorbing it quite so easily and have to work at *learning* it. That includes information about current technology. If a new technology comes out when you're in your 40s it's probably going to be harder for you to pick it up than for your 16 year old nephew. The old chestnut about adults having to get their kids to programme the VCR for them are clichés, sure, but based on a lot of truth. -- Rick Lecoat *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] [OT] users - IT literate?
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 10:29 AM, James Ellis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > the point is > that any good user interface has multiple pathways to the same end result. In > the scrollbar case we can use: > * the keyboard > * the scroll wheel > * the scrollbar drag > * the scrollbar buttons > * any other device that can trigger a scroll event... > > In that instance, who is to say that what someone else does is wrong? Mr. user interface himself Jef Raskin contradicts this point in "the Humane Interface" and I would tend to agree. Having too many ways to do something increases the amount of mental burden. Having an interface like this is asking the user to learn all the different ways to accomplish something. And then once they've done that, they must decide what is the best way, each time they do it. Any good user interface has precisely one way to get something done- the best way (and this is measurable objectively, contrary to what you imply), and discards all the other ways. Then you only have to learn ONE thing for that task, develop it into a habit, and it becomes a subconscious gesture. Having a zillion ways to do something is a Microsoftian philosophy that you can see in MS Windows, MS Excel and MS Word through and through. Using any of those products gives me a headache, I must say. As for why people use google instead of an address bar? Because that's what you do for everything! In order to use it you only have to learn to do that one thing, rather than learning: 1. If it's a word or phrase use google, and 2. What a URL looks like, recognising when it's valid, and deciding to put it into the address bar. Option 2 requires expertise most people don't have, and don't want to bother learning- and it puts a burden on them to make a decision, which increases stress levels. The penalty for getting it wrong is that it doesn't work! wheras the penalty from using google is so soft that most people don't even notice the 4 extra seconds they spend clicking a link. So I can see quite clearly why people would tend to use the nicer, more user friendly function, that works every time, rather than risk the address bar for the vague promise of maybe being a little faster. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] [OT] users - IT literate?
On Fri, 16 May 2008 14:01:01 +0100 (BST), Stuart Foulstone wrote: > > But that's not because lots of people don't know how to use the address bar, > its > because MOST PEOPLE find it easier to type partial URL's into Google rather > than typing > the whole URL into the address bar - plus if you make a slight error you get > prompted > for the correction rather than just told it doesn't exist. > > Experienced IT literate people do this too. > Personally, for an address like http://www.example.com/ I just type the "example" bit, hold down the Ctrl key, and press enter. Works in most browsers. But then, I have worked with computers daily for almost 50 years. (This last comment to counter the "age" arguments.) Cordially, David -- *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] [OT] users - IT literate?
Hi Reading through all the replies on this topic is quite interesting. The one thing that you can be sure about in web work of any kind is (aside from taxes) that users will interact with an interface in ways we never dreamed of - using their fridge, a keyboard, a mobile, the "wrong" address bar and possibly even a fair degreee of shouting, among others. Whether these are minor or major differences the end goal is: that the user can use an application and reach there intended goal with the minimum of fuss. Take the scrollbar point - I learnt this while I was watching my father-in-law, who has just learnt how to use Gmail and Skype. When he wants to scroll a page he goes and finds the up or down button and clicks repeatedly on it. For some of us this might seem inefficient but the point is that any good user interface has multiple pathways to the same end result. In the scrollbar case we can use: * the keyboard * the scroll wheel * the scrollbar drag * the scrollbar buttons * any other device that can trigger a scroll event... In that instance, who is to say that what someone else does is wrong? The only time something is classically "wrong" is when the user cannot control the interface in the way they want (user or interface is wrong) OR when they do control the interface in a normal fashion for the day and the interface fails to handle that interaction (interface is wrong). Note that the user should control the interface, not the other way round, and when something does go wrong then a user should be able to back out and try again easily. Examples like typing in an address into the google bar or the multitude of ways that one can upload an image to Flickr fall under the same banner. The discussion about "willful ignorance" may not be because the person is confronted by interacting with machine but because they have tried in the past and something has scared them off. I worked with someone many years back whose bug reporting system was "the widga-ma-doo is not working". Most people, given enough time, will get the basics. Some people won't - just as I won't probably understand heart surgery. It's all relative. Stepping back for a moment, you can see how all these examples can fall under the "Web2.0" (i dislike that term) way of doing things - which to paraphrase Jeff Veen is, among others, about "Openness, not control". Use-more interfaces are the ones general enough to be controlled in ways that we as the developers may not have thought about - with a user getting the end results they wished. An icon is an interface that is useful - it responds to clicks, keyboard controls and can optionally be configured. Do icons in your web pages respond to that interaction? most do not. Use-less interfaces are those which attempt to control the user interaction to a point where it may be impossible to continue. If I took the scroll buttons away from (or moved them) my father-in-law would probably get very frustrated with "Email". A message saying "Do not click the back button" is another use-less interface. If you need to supply that message then your application is not working correctly. Period. An even simpler one is "Hit Ctrl+Q to quit the application" - a simple enough action for English keyboards - but apply that logic to a Slovene audience who have neither a key spelt "Ctrl" or a "Q" character on their keyboard and you end up with useless interface - especially if that is the only interaction allowed. Finally, if people using your apps are happy then they will use them even more - even if they use them in ways you didn't design - then you have a use-more interface and isn't that a good thing ? Thanks james On Fri, 16 May 2008 08:26:45 pm Rick Lecoat wrote: > On 16 May 2008, at 06:50, Matthew Pennell wrote: > > In my experience, a large proportion of computer/web users struggle > > to understand online concepts that we expert users take for granted. > > Many regular surfers have no idea how to interact with a scroll bar > > - and there are lots of people who don't know how the address bar of > > their browser works! > > Matthew, my experience tallies with yours. At least half of the people > I work with (I mean clients, not co-workers) are not very IT-savvy at > all. It brings to mind the Blackadder line: "I am one of these people > who are quite happy > to wear cotton, but have no idea how it works." > > In some extreme cases this seems to extend to an almost willful > ignorance, as if they feel that learning how to operate their computer > would somehow diminish them. It is certainly true that the older the > client the more likely this seems to be -- although I would certainly > not generalise too much as I know plenty of completely computer- > literate 'silver surfers'. I find it frustrating when they stubbornly > refuse to learn what the most basic controls are on their browser, but > unless it has a negative impact on the project I general
Re: [WSG] [OT] users - IT literate?
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 2:01 PM, Stuart Foulstone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > its because MOST PEOPLE find it easier to type partial URL's into > Google rather than typing the whole URL into the address bar And which user research are you basing your PROCLAMATION on? -- - Matthew *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] [OT] users - IT literate?
Have to disagree with you there - just because some people do it for a good reason doesn't mean that the illiterate aren't. Certain people that I know, type the full, exact URL for a site into the Google search box in the middle of the page, wait for the results to load, then click the first link - don't even use the 'I'm Feeling Lucky' button - I can't begin to list the number of ways that process could be improved on, but it is generally taken as a personal insult if I tell that person they are being stupid (even when I try my hardest to sugar-coat it.) It only takes a second or two longer, so what is the point in learning something different? Regards, Mike >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stuart Foulstone >Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 2:01 PM >To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org >Subject: Re: [WSG] [OT] users - IT literate? > > >But that's not because lots of people don't know how to use >the address bar, its because MOST PEOPLE find it easier to >type partial URL's into Google rather than typing the whole >URL into the address bar - plus if you make a slight error you >get prompted for the correction rather than just told it doesn't exist. > >Experienced IT literate people do this too. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] [OT] users - IT literate?
But that's not because lots of people don't know how to use the address bar, its because MOST PEOPLE find it easier to type partial URL's into Google rather than typing the whole URL into the address bar - plus if you make a slight error you get prompted for the correction rather than just told it doesn't exist. Experienced IT literate people do this too. On Fri, May 16, 2008 6:50 am, Matthew Pennell wrote: > ... and there are lots of people who don't know how the > address bar of their browser works! (Look at Google's top searches, they > are all URLs - people use that rather than type in the address bar.) > > -- > > - Matthew > > > *** > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] [OT] users - IT literate?
On 16 May 2008, at 06:50, Matthew Pennell wrote: In my experience, a large proportion of computer/web users struggle to understand online concepts that we expert users take for granted. Many regular surfers have no idea how to interact with a scroll bar - and there are lots of people who don't know how the address bar of their browser works! Matthew, my experience tallies with yours. At least half of the people I work with (I mean clients, not co-workers) are not very IT-savvy at all. It brings to mind the Blackadder line: "I am one of these people who are quite happy to wear cotton, but have no idea how it works." In some extreme cases this seems to extend to an almost willful ignorance, as if they feel that learning how to operate their computer would somehow diminish them. It is certainly true that the older the client the more likely this seems to be -- although I would certainly not generalise too much as I know plenty of completely computer- literate 'silver surfers'. I find it frustrating when they stubbornly refuse to learn what the most basic controls are on their browser, but unless it has a negative impact on the project I generally ignore it. In any case the evidence would suggest that it is a generational thing, and that should come as no surprise. As someone born at the back end of the 60s, I can understand it, because I personally find the more leading edge web technologies hard to keep up with - much more so than, say, people 15 years my junior who live and breathe that stuff. It's a matter of degree, I guess. People absorb information at a fundamental level early in their lives, and I think that beyond a certain age they stop absorbing it quite so easily and have to work at *learning* it. That includes information about current technology. If a new technology comes out when you're in your 40s it's probably going to be harder for you to pick it up than for your 16 year old nephew. The old chestnut about adults having to get their kids to programme the VCR for them are clichés, sure, but based on a lot of truth. -- Rick Lecoat *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] [OT] users - IT literate?
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 7:01 PM, Michael Horowitz < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > However when it comes to literacy most people using websites are computer > competent or they wouldn't be surfing the web in the first place. > Sorry, but that's complete speculation. In my experience, a large proportion of computer/web users struggle to understand online concepts that we expert users take for granted. Many regular surfers have no idea how to interact with a scroll bar - and there are lots of people who don't know how the address bar of their browser works! (Look at Google's top searches, they are all URLs - people use that rather than type in the address bar.) -- - Matthew *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] [OT] users - IT literate?
It sounds like your user has a virus. However when it comes to literacy most people using websites are computer competent or they wouldn't be surfing the web in the first place. Over time more and more people will be computer savvy and the current generation grew up with the web as a normal part of their culture and their education. Michael Horowitz Your Computer Consultant http://yourcomputerconsultant.com 561-394-9079 Designer wrote: I have doing a site for someone for a few years now. He recently requested a few minor changes whilst he was at my office, so I did them whilst he was present, and he approved. Today he wrote to me from his home: "The changes you made to my website are not showing at this end. Do I need to access a different website address or access it anew perhaps ? Also, I've just realised why my photos are missing: there's an unwanted "tool bar" blocking access to them." The page he refers to has one composite image at the top. No flash, dead simple html. Deary me - I've no idea what he means! N.B. This is, actually, on-topic because it indicates just how ignorant some users are - many in my experience - and it flies in the face of those members of this list who believe that most users know about the 'back button' (to give one example). Just off in search of my revolver . . . Bob *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
