How do you implement a user interface for computer incompatibility?

Question

I support a web application that is used by a user base whose age depends on 40-65. The application is very good and has the latest ajaxy materials, etc. What we will now call very convenient and responsive. I am amazed how this application is not so convenient for this user base. I was told that some autocomplete features make them disoriented !! In addition, many random clicks occur, sometimes they say: "This does not happen!" then I understand that one of the necessary checkboxes was not clicked. I hope I made the script clear.

Can someone provide me with resources / tips for this? This is not so much an accessibility issue.

Answer 1

Don't make me think

like a bible, you need to read a lecture

Answer 2

I had similar problems with an application used by a workforce with a good proportion for 50 years.

I learned the amazing amount by just sitting with them when they used the app. If they tried to do something that I thought was stupid or missed what I thought was obvious, I would ask them what they tried to do and what made them think that this was the way to solve the problem.

This is very true, many of the things that more experienced users think are benefits, and useful features can just be distracting. Remember to carefully review user reviews. If you also have advanced users, they may have an advanced mode, including auto-complete, etc. But never try to think that you know better, because a certain way of working allows you to work more efficiently when you use the user interface.

Besides. Remember to use large, simple fonts, contrasting and large buttons that are easy to apply with the mouse. I know that you say that you have no problems with accessibility, but your users can appreciate these things and see this as an improvement in the user interface. One of the problems was that users did not seem to understand the meaning of the icons, the text seemed to work better. Or, if you have space, include text next to existing icons.

Be very careful when you start adding new features ... they can confuse this user in droves. It took them a long time to figure out how to do something, and now they have changed it! Thus, new features do not upset the old too much, or at all, if possible.

Another good thing to consider is the workflow. If you can arrange screen elements so that users can work from top to bottom in a linear way to achieve the task, this can improve usability.

Answer 3

If you need an awesome user interface, try Donald Norman's “Everyday Things Design” . This is not about computer interfaces, but applies to almost all user interface operations.

My two cents: Make the interface compatible with the fact that the age group is already familiar (perhaps Microsoft Office).

Answer 4

As you saw, a ton of work is done on usability, and there are even tools for testing your site, etc.

If you can access and test some users, it’s better. I think the user interface is an empirical art - like all programming, so if you can interact directly with your target universe, then best.

You have a small group of samples for testing, you will see that many things that users have already reported about happen and others do not. Maybe only a few users (or one loud user!) Are disoriented with autocomplete, or it can be all of them. Or they can learn to use autocomplete ...

At the training front, you have one more thing to pay attention to: is it possible to train your users? You may be able to do this with a course or a few introductory pages on the site. I know that this does not seem to conform to the standard user interface logic (that it is intuitive and does not require training), but for those who have never seen a mouse, this is a different story.

Answer 5

Use less. Fewer ways to interact means fewer mistakes to go wrong. This does not mean that you need to remove functionality, just hide unnecessary things until they are appropriate in the context. GNOME seems to get this part at least.

Answer 6

I often find that autocomplete features are distracting. By then I am a pretty good typist, and I usually type, thinking about the word and letting my fingers do the rest. If I can just type in something like a “restaurant,” it's pretty simple. If I need to type “r,” then “e,” then “s,” then “t,” then “a,” then select “restaurant,” which is a lot more mental effort; similarly, if I need to do something special so as not to type a “restaurant” that pain.

Some people are very skilled with the mouse, and some are really awkward, and mice are not the only pointing devices. Some people, including me, find laptops with slippery cushions really awkward (and glad it's cheap and easy to buy a decent USB mouse for connecting).

This is not necessarily a problem here. If a box always or never needs to be checked, do not display it first. If it sometimes needs to be checked, then you need to tell the user that this field is a problem.

In general, don’t be too fond of looking shiny and using all the neat Web 2.0 toys. Real people are easy to find. Sit down with two or three and watch them try to use your site, and if possible, ask them to think out loud. Take notes on what seems to puzzle them and what they don't like. When you make changes, try again with a person or two.

Remember that you can create a website for working with people. You cannot design people to use a website.

Answer 7

AJAX style auto-completion and forms with a large number of fields are usually intended for users who basically know what they are doing and want to get through the application as quickly as possible. In the traditional sense, slow and tiring = more painful.

It appears that with your specific user base the definition of painful is different. Your users probably don't mind using the app slowly, if that means they only have a little time to consider. Perhaps you want to break down your form into baby steps: show only one field at a time and give feedback to the user before moving on to the next field. This leaves a lot of room for specific instructions at every step.

A possible alternative to autocomplete is the presence of radio buttons for common answers, one of the answers being “Other” and a text field for entering the answer. This works well if there is a small amount of general answers, of course. Your users may find it easier, but I would not suggest it or even take a word on it. If you have time to spend, try to implement it in both directions and observe the consequences for your users. It is possible that autocomplete works better for specific issues, and switches work better for others.

One final thought: a little education can go a long way. It is possible that you want to somehow explain to your users how to fill out web forms. It can be a kind of copying, though: “this is not my application, that the problem is the users!” :) Nevertheless, if your users will use web applications other than yours, it is best to educate them in general web practices forms so that they are not repeatedly upset.

Answer 8

Some specific tips on specific issues you mentioned:

• AutoComplete. Disorientation can occur as a result of autocompletion, if this means the spontaneous appearance of a drop-down list, panel, dialog or page, distracting users from entering them. Consider using a fixed list or panel to display autocomplete options.

• Random clicks: May be the result of inconsistent visual coding of your controls (for example, you see on this web page), as a result of which users do not understand what clickable is and what is not. Choose one color for all links. All links and only links should be underlined. Other controls should look and act like standard GUI controls and, as a rule, are very similar to their physical counterparts (for example, tabs should look like tabs with paper recording, buttons should look like electric buttons). Stick with black for inert text.

• Incomplete fields: Failure to notice fields may result from unbalanced visual design. Each page should represent a visual hierarchy that is consistent with the task of users, where more important elements are highlighted more than less important, and the relationships between the elements are visually obvious. Typically, the fields and controls that users interact with should be most visible, and among them, the required fields should be even more visible. Your pages may be too clogged with gratis text, colors and graphics.

• “Not going to!”: It looks like you need better feedback on error conditions so that users can figure out for themselves that they missed something. Consider highlighting unanswered fields and presenting directive text (for example, "Select one of them →"). Or think about going to a page that has only those unanswered fields.

In general, your application may try too hard to be too impressive, trying to look and act cool and interesting for aesthetic reasons. The more demanding the context (inexperienced users, complex application), the less concessions you can make for aesthetics. By all means, use AJAX, but only to improve the function, not to get a wow.

Answer 9

A couple of years ago, I learned about some of the usability results of tests conducted to create software for a public library. This was interesting because it turned out that a large number of library users at that time were not computer. The only GUI controls that these non-computer users could get right away were text fields and buttons. Instead of scroll bars on the interface, buttons were used, for example, on a CD player with single up / down arrows to move up and up / down arrows to move to the top or bottom. The search user interface, implemented only with these features, has been very successful.

If you want your users to not skip the checkboxes, it might be better to include responses in the user interface stream. While experienced users hate wizards like interfaces, newbies often have better experience if they are forced to read and answer one question at a time.

One option, if you have a check box, should have the "Action" buttons on the screen, each of which has an implied meaning for which you would use the check box. For example, you may have buttons that say “Come straight from work” and “Stop at the grocery store on the way home from work” instead of the check box for the “Pick up milk” option. By placing checkboxes on the action buttons, the user should consider this option and make a conscious choice.

Aside, I always found an interesting exercise to try to explain the default values ​​for a novice user. They just don't get it. This is why the approach of a wizard or alternative buttons may work better in a novice environment, since they force you to answer each question rather than accept the default values.

Answer 10

One of the design challenges for less computer people is that they cannot deal with computer freedom. User interfaces offer many options and can be selected in different orders, which can lead to confusion, lack of flags, etc.

For unused users, it’s easier to work with one “path” and make one choice at a time. It is theoretically possible to reorganize one dialog box with many options into a series of options that do not require returning back and forth. This is longer and more annoying for experienced users, but very effective for people who are afraid of computers.

For example, instead of representing people with a voting screen with four races, imagine them one by one and make a choice for each. Takes more time, but is less likely to skip or crush people.

In addition, users unfamiliar with computers do not notice hints such as moving focus, gray buttons, etc. When we see a button with a gray color, it means that we are not finished entering material. When they see a gray button, they ignore it and eventually push, push and push, not realizing that it is not turned on.

Answer 11

Are you surprised that 40+ cannot identify applications like AJAX? If you focus on this age group, I would put it as simple as possible.

Answer 12

Only one small one. Try to fully comply with the nuances of the UI for the OS that will be executed by the application. If you can do this, users will immediately know everything. "For example, Word 2003 is similar to Wordpad for some reason. For the same reason, it plans (still?) To have all the accessories in Windows 7 use a tape interface.

I’m not worse than the QT application, which was created by the Linux codec and compiled directly on Windows. If you focus on multiple operating systems, make sure that you implement a design pattern that allows you to create “compatible” user interfaces for each operating system.