Chad Perrin: SOB

22 November 2006

simplifying choices

Filed under: Cognition,Geek — apotheon @ 06:47

Joel Spolsky (of Joel on Software), famous ex-employee of Microsoft and chronicler of his own opinions on software development, has some opinions about choices. He thinks choices are bad, that they make people unhappy. As he puts it, Choices = Headaches. Leaving aside for a moment the logical absurdity of a programmer, talking to other programmers, using an assignment operator in the languages with which he is most familiar in that manner, he makes some excellent points.

The really salient and accurate point underlying his superficial points about the importance of simplicity in an interface is that being able to choose exactly what you want from a pool of as few options as possible is, all else being equal, a net win. Having to make the decision does not make you happier. On the contrary, it is likely to make you less happy. The absurdity of the redundant and poorly presented array of options available to users of Microsoft Windows Vista for taking Windows out of a fully-operational mode when not actively using the thing is aptly illustrated by his description of the situation. He's right that the process could, and should, be significantly simplified.

Joel conflates having options with having to choose between them, however, at least to some extent. The end result is that he ends up settling on a solution to the problem of choosing how to shut down the system that is reminiscent of mid-'90s Macintosh design philosophy: automate everything you possibly can to save the poor widdle easily-confused heads of the users, and prevent those users from meddling with it. Personalizing the Mac should be limited to deciding between laptop and desktop, and choosing a case that matches the drapes. Our users can't handle any real critical thinking tasks, so don't curse them with options.

Obviously, this is not the philosophy to win the hearts, minds, and happiness of human beings. It didn't work. Things have changed at Apple — and they have changed for the better — as a result of the lessons of usability and marketing hard-won by the depressing Mac sales figures of the previous decade.

There are really two ideal approaches to your system interface, both of which draw on the lessons almost taught in Joel's recent essay, and also on the contradicting lessons of the open source movement: people want options, as we discover in the proliferation of Linux distributions, BSD versions, and legions of open source utilities and applications, but they don't want to have to choose among them over and over again all the damned time. In combination, this is a lesson that may be far more understandable to your average sysadmin than to your average programmer. After all, programmers spend all day trying to create software that they think answers users' needs. Sysadmins, meanwhile, know exactly what the needs are, but have to decide on the best way to achieve them and, when they figure out what works best for them, they script it in Perl (or whatever) so they don't have to choose the same things over and over again every time an oft-repeated task is needed.

The point here is that people like to have the options that allow them to pick out an ensemble that best suits their needs and preferences, but they don't like to have to select all the garments and accessories that make up that ensemble over and over again (to abuse a metaphor). This is really what happens, to some extent, with open source software: one puts together a preferred system configuration by an iterative process of tweaks and nudges approaching perfection (as defined by the user), then uses that well-configured system happily. Apple takes an opposite, but equally valid, approach with MacOS X: there is a default, feature-rich user experience ready and waiting, but it is easily dismantled bit by bit and altered to suit the needs of the user. One is the cook-from-scratch approach to the perfect soup, and the other is the reduce-from-gumbo approach. It is easier to cook the perfect soup from scratch than to reduce a gumbo, but at least with a premade gumbo you have something already edible, which greatly lowers the bar for entry to the wonderful world of serving soup.

I'm full of bad metaphors today, apparently.

So, we have two unavoidable options, really, because there will always be a need for both approaches to choosing the right user environment. You can't really abstract those out to reduce to one single option. When building a system from something approaching scratch (such as by way of a minimal install of your favorite Linux distribution, on which you install all the software you really want and not one whit more), you put yourself in the position of having to make a lot more decisions before you even really have a very usable, productive environment — but the beauty of the exercise is that, when you're done and all is ready, you are done making those decisions, the only exception being when you need to create a user environment again (and even that is simplified by already knowing your own software preferences).

The moral of the story is that options are good, excellent really, and necessary to happiness, despite Joel Spolsky's statements to the contrary. They just need to be presented in a sane way, such that there are ways to avoid making more than the absolute minimum number of decisions, to choose how many decisions you really want to make, and to make as many of them as possible only once.

Start with a default feature-rich environment with all the bells and whistles, but with the actual choices at your fingertips minimized to the specific options most likely to be most favored by the most people. Allow for an option to throw away everything, and build from scratch. Allow for an option to change defaults. Allow for an option to remove stuff. Perhaps above all else, allow for an option to minimize the visible options, reducing things to only what the person actually wants to see, when an ideal configuration is reached and decided on (with, of course, an option that opens up all the previously hidden opportunities).

Don't overburden us with unnecessary options all the time whether we want any of them or not. At the same time, though, don't actually eliminate the options — just let us decide which options we want to see.

People — like Joel and, one supposes, Jim Allchin — seem to have the mistaken impression that they must choose between giving us all options in front of our faces all the time or only those options we are most likely to want according to some imaginary measure of the average end user. They should simply learn to trust us to know what we want, both in allowing us to choose from all the options, and in allowing us to tell some of those things we decide against to go the hell away and never return to pester us in the middle of typing an email or, for the love of gob and all that's wholly, trying to turn off the damned computer.

7 Comments

  1. [...] Speaking of UI:No soup for you, Joel! Actually, I rather liked Joel’s post, but apotheon serves up one better. Tom makes a good point, too. [...]

    Pingback by Chipping the web - VIII -- Chip’s Quips — 22 November 2006 @ 06:41

  2. [...] Although, more is better, when served right. Apotheon on simplicity in design: “people want options … but they don’t want to have to choose among them over and over again all the damned time” (Thanks Sterling) [...]

    Pingback by Labnotes » Rounded Corners - 66 — 23 November 2006 @ 12:15

  3. I've always maintained choices were good, just seems that most people can't stand to make one.

    Comment by Joseph A Nagy Jr — 25 November 2006 @ 11:02

  4. The GNOME devs have taken a lot of shit for their reduction of superfluous options in comparison to KDE, but I think their philosophy is really flawless: present the GUI with as few options as possible, but allow power users the full range of options via gconf. It's that simple! and to me it seems like the silver bullet for the entire problem of choices vs. simplicity: present the end user with a very simple interface, but allow power users access through some sort of backend (e.g., CLI).

    Vista should have 1 or 2 "shutdown" choices, but if the user wants more granularity, they can write a shell script and hook it up to a shortcut icon.

    Comment by Justin M. Keyes — 3 December 2006 @ 03:55

  5. it seems like the silver bullet for the entire problem of choices vs. simplicity: present the end user with a very simple interface, but allow power users access through some sort of backend

    That's basically just the long-time Mac strategy, applied to Linux: provide as few choices as possible, sticking to the features and functionality 80% of users will use all the time, but provide tortuously bad interfaces for other functionality so that those who want to do other stuff can (but they can't do it very easily). I'd rather just have the simple interface be default, but have a "design your own interface" option as well.

    That, of course, is what we have with the X Window System, as a whole — if you're using an OS or Linux distribution with something like XFCE as the default. You can use that simple interface, which covers everything 80% of users need, or you can get rid of the default desktop environment and install whatever window manager you want, tailoring to suit your tastes, et cetera. GNOME is just a potential optimization for people who overlap the 80-percenters for the most part, but occasionally want access to other stuff as well. It's the "occasionally" that keeps the added difficulty of the rest of the functionality from being unlivable.

    As for me . . . my needs are different enough from the 80-percenters that using GNOME is a little like trying to inject heroin into my eyeball with a dirty needle, but without the good feelings of the heroin itself.

    Comment by apotheon — 3 December 2006 @ 05:35

  6. actually it's the long-time linux strategy. linux/unix began with the CLI, and has some pretty decent CLI traditions/standards, which is one of the defining strengths of the unix approach (which is finally being copied by Microsoft via Monad).

    every linux GUI program should (and most do) have a CLI interface. if it is "tortuously bad" or useless, well, of course that is a bug; but the strategy in general i think is a perfect compromise.

    even better: start with the CLI, and provide GUI front-ends as a secondary approach, a la apt-get + synaptic. this is also in the (purported) future of Windows. it's a brilliant approach that has worked well for linux/unix, it has been copied by OS X's preferences system (which is elegant in my experience, using domains/namespaces analgous to XML or HTTP or Windows network group policy), and it is now being emulated by Windows.

    Comment by Justin M. Keyes — 5 December 2006 @ 02:24

  7. even better: start with the CLI, and provide GUI front-ends as a secondary approach, a la apt-get + synaptic.

    I agree 100% with that as an estimate of the best approach. I think we're ultimately in agreement.

    Comment by apotheon — 5 December 2006 @ 04:56

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

All original content Copyright Chad Perrin: Distributed under the terms of the Open Works License