Mostly Random Technology Bytes

Joelonsoftware.com has a new article called Choices = Headaches in which Joel points out the apparent stupidity of Windows Vista having a zillion ways (mostly from the ironically named "Start" button) to exit.

His point: Why would does one need Switch User, Log Off, Sleep, Hibernate? Why do you need Restart, couldn’t you just switch off and switch on? Surely we can combine this mess into one or two options, and then Uncle Bob won’t get brain ache every time he wants to turn off his computer?

(Before I start, I’ll say that as far as I can know, Joel is right when he states that Sleep/Hibernate distinction is unnecessary, and that nobody except a few geeks can tell the difference between the two).

The thing is, I really like having Restart. Here’s why: A certain app that I run, makes my PC slow and unstable after a while (yes, I should blame the app - but seeing that I have no way to fix the app, and no alternative to using it, I just have to find the best way to cope with its limitations). I therefore hit Restart, and go make a cup of tea or something. When I return, everything is ready to go again. Restart suits me, because I can make the computer shutdown and start-up unattended - whereas if I were to switch off and on manually, I would have to return halfway through my tea-making session to power the PC on.

So I can’t live without Restart.

And I expect, there are others who can’t live without other options that are currently on the shutdown menu.

And in his essay, Joel even concedes this point:

Inevitably, you are going to think of a long list of intelligent, defensible reasons why each of these options is absolutely, positively essential. Don’t bother. I know. Each additional choice makes complete sense until you find yourself explaining to your uncle that he has to choose between 15 different ways to turn off a laptop.

In other words… let’s eliminate the 80% of features that only 20% of the people use, because the benefit of reduced complexity is worth it.

Fair point? Perhaps, I think I ought to consider what another essay on the 80/20 issue said:

A lot of software developers are seduced by the old “80/20″ rule. It seems to make a lot of sense: 80% of the people use 20% of the features. So you convince yourself that you only need to implement 20% of the features, and you can still sell 80% as many copies.

This particular essay (which is focused on Spreadsheets and Word processors, but the underlying issue is I think the same), explains the 80/20 fallacy. Namely, while it’s true that everybody would love to reduce complexity, everybody’s idea of what should be cut to get there, is very different:

Unfortunately, it’s never the same 20%. Everybody uses a different set of features. In the last 10 years I have probably heard of dozens of companies who, determined not to learn from each other, tried to release “lite” word processors that only implement 20% of the features. This story is as old as the PC. Most of the time, what happens is that they give their program to a journalist to review, and the journalist reviews it by writing their review using the new word processor, and then the journalist tries to find the “word count” feature which they need because most journalists have precise word count requirements, and it’s not there, because it’s in the “80% that nobody uses,” and the journalist ends up writing a story that attempts to claim simultaneously that lite programs are good, bloat is bad, and I can’t use this damn thing ’cause it won’t count my words. If I had a dollar for every time this has happened I would be very happy.

Oh did I tell you who that second essay is by? Yep, that’s right - the very same Joel.

Make sure you read that 2nd essay… it’s a good one.

Time to Rewind

Let’s go back and rewind for a second.

It would be easiest for Uncle Bob, if the off-switch in Windows worked like other electronic/electrical items that he’s familiar with. That means simply an “off” option ideally, or failing that, “off” and “stand-by” (just like his TV).

Now, in an ideal world, there would be no need for “Restart”, because you could simply switch the PC off and then turn it on again, and because you wouldn’t have to wait more than a second or two for shutdown or start-up, you wouldn’t mind doing that. But, right now, the shutdown and start-up processes are slow - and probably will remain so for a while in Windows - so “Restart” is a useful option to have, and this one extra option is unlikely by itself to melt Uncle Bob’s mind.

So we’re left with three options: “Off”, “Stand-by” and “Restart”

What about the other stuff, like “Log Off” or “Switch User”? Joel says that they will make all the “Off” options confusing for Uncle Bob (undoubtedly true)… therefore Joel says they must die.

But hold on a minute! Why are these user-management options connected to the “Off” button in the first place??????

In geek-terms, in terms of the underlying operating system source code, “Switch User” and “Log Off” have something in common in with “Off”, but in terms of typical users’ mental model, I doubt that there is any significant connection between who is using the PC and whether the power is turned on or off. In other words, these user-management options simply do not belong anywhere near the “Off” button: they ought to go some place else.

Another way of demonstrating that “Switch User” and “Log Off” simply do not belong anywhere near the “Off” button, is to come at it from another angle. Imagine yourself asking an intelligent educated person, who has never seen Windows, where they would guess that they might find the “Switch User” function in Windows Vista…. I don’t think many would respond “I would start by looking at the Off switch”.

So, what I’m trying to say is that Microsoft’s real mistake isn’t providing too many choices on the “Off” button - that is mostly just an unpleasant consequence of a more fundamental mistake. Microsoft’s fundamental mistake was breaking the Off-switch metaphor, by conflating it with user management.

And, if the options were re-organized to properly fit the metaphor, we could have a simpler user interface without sacrificing useful functionality.