Software design
Major software developers have decided that complexity equals value.
In the eyes of the "first wave" PC users, this equation is probably valid.
However, most software developers have overlooked or been unable to
comprehend what it will take to win over the "second wave" of computer
users. Even supposedly user-friendly DOS shells, backup and windowing
programs are wide of the mark. They lack the ingredients necessary to
lure the reluctant computerists into the fold. Based on my observations,
I have concluded that there exists a huge market of people who would buy
and use computers if:
1. It's usefulness were more readily apparent,
2. If the learning curve were shorter, and if learning options
were provided to match the learning style of the user, and,
3. If the software were more personable, and fun to use.
This market includes (but is not limited to!) an incredible population
of middle-aged middle managers who did not grow up in the computer era, and
simply do not see a valuable tradeoff of their time sunk into learning a
spreadsheet with vague applications. It is a combination of fear, of
having to learn something new, and of being unable to envision the utility
of the computer.
There are two major reasons this market remains untapped. The first
reason has to do with the nature and personality of the people who have
brought the PC to prominence. They are tinkerers, puzzle-solvers, often
mathematically or logically inclined, fascinated with gadgets, not
intimidated by the thought of 10,000 lines of code, or arcane languages
which are as foreign as Arabic to most Americans. A person with this
nature is not primarily interested in how a thing looks, they are most
interested in what it does, how it works, how fast it does it. That
started to change with the Macintosh, and now with Windows 3.0, but it
still has not gone quite far enough.
The second reason has to do with the nature of the computer industry
and the people who manage computer organizations. In most large
companies, the fascination is always with the latest hardware - faster,
more storage, more MIPS... There seems to be a feeling that the software
and the actual activities to be performed on these bohemoths are secondary
to the importance of being the kid on your block with the biggest toy. As
as consequence, software development lags. Most major companies are still
patching COBOL spaghetti code written in the 50s and 60s. And again,
they don't much care what the user interface looks like. This phenomenon
is no less true at IBM than anywhere else. In fact, anyone who has
bought an IBM PC for home or office, knows they have long been neglected
in favor of the "real" computers - the mainframes.
The result has been an almost total lack of HUMAN-ORIENTED software
design. There is a certain machismo associated with the degree of
difficulty one must overcome, a red badge of courage for having learned
how to ASSEMBLE or C your way through a program. It is only the wimp
who would use a CASE tool or points at silly little pictures to get
something done. Yet it is this very attitude that has left open a market
for those of us who are perceptive enough, and sensitive enough to meet
the needs of those maligned non-users.
The software industry has a well-known voice leading the way down
the path toward what he calls "Good" software. Mitch Kapor, of Lotus fame,
believes good software has three qualities: firmness, commodity and
delight."
I am attempting a foray into the world of HUMAN-ORIENTED software
design. Unlike traditionalists, I do not believe software must be
complex to be useful. I believe, above all else, it must be immediately
useful and intuitive. The learning curve and style should be flexible
and adaptible by the user, to suit the users particular needs. And above
all, it must be fun.
I have created a program called IDEALIST which I am promoting as
shareware. This program was created using Matrix Layout. Layout embodies
the spirit of Human-Oriented software design, but it is still primarily a
programmer's tool. IDEALIST incorporates a Graphical User Interface, it is
personable, intuitive and, I think fun. It is purposely not complex and
simply focuses on capturing information a person might normally put on a
yellow sticky and then lose because it got stuck to the dog . The
software is an information manager. It can be used by anyone to store and
retrieve everyday information. Writers can capture plot lines,
photographers can categorize slides, entrepreneuers can catalog those
million-dollar making schemes. It is not a Dbase, nor is it intended to
be. No multi-tiered menus. No arcane programming languages. Just simple,
enjoyable utility. It is marketed as shareware because I believe in the
consumer-oriented idea behind shareware - you should have the chance to try
it before you buy it. I think this will appeal to the market I have
identified. It is an ethical, honorable way to market a product.
As flavorful sidelines, it includes a quote-of-the-day utility which
can be inspirational and fun. It also includes a small database of reviews
of leading edge books and software in the areas of creativity and business.
My intent with this software is to use it as a vehicle to reach out
to the neglected non-power users and to the person who even though PC-
literate, just needs a simple, purposeful tool. I want to get their
feedback about ways to improve the program and about their software needs
and wishlists in general. I hope to promote a dialog with other
programmers about this topic, because it is their keen technical skills
that will bring these software concepts to life. Kids shouldn't be the
only ones who get to enjoy a friendly screen. Future versions will include
voice-help and hypertext linking.
I am anxious to hear from users, programmers, consultants and others
who have an opinion on this subject. I will be discussing this issue
with Paul and Sarah Edwards, who host a nationally broadcast radio
program about "Working from Home" on the Business Radio Network, and invite
you to listen and call in. This network is probably carried by your local
affiliates that normally do "talk" or news formats. I will be on the
show on October 21, 1990 - it runs from 10:00-11:00 Eastern time. Please
phone in with your ideas!
- Michael R. Sleeter
In the eyes of the "first wave" PC users, this equation is probably valid.
However, most software developers have overlooked or been unable to
comprehend what it will take to win over the "second wave" of computer
users. Even supposedly user-friendly DOS shells, backup and windowing
programs are wide of the mark. They lack the ingredients necessary to
lure the reluctant computerists into the fold. Based on my observations,
I have concluded that there exists a huge market of people who would buy
and use computers if:
1. It's usefulness were more readily apparent,
2. If the learning curve were shorter, and if learning options
were provided to match the learning style of the user, and,
3. If the software were more personable, and fun to use.
This market includes (but is not limited to!) an incredible population
of middle-aged middle managers who did not grow up in the computer era, and
simply do not see a valuable tradeoff of their time sunk into learning a
spreadsheet with vague applications. It is a combination of fear, of
having to learn something new, and of being unable to envision the utility
of the computer.
There are two major reasons this market remains untapped. The first
reason has to do with the nature and personality of the people who have
brought the PC to prominence. They are tinkerers, puzzle-solvers, often
mathematically or logically inclined, fascinated with gadgets, not
intimidated by the thought of 10,000 lines of code, or arcane languages
which are as foreign as Arabic to most Americans. A person with this
nature is not primarily interested in how a thing looks, they are most
interested in what it does, how it works, how fast it does it. That
started to change with the Macintosh, and now with Windows 3.0, but it
still has not gone quite far enough.
The second reason has to do with the nature of the computer industry
and the people who manage computer organizations. In most large
companies, the fascination is always with the latest hardware - faster,
more storage, more MIPS... There seems to be a feeling that the software
and the actual activities to be performed on these bohemoths are secondary
to the importance of being the kid on your block with the biggest toy. As
as consequence, software development lags. Most major companies are still
patching COBOL spaghetti code written in the 50s and 60s. And again,
they don't much care what the user interface looks like. This phenomenon
is no less true at IBM than anywhere else. In fact, anyone who has
bought an IBM PC for home or office, knows they have long been neglected
in favor of the "real" computers - the mainframes.
The result has been an almost total lack of HUMAN-ORIENTED software
design. There is a certain machismo associated with the degree of
difficulty one must overcome, a red badge of courage for having learned
how to ASSEMBLE or C your way through a program. It is only the wimp
who would use a CASE tool or points at silly little pictures to get
something done. Yet it is this very attitude that has left open a market
for those of us who are perceptive enough, and sensitive enough to meet
the needs of those maligned non-users.
The software industry has a well-known voice leading the way down
the path toward what he calls "Good" software. Mitch Kapor, of Lotus fame,
believes good software has three qualities: firmness, commodity and
delight."
I am attempting a foray into the world of HUMAN-ORIENTED software
design. Unlike traditionalists, I do not believe software must be
complex to be useful. I believe, above all else, it must be immediately
useful and intuitive. The learning curve and style should be flexible
and adaptible by the user, to suit the users particular needs. And above
all, it must be fun.
I have created a program called IDEALIST which I am promoting as
shareware. This program was created using Matrix Layout. Layout embodies
the spirit of Human-Oriented software design, but it is still primarily a
programmer's tool. IDEALIST incorporates a Graphical User Interface, it is
personable, intuitive and, I think fun. It is purposely not complex and
simply focuses on capturing information a person might normally put on a
yellow sticky and then lose because it got stuck to the dog . The
software is an information manager. It can be used by anyone to store and
retrieve everyday information. Writers can capture plot lines,
photographers can categorize slides, entrepreneuers can catalog those
million-dollar making schemes. It is not a Dbase, nor is it intended to
be. No multi-tiered menus. No arcane programming languages. Just simple,
enjoyable utility. It is marketed as shareware because I believe in the
consumer-oriented idea behind shareware - you should have the chance to try
it before you buy it. I think this will appeal to the market I have
identified. It is an ethical, honorable way to market a product.
As flavorful sidelines, it includes a quote-of-the-day utility which
can be inspirational and fun. It also includes a small database of reviews
of leading edge books and software in the areas of creativity and business.
My intent with this software is to use it as a vehicle to reach out
to the neglected non-power users and to the person who even though PC-
literate, just needs a simple, purposeful tool. I want to get their
feedback about ways to improve the program and about their software needs
and wishlists in general. I hope to promote a dialog with other
programmers about this topic, because it is their keen technical skills
that will bring these software concepts to life. Kids shouldn't be the
only ones who get to enjoy a friendly screen. Future versions will include
voice-help and hypertext linking.
I am anxious to hear from users, programmers, consultants and others
who have an opinion on this subject. I will be discussing this issue
with Paul and Sarah Edwards, who host a nationally broadcast radio
program about "Working from Home" on the Business Radio Network, and invite
you to listen and call in. This network is probably carried by your local
affiliates that normally do "talk" or news formats. I will be on the
show on October 21, 1990 - it runs from 10:00-11:00 Eastern time. Please
phone in with your ideas!
- Michael R. Sleeter
Comments
Post a Comment