
Screw the power users - gr2020
http://nick.typepad.com/blog/2012/05/screw-the-power-users.html
======
maratd
> Power users were happy with all the features and all the options, but the
> extra baggage made it harder for less technical people to use the product.

Poor design. Seriously. Simplicity is really really hard. Much harder than
throwing a ton of settings, toggles, and switches at a user.

Your design has to be ridiculously simple, but be flexible enough to allow
complexity when it is called for. It's hard to put into words, but I
frequently spend months refining an interface to fit just right.

The best example of this is an operating system. Windows has to be simple
enough for the least computer literate person to use, but flexible enough for
you to configure anything you can imagine via the registry or command line.
There is no link to the registry in the start menu. But every power user knows
how to launch it. The complexity is possible, it's there, but it's hidden. It
doesn't bother the new guy because he doesn't even know about it. Only the
power use can find it.

If you prefer an example with Mac OS, the operating system by default is
unbelievably limiting. There is very little you can configure via the
settings. Pull out the terminal and you can change absolutely everything you
can imagine. Again, the complexity and features are there ... but hidden. They
don't interfere with the regular user experience, but they're there if needed
by the power user.

Ditto for Linux.

~~~
lt
I'd expand - it's not enough to avoid throwing a ton of settings to a user,
you have to design so they are not needed at all.

For me, the fact that you have to hide the "power-user" options, be it on the
registry, about:config or under an "advanced" dialog somewhere is a sign of
something much worse. All those toggles increase complexity of the software
exponentially as they can be combined affecting each other, increasing the
effort of understanding the code, making changes, testing, even the runtime
complexity.

Lots of developers, when faced with a choice, make it configurable instead of
thinking hard about it and making the choice. Developers are never popular
when they decide against adding an option. I see it all the time on Google
Chrome, or even on the iPhone to name some popular examples.

But some choices, even if they are hard to make, should be made.

~~~
icebraining
Define "needed". Much of the divide between casual vs power users is that the
latter will want to use the software in every way possible, many of which you
(the developer) won't even be able to imagine.

In fact, those decisions are one of the main reasons why I, as a power user,
don't use Chrome or the iPhone - because I crash against the limitations
imposed by those choices every day.

~~~
gsharm
I'd love to know what everyday tasks you're doing for which Chrome or the
iPhone are too limiting.

~~~
icebraining
Well, for one, I'm a Pentadactyl user just like slowpoke, but also of
DownThemAll!, NoScript (from everything I've read, NotScripts is a poor clone
- no offense to the developer, as I said, they're limitations of the browser
API) and some others.

In the past, I've also used my own extension, that allowed me (and the few
hundred other users) to select a piece of text and launch a terminal using it
as a command. Absolutely impossible to do in Chrome.

Finally, Tiddlywiki - only usable in Chrome if you install and run a Java
program (applet?). Since I don't have Java in my work laptop, no dice.

As for the iPhone, simply installing non-approved apps; old console emulators,
for example.

------
ori_b
The problem isn't power users. The problem is that people adapt to features.
It's extremely difficult to remove a poorly thought out feature after the
fact. People will complain, whether or not they're power users. People are
change averse, even when it's just skin deep. When it changes their workflow,
they're going to scream bloody murder.

Edit: There are very good points being made about knowing your target
audience, designing for simplicity, etc. But in the end, if you change your
user's workflow, they're not going to be happy, even if the end result is a
better product.

~~~
facorreia
That's the source of the mentioned complains in the support forum. They're
complaining because something they used to have isn't available anymore.

It's only natural that they feel angry and betrayed. If the direction of the
product's evolution really is removing those features, it should at least be
done more gracefully. For instance, first disabling them for new users but
maintaining them for current customers. Or releasing a new "light" version and
giving the customers the option to stick with the old one.

------
ScottWhigham
No one knows that business more than Nick but this part struck me as possibly
faulty logic:

"So with each new version I tried to simplify the user interface, and dropped
features & options that complicated the product. FeedDemon became more popular
as a result, but you’d never know it if you visited my online support forums."

I'm wondering if this is correlation problem - in other words, Nick perceives
that the popularity of FeedDemon is due to his simplifying the design, however
it is also possible that a rise in both the awareness of what RSS is/does and
a corresponding search for tools led to the popularity. It could also be the
additional press/marketing received from the Newsgator acquisition helped. It
could be that Google Reader's concept was great but people decided it was too
simple/not good enough and they wanted a power tool for RSS (thus Google
found/educated people for Nick).

I'm just wondering if the foundation of Nick's particular business was built
with the power users and it was the power users who got the word out about
FeedDemon. If that's the case, then he's drawing the wrong conclusion and thus
the future of FeedDemon is in danger.

I've been a FD user for 5+ years, I guess, and I certainly was one of those
bloggers talking about it back in 2006 or 2007. I'm certainly in the power
users category so I don't really know that I can be objective here.

------
j_baker
I can see a case being made that a consumer product shouldn't add features
that will hurt its main consumers for the benefit of a minority of users. That
said, it's reckless and short-sighted to proactively exclude power users.

When someone becomes proficient with your product, guess what they become? A
power user. And if you don't have any features to cater to them, do you expect
them to be using your product much longer? And once _they_ stop using your
product, do you expect anyone else to as well?

~~~
sopooneo
I can't think of a way to address your points directly, but would you consider
the massive sales of the locked and limited iOS devices to be a valid counter
example?

~~~
j_baker
No, I don't, but that's a good observation.

I think the simplest answer is that the iPhone must be providing enough
features for power users, even if not all the features they want.

------
robomartin
One could very easily argue that the USER ought to be empowered to take
control of the UI. I'll use MS Excel as an example of a tool that I've used
with regularity since it came to market. MS thought they knew better and
utterly destroyed the UI with the introduction of Office 2007. As anyone who
was a power user prior to that version and you are very likely to get a nearly
unanimous thumbs-down on the changes. The ribbon interface, as well as other
choices MS made, took a power user and made him/her feel like a total idiot.
Could you learn it? Sure. Could you find the commands you needed? Of course.
And, for a period of days and weeks your productivity went down to nearly
zero. Here is a case of a company thinking it knew better and pushing forward
changes that actually destroyed productivity in a massive way.

That sort of thing led me to thinking that users ought to be empowered to
completely customize their UI. Keep the mainstream on the new shiny thing, but
enable a setting that allows me to use a text editor to completely redo all of
your choices. Create a marketplace for the sharing of these config files under
source control too. A mechanical engineer will have different needs than an
executive assistant, not in complexity but rather in context and workflow.

~~~
sopooneo
It seems to me this leads down a path to open source. Use a text editor to
change the source, then recompile. Because even config files have to decide at
some scope _what_ can be "configged".

------
Swizec
As a power user[1], I want you to consider every time I have to change a
setting like a punch to the face. Your software should just work. It's a tool.
I don't want to spend my time tweaking tools ... I'm not 15 anymore. I have
better things to do with my life.

When was the last time you saw a "power user" configuring a hammer?

[1] 80% of waking hours behind a computer, most of the software I use, I use
several hours daily

~~~
vacri
_When was the last time you saw a "power user" configuring a hammer?_

Never, because they're not configurable. My housemate does have five different
hammers used for different things though - should we design software around
that instead?

~~~
sigkill
This actually brings about an interesting question. Is it better to have
multiple items do one thing well each, or have everything under one roof?

------
arkitaip
This strikes me as a failure to communicate to people whether they are your
targeted audience or not. Even something as simple as a "RSS Feeds for mere
mortals" or "Why Users Love This Basic RSS Reader" could be enough to
correctly align this app wrt user expectations.

Emphasis on simplicity + social proof: <http://i.imgur.com/f2wxZ.png>

~~~
systemizer
I think the article is less about "communicating to the user" and more about
"which users to target." Should we reevaluate ourselves as developers and
build apps that target a larger, less tech-savvy audience?

~~~
arkitaip
Interesting. To me the problem seems to be that users are requesting features
and making other requests because they don't understand that FeedDemon is
indeed supposed to be a very simple application. It's like not understanding
that MS Paint is entry level software and requesting it should have layers,
advanced color management, etc.

~~~
smacktoward
It sounds like the problem is that at the beginning it _wasn't_ supposed to be
"a very simple application." It started out complex and then got simple over
time. Which screws up user expectations -- the people who were attracted to it
when it was complicated aren't going to be people put off by complexity. So
they may have felt misled a bit when the complex product they chose started
becoming something else.

In other words, when he decided after launching FeedDemon that what it should
have been was a simpler product, Bradbury might have been better off if he'd
left the "FeedDemon" name on the original, complex product and then rolled out
the simpler version under a different name. That way people who picked up
"FeedDemon" wouldn't feel like they were getting pushed into using
"SimpleDemon" (or whatever the streamlined version ended up getting called)
instead. People underestimate the power of names in setting user expectations.

(An objection to this might be the increased difficulty of maintaining two
product lines, but there's a simple answer to that -- just stop updating
FeedDemon. Eventually the power users who appreciate the simplicity will get
the message and switch over to SimpleDemon, and those who ABSOLUTELY MUST HAVE
radio button #7,131 on the preferences screen can sit on their complicated,
orphaned version for life.)

~~~
klez
> (An objection to this might be the increased difficulty of maintaining two
> product lines, but there's a simple answer to that -- just stop updating
> FeedDemon. Eventually the power users who appreciate the simplicity will get
> the message and switch over to SimpleDemon, and those who ABSOLUTELY MUST
> HAVE radio button #7,131 on the preferences screen can sit on their
> complicated, orphaned version for life.)

OR, you can delegate development to that power users community

------
matthewpl
Or just be smart: hide power options under power user tab/button/whatever.
Not-power-users gets simply design and most useful tools (for them). Power-
users gets powerful tools.

~~~
smacktoward
The problem is that _every_ user thinks they are a "power user." So if you put
a bunch of options behind a screen that says "power users only," the effect is
kind of like building a treehouse and then tacking on a sign that says "NO
GIRLS ALLOWED" -- the girls will climb the tree just to see what it is you're
hiding from them up there.

~~~
mistercow
>The problem is that every user thinks they are a "power user."

That is definitely not true, and is the kind of thing one will only say if one
has not actually interacted with ordinary users. Having had a fair amount of
experience with teaching ordinary people to use computers, I can say that by
far the biggest problem that they have is _under_ estimating their ability to
figure things out, while _over_ estimating the damage they are likely to cause
if they get something wrong. This is why the most important lesson to teach
kids about computers is that as long as you have backups, almost any mistake
can be fixed with a clean install.

Long story short, if you put your power user settings under a red tab labeled
"Advanced", 99% of the non-power users will never even notice them.

~~~
swalkergibson
This is the most sage comment I have read here in some time. I constantly have
to remind my parents, "Don't worry, the likelihood that you irreparably damage
this system by clicking some button one time is approximately 0."

------
j45
The real power users have even more impatience and demand as much simplicity
in usage as beginners.

The folks that derive some satisfaction from doing things with a million
manual settings (or doo dads) aren't really an addressable market, because
lots of open source is that way.

Maybe it's just me

------
mehulkar
I disagree. Build products for yourself. If you're a power user, then so be
it. If you're making a product to make your life easier and you happen to be a
newb, then design with that in mind. Screw profitability[1].

[1] I may not make the best CEO...

------
nadam
Yeah, in user interface design everything should be as non-geeky as possible,
but not non-geekier. :)

Sometimes it is really hard to figure out how geeky your potential customers
are. I am building a markdown editor, and while I am trying to make it as non-
geeky as possible it is not completely clear how non-geeky a markdown editor
user can be at all as the most non-geeky users just probably stick with WYSWYG
editors.

------
tdr
I really miss the "mark as unread" contextual button, but even without it
FeedDemon is by far the best RSS reader I have. (The premium version is worth
the money).

Also, lately I see a lot of great lessons from "lone wolfs" like Nick
(FeedDemon), Marco (Instapaper) and Mark (Pinboard).

------
rhengles
That's what Microsoft did with Windows 8 :/

But instead of dropping features, can't they be hidden by default and enabled
by the user?

~~~
icebraining
I'd say a focused application is better than one designed for unpowered users
with advanced features glued on.

------
lhnz
Surely this is solved already?

There should be two layers.

You aim to create the simplest, most elegant product to monetize your basic
consumers.

But, if there is a market for it -- and there may well not be in the case of
FeedDemon --, you can also provide an extendible platform/API below the UX on
which developers can build out innovative functionality for power users. This
is fairly low cost and can have multiplier effects. If a market arises on the
platform, you can copy the best ideas of your smartest users or you can
provide B2B tools to automate tasks for those that are interested in paying.

------
trickmonkey
Exactly what Apple has been doing forever and they have piles of cash to show
for it.

------
njharman
"cater to your audience"

Thanks for that phenomenally original advice and for using power user strawman
to introduce it.

~~~
aidenn0
I think that it is far more common mistake for mass-market targeted software
to be hard for novice users than it is for software targeted at power-users to
be insufficiently programmable.

~~~
j_baker
I think the mistake is less about making software less programmable and more
about trying to appeal to some mythical idealized "common man" so hard that
you appeal to nobody. It's the same strategy a politician uses when they go to
the Midwest to find " _Real_ Americans" only to find out that nobody really
cares all that much.

Power users aren't very common, but they exist. The idealized "common man"
doesn't because everybody truly is different.

------
icebraining
As a power user myself, and the free tech guy for a family of casual users, I
totally agree with this approach.

An application for power users doesn't just have a few advanced features or
configuration switches. It has to be fully designed with different goals in
mind.

Ease of learning vs efficiency, non-intimidating UI vs configurability,
prettiness vs speed of usage; they're often at odds with each other, and while
I'm sure some great examples of applications sitting comfortably in the fence
can be found, most end up as a shitty experience for everyone.

------
CJefferson
I increasingly think this as time goes by. Also, the similarly related "Think
about the first 20 minutes, or the user who only uses your product once in a
blue moon".

Every time (about once every two months) I use screen I have to go and re-read
the man page. byobu tells me in the bottom corner I can press 'F9' to get a
menu, which then has some help. I'm sure this 'waste of screen' will annoy
power users, but I find it saves both time and annoyance, on those rare
occasions I want to keep a terminal open on a remote machine.

------
alter8
> I’d come out with new versions that I thought dramatically improved the
> product, only to find my forums filled with complaints from power users who
> wanted the return of some obscure option, or were upset that I wasn't adding
> the geeky features they wanted.

Is that the effect of Joel's 80/20 rule?

------
systemizer
Does anyone have a statistic on the ratio of apps that are built and require
users to understand programming / markup? It would be interesting to see how
much we are "plaguing" the software industry by what kinds of apps we create.

I'm not sold by this post until I see some stats.

------
twomills
Is a "show advanced options" checkbox really that indigestible a concept?

------
AndrewDucker
I totally agree. Every option added is another place for the application to go
wrong. If you _need_ an option, put it in, but don't just pander to people who
want to tweak everything.

------
junto
HomeSite 4, wow that is a blast from the past. I still have a boxed copy
somewhere, I think from the Allaire days. The program was way ahead of its
time.

------
Bjoern
Greatness is achieved when you can not take anything away anymore and you are
only left with the important things.

~~~
dredmorbius
Not quite an accurate quote/translation, and unattributed to boot.

Antoine de Saint Exupéry: "It seems that perfection is attained not when there
is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing more to remove."

Or in the original French: "Il semble que la perfection soit atteinte non
quand il n'y a plus rien à ajouter, mais quand il n'y a plus rien à
retrancher."

~~~
Bjoern
Thank your for quoting it.

------
ZenPsycho
Has anyone written a "Screw the Novice Users" article yet? The market is wide
open!

------
derleth
It's entirely possible for you to cater to the most power-usery of all power
users while still letting the largely-nontechnical do their jobs with your
software. Look at Emacs.

It's entirely possible to use Emacs (by which I mean a graphical build of GNU
Emacs or XEmacs launched under a window system of some kind) like Notepad: Use
the File menu to open, save, and close files, use the big X decoration at the
top right to close, and that's it. Ignore everything you don't understand (
_which people do anyway_ ) and you're golden.

(GVim seems to be the same way now.)

So screwing power users is not the only option; you _can_ move the complexity
down into the interface a bit and leave it to the power users to find it out,
because they'll be the only ones who will.

------
its_so_on
I wish someone would finally create a choice-free mail client (web service):
you just register and get an email address, and it answers everything with
something vague and noncomital ('Just a note to say I got this. We'll be
looking into it'...'thanks'...'Will get back to you.'...'could you call me?')
etc. No need for the user to ever log in and make choices.

I think choice is often a veneer that divides us from a truly awesome
application. Especially, but not only, when you're a pointy-haired boss. Screw
the power users.

~~~
stcredzero
You can re-sell that as a "geek girlfriend/penpal" site.

~~~
bitwize
Hook two of them together, watch them lase.

~~~
stcredzero
Isn't that the supposed point of a dating site?

