Although we shouldn’t have to, file size is something we all have to deal with on a regular basis – when using the computer that is. Especially now that rich media is so accessible – videos, audio, and pictures – all of which can quickly clog your inbox if you’re not careful.
So I thought today, why not have icons that show how big your file is by the size of the icon itself? So if you have a big file – like a movie – the icon would be really big. If the file was small, like a Word document, the icon would be smaller.
Average users have no concept of file size. They don’t need to and nothing helps them learn. What is 2,000Kb? Is that big? Is that small? Who knows…well, the nerds know, but most people don’t know, don’t care, and won’t learn even when you tell them. So make it easier for people.
Then within applications, such as e-mail clients, the attachment feature could provide you with limits using a visual clue. Say there is a box that is a certain size and that’s where you drag your attachment file – but the icon must fit inside the box. If your icon is too big for the box, then the file is too big to attach…or something like that – you get the idea.
With all the new “user friendly” things computers are trying these days, this seems like a simple idea that would be very effective.
I’m still supportive of having to pass a test and be licensed to use a computer.
While it’s a neat idea, it’s just more hand holding for users who probably shouldn’t be computing without supervision anyway.
G+
I don’t want people to need licenses (yet) because I think computers/software is still not obvious to people. If they took time to make things easy, obvious, simple, and clean, we wouldn’t have to worry about people using technology — just what they’re using it for.
I suppose… but is it really possible to do that and still retain the same capabilities of computers?
Computers can be made easier to use by taking away options and making decisions for the uses, but won’t that also reduce the flexibility and functionality of the system.
If I could just get my relatives to STOP OPENING ATTACHMENTS I’d be happy.
G+
Dude, that is an uphill battle that will only be won by taking away the option to open them.
Taking away options is a good thing, I think. Options and choices just make things more complex and provide people with a chance to mess things up.
And you assume that everyone wants the computer to be flexible…not necessarily so. I would argue most people just want it to work – no bells or whistles needed. Just burn my CD for me. Just send my mail. Since we can’t rely on people to learn and think for themselves, we need to make things easier so thinking requires less energy. An icon that is too big to fit into a square is obvious and unbending, requiring people to change something.
I read recently in an article that we need to create situations because situations will get people to do things regardless of their personality, motive, etc…and that ended with a saying; “Nobody smokes in church, no matter how addicted.”
So…if we create situations within a computer program that “heavily suggest” to people what they can and can’t do – then we’ll all be ok…or at least that sounds good.
But won’t taking away options reduce overall functionality… or “power”?
G+
How much “power” do I need to check my e-mail and buy things on Amazon?
In fact, now thinking about it, e-commerce is a good example of something complex that is nicely handled on a computer. There are security layers, sockets, and all sorts of things that happen when you buy something on-line…and it just happens.
There is feedback so you know that it did happen (the lock icon), which is all you need. You don’t need to care why or how it happened, just that is has.
Much like a car, most people aren’t too interested in the horsepower, they just want to get from A to B safely, reliably, and quickly.
People want simple and that (can) be achieved by having less features — the trick is picking the features people want/need while still cutting the fat.
I guess I’m thinking of power differently.
If you compare Adobe Premiere to Adobe Premiere Elements (one costs $99 or so, the other about $800). Premiere is much more powerful than Premiere Elements, but it is also more difficult to use. The same could be said for Photoshop and Photoshop LE.
G+
I agree to an extend on what you are saying about removing some of the “power” people might have when running a computer but how can you determine what is not needed for the user and who decides that?
Research and observation will tell you what people want. Did someone ask you how you wanted the ATM designed? Or your microwave? No…and both have good things and bad things about how you experience them.
Sure, I’d like my ATM to spit out $5 bills but it doesn’t – so it’s not flexible enough for me, but it’s simplicity of use (and convenience) make up for that lack of features.
I feel if you really know your audience then you can make them a product that they will all want/need/use and be happy with. A product that hits that sweet spot in the bell curve of happiness.
A big problem is products try to reach too many people. The Catch-22 is that by giving people the choice to choose which “version” is best for them (see Windows) you’re making the decision-making process complex — before they even start using the product!
In the case of products like Big G’s Adobe reference, my question there is how much of the product do you use? I have Adobe Photoshop and it has probably a gazillion features included – I use probably 20 regularly. I would bet you a nickel that there is not one person out there that has used all of a software packages features…at least with things like Adobe, Office, etc. Solitaire’s features don’t count.
Why you don’t see simplicity more often: