'Intuitive' software applications?

[Geoff Hart <ghart -at- videotron -dot- ca>]

Beth Bethell wonders: <<... whether 'intuitive' software applications 
actually exist, and discussing the implications for documentation of 
such systems.>>

There is no such thing as an intuitive application or device: there are 
only various degrees of "easier to understand" and "what the heck were 
they thinking/drinking when they designed this?"

<<I'd be grateful for your input on what you understand by 'intuitive' 
software applications, whether you think they exist, and whether users 
and tech writers/ developers have different understanding of the term 
'intuitive'.>>

There are two main criteria for whether something is truly intuitive: 
First, whether you can use it without advance training or the need to 
consult documentation. Just about nothing more complicated than 
breathing is intuitive in this sense, and meditators, actors, and 
athletes will tell you that there's much to learn and nothing simple 
about even breathing.

Second, does the product behave the way you would expect it to behave? 
Unfortunately, every single human has a slightly or radically different 
set of learned expectations. Some people have learned the innards of 
their computers and software and gleefully approach any new computing 
task because they have enough context to bull their way through any 
problem; others have learned that computers are intimidating and 
unpredictable, and fear even the computing tasks they've already 
performed.

So is "intuitiveness" possible? Yes, but never as an absolute solution. 
You'll always have a range of user experiences, from success to 
failure, and the goal is to bias the distribution heavily towards the 
success end. You'll never entirely eliminate the failure end of the 
distribution, but with some thought you can minimize it. To make 
something fall into the "easier to understand" part of the spectrum:

Use the computer to do what it's good at: replacing or supplementing 
human memory, and performing rote or complicated tasks that we humans 
have difficulty performing. "Wizards" are examples of how the computer 
can supplement human memory by presenting all the necessary steps so 
the humans don't have to remember them and provide embedded assistance 
to help with each step; step by step instructions (e.g., well-designed 
forms) do the same.

Insist that the product follow learned expectations. The Windows 
convention for copy and paste is Control-C followed by Control-V; an 
intuitive application will build on this learned convention to help 
users copy and paste rather than using Control-M for "make a copy" and 
Control-P for paste. If the audience reads from left to right, the flow 
of information should proceed in that direction: context first, 
followed by decision in that context (e.g., Name: ______). Where 
standard conventions contradict this flow, follow the contradictory 
convention, such as placing a checkbox to the left of the text rather 
than to the right.

And so on. You'll never achieve the holy grail of perfect 
intuitiveness, but you can go a long way towards achieving it if you 
understand these two principles.

--Geoff Hart   ghart -at- videotron -dot- ca
(try geoffhart -at- mac -dot- com if you don't get a reply)


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

ROBOHELP X5: Featuring Word 2003 support, Content Management, Multi-Author
support, PDF and XML support and much more!
TRY IT TODAY at http://www.macromedia.com/go/techwrl

WEBWORKS FINALDRAFT: New! Document review system for Word and FrameMaker
authors. Automatic browser-based drafts with unlimited reviewers. Full
online discussions -- no Web server needed! http://www.webworks.com/techwr-l 

---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archiver -at- techwr-l -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.