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.

Input Fields v Multiple Choice

I'm looking into starting a local charity and so as part of my research, I came across 'Stayexempt.org', an IRS sponsored site that talks about how a charity can retain its tax-exempt status. After a very cheesy, yet informative, series of instructions, there is a quiz.

Take note that the answer field is simply an input form field. You can type anything in there. I happened to type 'Duck' for my answer to make this point.
As expected, my answer was wrong. It should have been 'substantial.' What if I had put in 'substntial' (missing the first 'a'?). The answer would still be wrong.


And that is because there is no constraint on what the input might be. A multiple choice answer would have been much better, allowing the user to at least have a clue as to what the answer might be, and then not getting frustrated (if you can get frustrated with such a simple game) by a simple typo.

But wait, you say, "Maybe the IRS wants to demonstrate that you need to know the answer by heart? And no hints allowed, other than through the question." I get the point. I think it's a stretch in any web-interface situation like this, but I get it. In that case, if it is that vital, the answer system should accommodate common spelling errors. Google does it all the time; as do auto-spell checkers in word processing apps.

In the case of this app, it wouldn't be too hard; there are only a few options total in the entire game and a quick check wouldn't detract from the interface anymore (than the interface detracts from itself; sorry, IRS web dev folks; you obviously weren't given a very big budget).

So recognize the errors that a human being might incur through mis-typing. Put constraints on options in order to reduce the amount of frustration your user will encounter because of simple spelling errors and the like.

Hidden Fields

This is a shot from PayPal's payment site. I was buying some tickets for an event and as I was attempting to tab through the fields, I realized I was unable to type for some reason. Notice the dotted lines above and below Address line 1. Those show up on the website, and at a guess, they highlight a hidden field. I had to tab again in order to get to the proper field, where things functioned properly.

This is more of an exercise in testing and quality assurance than it is a specific user interface issues. Obviously, this is not how the page should behave, but somehow PayPal's web team let it slide by and no one checked it. How does that happen, and more importantly, do they apply the same level of diligence to the rest of their site, say, when they're taking your credit card info?

(For the record, the problem didn't stop me from making my purchase; I use PayPal and trust them as well as any other reputable company (that is, with a grain salt). But when little things like this occur, it does make me question what else is or is not going on behind the scenes.)

Field Formatting Forgiveness

Here, while I was filling out a form a for a local college, I encountered this little problem. After having typed in my phone number (which is in a valid format for a US phone number), I got the error show above. "Please enter a valid US phone number XXX-XXX-XXXX".

This is an example of a failure to be forgiving to your users; asking them to guess (because there was no indication of the format before I entered the numbers) what the proper format is annoying. Other valid formats include: (XXX) XXX-XXX or XXX.XXX.XXX or even XXX/XXX-XXX.

Instead of making the user fill in a field to fit your expectations, allow them instead to put in any format they desire; check for the 10 digits needed to be a valid phone number and then have the system reformat. That way, you're not annoying your user and you can still get consistency in your data (and it's under your control).