Why is the network interface so technical and unintuitive?

Question

Despite the fact that I am an experienced programmer and engineer, I found that I always encounter tedious problems when working with networks. Rare installations of routers, etc. They work out of the box, and you try to learn all kinds of abbreviations, such as WPA, UPnP, etc., And you hardly try to match them with the conceptual logic of network interaction. I think this is especially true for networks; it’s much easier to fix problems such as compiling, installing hardware peripherals, or displaying East Asian fonts on your computer.

Why is the network interface: so poor? Is the network internally complex and complex, reflecting the user interface? Due to security issues? Or problems of a more historical nature? Or do you completely disagree with me?

UPDATE 2009/22/1: I think that the commentators below have a good point in that supplier companies cannot enter into contracts with software engineers, giving priority to hardware skills. But I feel that networking is worse than any other category when it comes to user interface, terminology, etc., so I am looking for answers specific to networks.

Answer 1

No generality.

Each manufacturer has different ideas about what the interface should be, and often different terminology.

Not to mention that most of the equipment is produced in the Far East, and translations, both documentation and software interfaces, are usually very poor.

Answer 2

I agree with you that setting up network devices and equipment is a tedious and boring task.

I believe this comes down to the demand for a good user interface. Customers require a pleasant interface from consumer electronics, and gamers require fairly intuitive game interfaces in their games. Since network engineering probably does not complain about Cisco, etc., This remains a lower priority.

In addition, cost is another factor. A router can be configured by a network engineer such as you, and after a few years more configuration may not be required. I would suggest that companies such as Cisco are aware of this and believe that design investments are not needed for nice user interface tools. They could save a lot of money by completing the minimum minimum in the user interface department.

Having said that, Apple is doing a very nice user experience on their consumer wireless devices like Airport Extreme. The user interface is an application that looks good, not a web interface.

On the plus side, because the network interface is usually difficult to use, it keeps you at work and makes your work more important (and higher pay). Remember the days when you were the only one who could build a computer? These days I am doing this, and this is not a real skill, since almost any high school student can do it.

Answer 3

I think this question underlines the historical gap between telecommunications and software development. It often happens that more technical issues in the field of telecommunications cannot be hidden from their users, since these details may be required for the installed function. In addition, telecommunications documentation tends to be difficult for abbreviations (more confusing things).

Answer 4

Because, as a rule, software for devices is carried out by people who are not trained in programmers; because in order to make this technique cheap they literally save everything, so there are no specialized UX designers for you.

Answer 5

As described in the last blog (33), all software from hardware companies is bad. I'm not sure that this is only because HW engineers are not trained to write good software, as Joel says, because most SW engineers are not trained to write good software! I think this is more market, money and time - you do not choose the built-in uP, DSP, FPGA or even a router based on this software, so there is no advantage to doing more than the minimum daily work on it. It's not better the more you spend, you can pay $ 10k for uP devkit, and it's just a bunch of bat files wrapped around some 1980s compiler.

Answer 6

There are many factors that determine usability. Training plays an important role. Think of the Microsoft office, most people think they know how to use it. I ask my friends how many times they were struck by issues such as a style that was set inappropriately (such as font size, indentation). Is the Microsoft office a developed software tool idiots!

Without designers who understand human psychology, the most friendly efforts become pain. How many times have we seen awkward presentations created by software developers. Is this related to programming capabilities? Not. Just good interface designers have developed interfaces that are easy to understand.