If not hyperlinked, at least copyable!

Got this error below (see image for the URL I'm talking about). The take away is this: If you're going to provide a link, make it a hyperlink. I most likely have an Internet connection, since I downloaded the app to begin with. And you're all ready assuming I'm Internet savvy by providing a link to begin with.

If you can't make it a hyperlink... than at the very least, make it copyable so I can paste into a browser!

Installation software on Windows

Sorry for no pictures, I admit to being a bit lazy when it comes to trying to get screen shots on Windows. So words will have to do. I was attempting to install the Windows 7 Developer Tool RTW (from here: http://www.microsoft.com/download/en/details.aspx?displaylang=en&id=13890). Shortly after launching the downloaded file, the install software came up with a message informing me that Zune was still running, and that it could not continue on with it still running. My options? Exit Setup or Print. Why in the world would I want to do either? What I really want to do is exit Zune (or allow the installer to do it for me), and continue on. If you, dear reader, happen to be someone who would feel compelled to Print such dialog box, please let me know what your rational would be, because I simply don't see it.

(still waiting for the 385MB file to continue downloading)

Generally, the install process for most applications on Windows is pretty straight forward. Accept the license, pick a place to put it, decide if you want the startup or desktop icons and maybe one or two other things (this still way too many steps for my taste, considering all could be put on one page, or better, simply ignored. Mac does a great job at this). The model for closing blocking applications that are sharing resources is clear: let the user know, but don't force a restart of their workflow. So why is Microsoft, the big, bad company they are, breaking not only with convention, but with uncommon sense? Engineers doing the work of designers, I surmise.

Hiding things

In the Google account within the Contacts app on Android (more specifically, Motorola Droid Razr), you can select which contact groups you want to show on your phone. Fantastic, I said. Now I can only show those people who are truly relevant to me and ignore all the rest who, while important for historical purposes, clutter up my search when looking for a friend I want to call for lunch.

There are some problems with this. The one I am about to describe comes from an attempt to add a young lady's number into my phone.

I did. I entered it. Name, phone number, e-mail, even some notes. "Save," I pressed. And she was nowhere to be found. Did it again, just in case I hit "Cancel" (which, I did, btw, on this second attempt, forcing me to make a third attempt.

I went into GMail to compose a mail and when I began to type her name, voila!, her name came up. Twice, to be precise. She was obviously in contacts, but yet no form of search could find her.

It dawned on me. I had restricted my contact groups. I looked, and sure enough, when I turned on "My Contacts" (or was it "Other Contacts?" I don't know; I click lots of check marks), my lady friend's name showed up.

Moral of this story is, when designing a record system, provide a reasonable default that takes into account the user's current settings. I should have been able to at the very least select a default. Or perhaps better, Google should have auto-created (as it does with Starred Favorites) and "Added via Phone" group. That way, you know where your new contact came from.

I think the UCSD Online Learning expects you to have problems with logging in... hence "Forgot your password?" is the first thing they present to the user. Well, sure enough, I had forgotten my password (as I'm prone to do when I first create a new account or return to an account that's been inactive for years), so I had to click on the "Forgot your password?" link.

Which brought me to this monstrosity: 

Seriously? They need to give me instructions on how to change my password because they've set it up so it's basically unfathomable at first glace? The red arrows and big red slash circle should be the first sign to a designer that there is a fundamental flaw in the user interface and the designer should go back and re-evaluate.

Next and Previous Blog Links

This is from the bottom of the blog for my favorite web comic: http://www.schlockmercenary.com/. And this is the way it should be done, with up and down arrows.

This is from the oh-so-familiar blog software, Blogger.com... which I use very often. It's not a bad interface, but why is the one with the arrows better than the one without?

 

It is because of how we read, which is from top to bottom and left to right. If we want to continue to read, we could scan downwards, especially in a website. Now, in many cases, clicking on older/newer will open a new page with a block of posts, so technically there is no "up" or "down" since, after all, you're starting again at the top, no matter what. But imagine the continuous flow. It always leads older text to newer text in a top to bottom manner. The arrows offer an intuitive affordance. 

That all said, the newer versus older paradigm isn't bad; at least the wording tells you what you're going to be looking at. But the side (left or right) that the link is on gives no particular affordance, at least not an intuitive one. We read from left to right... so "newer" -- that is, first to be read -- text would come first and "older" would come later. I'm not very comfortable with that l argument. The back button on your browser points left and takes you back to what you previously visited, so it might as well as say "older" on the left as opposed to the right. And adding left/right arrows (which I've seen on some sites) doesn't add much value either. However, up and down arrows work great. If I want to continue reading the blog, I am naturally inclined to draw my eyes down the page, eventually seeing the down pointing arrow, encouraging me to explore further, even if I don't read the label of "Previous." It's just a better affordance.