Why do experienced and intelligent programs fail to make good UI's?

[minervx]

I'm curious as to why programmers who are educated, experienced and very intelligent oftentimes make programs that are just not user-friendly.  For example, Linux's inability to be properly used without being fluent in its terminal denied it as a budget-friendly desktop option for most people.  Or Microsoft Word, for example, which is cluttered with features most users don't use in the forefront and some of the most used features hidden within menus.

 

Do programmers leave examples like this unaddressed because of a lack of profit motive or because designing a good UI is very complicated? 

[sazrocks]

Linux was designed to be properly used in the terminal...

And it wasn't the UI that denied Linux, but rather the inability to run windows programs. Ignoring wine ofc.

[tarfeef101]

Well me, and most of my friends (CS major here, worked in infrastructure and DevOps mostly) just aren't interested. The work I do is often intellectually challenging, interesting, and fun. 

 

UI work is boring, easy, tedious, and very subjective. So most of us just avoid doing it like the plague.


That being said I do know people who are big web freaks and GUI lovers, but they are few are far between in my experience. Most people just don't enjoy it, and so don't put the time in to really master making nice interfaces, or to use their knowledge to the greatest effectiveness.

[NoRomanBatmansAllowed]

5 minutes ago, minervx said:

Linux's inability to be properly used without being fluent in its terminal denied

At this point, there are quite a few good GUI-centric linux things.

 

And even if you needed terminal, as long as you know google & copy paste, you're completely fine and don't need to understand what you're typing at all.

[minervx]

Just now, sazrocks said:

Linux was designed to be properly used in the terminal...

And it wasn't the UI that denied Linux, but rather the inability to run windows programs. Ignoring wine ofc.

This is true, to an extent.  However, a person with a low budget and very limited needs (such as an elderly person) would greatly benefit from an OS which is very lightweight, so they can continue to get performance out of their computer from 2005.  If some programmer were able to mask it up with a good GUI, it would've been great.  I guess that's sort of what Google did with Android.

[vanished]

The truth is interface design and computer science/ programming are very different skill sets, and while a hobby programmer will do both him or herself, in the professional world these would be separate things... or at least, you'd hope.  Perhaps if they aren't that might explain the problem you've noticed

[vanished]

3 minutes ago, minervx said:

This is true, to an extent.  However, a person with a low budget and very limited needs (such as an elderly person) would greatly benefit from an OS which is very lightweight, so they can continue to get performance out of their computer from 2005.  If some programmer were able to mask it up with a good GUI, it would've been great.  I guess that's sort of what Google did with Android.

Any of the GUIs that are available are just fine for basic use by an elderly person, just ask my grandmother

[minervx]

1 minute ago, tarfeef101 said:

Well me, and most of my friends (CS major here, worked in infrastructure and DevOps mostly) just aren't interested. The work I do is often intellectually challenging, interesting, and fun. 

 

UI work is boring, easy, tedious, and very subjective. So most of us just avoid doing it like the plague.

That being said I do know people who are big web freaks and GUI lovers, but they are few are far between in my experience. Most people just don't enjoy it, and so don't put the time in to really master making nice interfaces, or to use their knowledge to the greatest effectiveness.

 

I suspected the biggest reason for this being the gap between nerds (I use the term endearingly) and everyday people.  Many nerds are too well-versed in computers to care or understand the needs of people who want to use software for their business/school/entertainment without needing to spend hours learning domain knowledge.

 

And as a result, people like Steve Jobs come around, design machines that are actually not a hassle to use, and people are willing to pay $1000 for it.  For many people, it is worth a few extra hundred dollars to not have to deal with Windows, customer service or McDonalds-quality hardware.

[minervx]

Just now, Ryan_Vickers said:

Any of the GUIs that are available are just fine for basic use by an elderly person, just ask my grandmother

Okay, but what happens when a typical person with little computer experience wants to install a program.  They need to read detailed instructions, download binaries, type certain codes into the terminal and then deal with problems when their distro (for whatever reason) doesn't acknowledge that the program was installed and refuses to open it.

[vanished]

Just now, minervx said:

Okay, but what happens when a typical person with little computer experience wants to install a program.  They need to read detailed instructions, download binaries, type certain codes into the terminal and then deal with problems when their distro (for whatever reason) doesn't acknowledge that the program was installed and refuses to open it.

lol not even close.  In fact it's easier than windows.  You open software manager (like the app store), click a program, and click install, then wait for it to be done.

[Max Caulfield]

Just now, minervx said:

Okay, but what happens when a typical person with little computer experience wants to install a program.  They need to read detailed instructions, download binaries, type certain codes into the terminal and then deal with problems when their distro (for whatever reason) doesn't acknowledge that the program was installed and refuses to open it.

Ubuntu Software Center is very easy to use and has everything a simple person need, almost similar to a Google Play or AppStore

If you want to install more advanced profram, then they are not inexperienced in computers anymore. 

[minervx]

Just now, Ryan_Vickers said:

lol not even close.  In fact it's easier than windows.  You open software manager (like the app store), click a program, and click install, then wait for it to be done.

If you want to install an app within the software manager, yes.  If you want to install an app from a website, not really.

 

Plus, the software manager is both very limited in applications and cluttered with junk. 

 

Linux is fine for people who want Libre Office and Firefox but it was never able to be a full-on computer for people with even the lightest needs.

 

 

[minervx]

This is the issue.  In any given scenario, you can say "All you need to do is ____" in this situation.  But Linux has a wide volume of possible things that could go wrong and at a certain point, it becomes more of a chore than its worth.

 

While Linux programmers were saying "all you need to do is X, Y and Z...", Google made Chrome OS and Android, which also don't have the programs that Windows has, but were still very successful.

[vanished]

1 minute ago, minervx said:

If you want to install an app within the software manager, yes.  If you want to install an app from a website, not really.

It's quite simple, if you really need a package not in the manager, download the deb/rpm and run it just like an exe on windows, the rest of the install will proceed without any further intervention, again, easier than windows.

 

If you really want to compile source, then yes we are getting more advanced but I'v never had to do that in many years of using Linux.

1 minute ago, minervx said:

Linux is fine for people who want Libre Office and Firefox but it was never able to be a full-on computer for people with even the lightest needs.

It's not even worth explaining how wrong this is...

[minervx]

7 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

It's quite simple, if you really need a package not in the manager, download the deb/rpm and run it just like an exe on windows, the rest of the install will proceed without any further intervention, again, easier than windows.

It's quite simple, provided so many assumptions such as the distro they downloaded, whether they followed a certain instruction properly and other factors.  If it were really this simple, people and businesses would've adopted it.  A lot of people would love to save money and businesses care more about their profits than being biased toward Windows.

 

To many people, a computer is an appliance just like a refridgerator.  I wouldn't spend more than an hour or two buying a refrigerator.

 

It's true that Windows 10 is also a clusterfuck, but it's a more familiar one.

 

The problem with Linux is that you need to visit a forum like this or a blog to understand how to use it, unlike Mac OS.  But even looking as MS Word, the second example, I provided.  It has the pretense of a program like Photoshop when it's not even 10% as complex.

[vanished]

1 minute ago, minervx said:

It's quite simple, provided so many assumptions such as the distro they downloaded, and whether they followed a certain instruction properly.

 

To many people, a computer is an appliance just like a refridgerator.  I wouldn't spend more than an hour or two buying a refrigerator.

 

It's true that Windows 10 is also a clusterfuck, but it's a more familiar one.

 

The problem with Linux is that you need to visit a forum like this or a blog to understand how to use it, unlike Mac OS.  But even looking as MS Word, the second example, I provided.  It has the pretense of a program like Photoshop when it's not even 10% as complex.

I think people forget what it was like to truly know nothing.  If you had to learn a new system from scratch right now never having seen or heard of a computer, Windows would be no more simple or familiar than anything else for basic tasks like we've described here (web browsing, installing common applications, etc.).

[Max Caulfield]

3 minutes ago, minervx said:

It's quite simple, provided so many assumptions such as the distro they downloaded, whether they followed a certain instruction properly and other factors.  If it were really this simple, people and businesses would've adopted it.  A lot of people would love to save money and businesses care more about their profits than being biased toward Windows.

 

To many people, a computer is an appliance just like a refridgerator.  I wouldn't spend more than an hour or two buying a refrigerator.

 

It's true that Windows 10 is also a clusterfuck, but it's a more familiar one.

 

The problem with Linux is that you need to visit a forum like this or a blog to understand how to use it, unlike Mac OS.  But even looking as MS Word, the second example, I provided.  It has the pretense of a program like Photoshop when it's not even 10% as complex.

It's not that companies don't like to adopt to Linux because of how hard to install it

 

(The installation process of Ubuntu is just as simple as Mac/Windows. 

Creating a bootable media is also the same, just burn the ISO to a DVD or use RuFus, not hard)

 

It's that most apps have better support on Windows and Mac. Not to mention that those OSes were release earlier too (first Windows was in the 80s-90s, Mac OS was in the 80s, OSX was in the early 2000s, and Linux OS was only in the early 90s and still people would prefer Windows and Mac since it was too expensive back then)

 

Ubuntu UI is quite simple if you have used it before. Nowadays, Libre Office is pre-installed, Firefox is pre-installed so you got everything you need there. I feel like you are simply underestimating Linux OSes as a whole. 

 

 

[minervx]

You're completely right.  Linux is no harder to learn than Windows just as French is probably not harder to learn than English.  But Windows has been around in the mainstream for much longer.  Windows had a golden opportunity in the 90's as an industry giant, but modern software cannot count on that advantage.

[minervx]

1 minute ago, Max Caulfield said:

It's not that companies don't like to adopt to Linux because of how hard to install it

 

(The installation process of Ubuntu is just as simple as Mac/Windows. 

Creating a bootable media is also the same, just burn the ISO to a DVD or use RuFus, not hard)

 

It's that most apps have better support on Windows and Mac. Not to mention that those OSes were release earlier too (first Windows was in the 80s-90s, Mac OS was in the 80s, OSX was in the early 2000s, and Linux OS was only in the early 90s and still people would prefer Windows and Mac since it was too expensive back then)

 

1 minute ago, Max Caulfield said:

Ubuntu UI is quite simple if you have used it before. Nowadays, Libre Office is pre-installed, Firefox is pre-installed so you got everything you need there. I feel like you are simply underestimating Linux OSes as a whole.

I agree Linux has gotten better but by the time Linux made those improvements, it was too late.  The vast majority of people have no reason to use Linux now because Windows has more support, Android is better for simplicity and Mac OS is the most balanced overall.

[vanished]

3 minutes ago, minervx said:

 

I agree Linux has gotten better but by the time Linux made those improvements, it was too late.  The vast majority of people have no reason to use Linux now because Windows has more support, Android is better for simplicity and Mac OS is the most balanced overall.

The reason Windows became so popular was due to some brilliant (if not questionably legal) business moves by Microsoft in the early days of computing that ensured it got on to as many systems as possible, and once that had happened, it never really changed.

[Sniperfox47]

6 hours ago, minervx said:

For example, Linux's inability to be properly used without being fluent in its terminal denied it as a budget-friendly desktop option for most people. 

Just want to point out that both Android and ChromeOS are Linux. And they're pretty easy to use and fairly nice looking without a terminal.

 

And even if you're talking GNU+Linux specifically, ChromeOS is arguably that. Hell it's even running X11/Wayland.

[kilgore_T]

any time I open Blender I want to cry

[Dredgy]

The short answer is that UX design and backend programming are different skillsets, and if you are really good at one, you are unlikely to be good at the other.

 

So you need a team of great designers and a team of great programmers and then you need someone who’s good at communication to get them to work together properly.

[argyle]

You should watch the 4th season of Silicon Valley... there's a story arc that pretty well establishes the issue being developers aren't the same as users and self-selecting beta testers are often not representative of the user base at large.

[Anjelllo]

11 hours ago, minervx said:

You're completely right.  Linux is no harder to learn than Windows just as French is probably not harder to learn than English.  But Windows has been around in the mainstream for much longer.  Windows had a golden opportunity in the 90's as an industry giant, but modern software cannot count on that advantage.

Well, no. English is harder to learn than french. If you were to teach someone who didn't speak either, they would have a harder time learning english because of all of it's nuances and exceptions. The same way that if I were to give my iphone and nvidia shield tablet to an amish man and told him to go change something in the settings for a certain app, he would do it on the iphone at twice the speed.