the shit i put up with

[solarbird]

From the housemush:

solarbird opens IE to check version number for annathepiper and try to repro a bug and within a minute hates it all over again, just like the very first time.

solarbird goes to SeattleTimes.com to look at a webpage. Gets a dialogue from IE asking if I noticed the navigation bar. Yeah, that's what I wanted. Clicks "never bother me with this crap again" and dismisses it. Clicks on a story link. Gets a popunder, because of no popup blocking in IE 6. Closes it. Finally looks at the story. Closes IE. Discovers IE opened MSN Messenger Client for no fucking reason at all. Exits that. Gets a SYSTRAY BALOON POPUP saying no, it's not going to exit it, it's going to hide it in the system tray so that I can continue to receive IMs, even though I wasn't even fucking logged in, and couldn't, even if that's what I'd wanted to do. Forces that to exit.

solarbird looks around the desktop, waiting to see what else happens. ** Am I done now? **

---

(Added almost immediately after posting)
I do actually have a point here. This should have been a five-step action. Launch IE; paste in a URL; hit ENTER; click on a link; close IE. There should have been two information interactions, both of which being the pages on the site I wanted to see. Instead, I had fifteen steps: Launch IE; paste in a URL; hit ENTER; get distracted by something totally irrelevant to my task; process the interruption; click on a checkbox; click a button; click a link; close the unwanted second window; close IE; discover MSN is launched; close MSN; get told fuck you, I know better; dismiss that; force exit. And instead of just having two web pages to process, I also had to process a dialogue I didn't care about, a popunder I didn't want, a second application launching I didn't want, that application arguing with me, and the system tray. Five extra things, for a total of seven, instead of the two that were actually related to my actual task.

Distractions and annoyances made the task either three times (15:5) or 3.5 times (7:2) as long as it should have been, depending upon how you count, and in either interpretation, distractions and annoyances overwhelmed the actual task.

This is wretched design. Not bad; wretched. And it's the kind of thing that drives me spare about Windows, because you get this all the time. In Word, after shutting down every "automatic" thing I can find, it still routinely (and not quite 100% consistently) takes four keystrokes to do <RETURN><TAB> equivalent, because it insists upon trying to guess what I want and getting it wrong. Twice as many keystrokes; the task is equaled by the chaff and interference. Add in that it doesn't quite always happen - sometimes the right thing happens - and you've got an extra process interruption which cuts my productivity a little bit more. Or take today's login to our print server to change its power-savings settings; I didn't keep track of all the distractions, but it threw up desktop-cleanup suggestions (for my five icon desktop) twice from the systray while I was just trying to go to control panel and change two dropdowns. It also threw up some other systray annoyances that I didn't bother to examine further, because I just wanted to get done and log off.

From a task optimisation standpoint - from a design standpoint - this is all just hideous. I would like to hope that maybe, someday, Windows UI will start being designed, and that instead of shipping the peace treaty across six dozen warring PMs all clamouring to get your attention for their goddamn button, Microsoft will ship a presentation that just gets the hell out of the way and lets you do your job.

I mean, I know - absolutely know - that there are good UI people inside that company. Why don't we ever see their work?

Comments

[firni.livejournal.com]

I mean, I know - absolutely know - that there are good UI people inside that company. Why don't we ever see their work?

Because they're all on PIPs for not kissing enough management ass.

[drglam]

We get several help messages a week telling us that our beautiful genomic database does not work with IE7 (nor IE for Mac*). It did work for the immediately previous (to IE7) version of IE, which was current when we finished the launch of our majorly revamped website, but Microsoft made enough changes that our interface, compatible with EVERY OTHER browser does not work with it. (We actually warn users that we don't work IE7 or IE for Mac; IE users apparently don't read warnings...).

Yeah, we're cranky about it.

*We made an executive decision to not put precious developer hours needed elsewhere into supporting use of a browser that MS is no longer supporting.

[solarbird]

I'm astonished you still have IE for Mac users. I mean, damn.

[drglam]

We don't! If we get a Mac user complaining that FlyBase doesn't work under IE, we tell them (politely) to download a real browser.

[solarbird]

Well, you know, people trying.

[sistawendy.livejournal.com]

fuck you, I know better

That's MS's credo in a nutshell.

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

I don't mind IE 7 at all. It's a bit ugly, and inferior to Firefox in most respects, but it does the job. The only bit of the UI that I hate is the lack of integrated search for Web pages. That's dumb. I've never had any of the problems you seem to have.

ITunes, on the other hand? I hate it pretty much like you hate IE. It's pretty but doesn't do what I want the way I want it to.

[rmd.livejournal.com]

speaking of wacky design, here's a THUNDERBIRDS ARE GO CULTURE EQUIPMENT UPDATE.
http://thrillingwonder.blogspot.com/2007/02/ford-fab1-conceptcar.html

[quen-elf.livejournal.com]

My favourite Word-interference task recently is typing XML examples into a Word document. When you want to type ' as in version='1', the key sequence isn't ' - it's ' Ctrl-Z. :)

However, I admit I actually know how to turn this off and just don't because usually I do want the smart quotes... so maybe it's not a fair example. It's still kind of amusing while you're doing it though.

[quen-elf.livejournal.com]

just remembered another one which really is Word's fault... ARGH THE BULLETS! WHY does it sometimes decide that when you start a NEW bulleted list you now want it to have white instead of black bullets? Or that they should be indented by a random amount (that you probably can't change to the right one using the indent buttons). I went through another document where in order to start each bulleted list (and I use them a lot), I had to copy and paste a previous, working bulleted list and change all the text. Geh.

[solarbird]

Copy the hidden paragraph marker at the end of the line (from a correct list example), and paste it in. I think that should still work. (Well, it might not. My latest experience is Word X/2000.)

[dpawtows.livejournal.com]

I think it's a principle known as 'Adapt the task to the software", whereas most of us silly people think it should be the other way around.

[solarbird]

But no one would want to adopt the task to the software this way. Ever. It's not a matter of "doing this a different way that involves these things would make the task more efficient." These are pure distraction from the task. They're orthogonal to it.

[dpawtows.livejournal.com]

I've seen a worse case of such thinking with a non-Microsoft app:

- "Why is it so difficult to generate a report type XXXX?"
- "There is no need of that report; the online graphical interface is superior. We recive hundreds of requests like yours every year. These requests are, of course, ignored."
- "But that report must specifically be printed out and physically signed; it's FEDERAL LAW."
- "Now you're just stuck in a paper-based paradigm. Request denied. When will you people learn to stop asking?"