

How Microsoft misunderstands the concept of user research (& how Apple doesn’t) - Oestrogen
http://blogg.antrop.se/user-research/the-problem-with-design-based-on-statistics-–-how-microsoft-misunderstands-the-concept-of-user-research/

======
kenjackson
Actually this blog post I think is a perfect example of how "designers" in the
large don't get it. The ribbon was largely maligned for Office too by the web
intelligencia, but as someone who spent time in the enterprise both consulting
and selling apps, the ribbon is generally loved by its users. The people who
hate the ribbon are the people who use OSX. Try giving Word 2003 to anyone who
has spent any time with Word 2010 and you'll be seriously reprimanded.

For example, _Had they per­for­med a dee­per ana­ly­sis of the moti­va­tions
and needs of the users, they would most pro­bably have ended up with a
com­ple­tely dif­fe­rent solu­tion. They might have had a solu­tion that
wouldn’t be held back by assump­tions and limi­ta­tions made in ear­lier
ver­sions of the appli­ca­tion._

This article assumes that this is the second version of Windows ever shipped.
They assume that this research hasn't taken place at all in the past. That the
existing set of functionality hasn't evolved over time. For example the Win7
task bar is the result of this evolution. File managers are a very specific
beast though. I get the feeling the author of the blog post doesn't know them
very well.

And the author concludes comparing Finder to Explorer. I don't think I'm alone
in finding Finder an inferior user experience. And frankly, I think that most
users will find the ribbon to be a vast improvement. The mere addition of a
more obvious "Open With" button will save me on support calls.

~~~
spooneybarger
'web intelligencia'? i think you could have made your point without a cheap us
against them anti intellectualism aside.

~~~
nhebb
I didn't take that as an anti-intellectualism slight. People who write tech
pieces on the web, be it on blogs or tech publications, are more computer
savvy than the the majority of computer users. If you don't believe this, go
watch the Google on-the-street video asking people what a browser is
(<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4MwTvtyrUQ>).

I was one of those power users who hated the ribbon when it was introduced in
Office 2007. But my wife and kids - they loved it.

[Edit - since I can't reply to thread below (why is that?)]

I sell an Excel add-in, so I have a different perspective than most power
users. The ribbon is a pain to program compared to the old command bars,
making me dislike it at first. I've learned to appreciate it, though, because
it's a lot easier to convey the add-in's features via the ribbon than it is
using 16x16 icons on a command bar.

~~~
SteveJS
I think I am alone in being a "power user" and loving the ribbon. I totally
buy into the design philosophy of it, and I now do things with office that I
couldn't or wouldn't do before.

I think there is a bit of false transference. I program therefore I'm an
expert. I can honestly say that my ability at C++ or Emacs never helped me
figure out how to do anything in Office. Of course, I use it rarely enough
that every time might as well be the first time.

Perhaps I'm odd in that most people make deeper use of Office more often than
I do?

------
camtarn
Okay, and once the users have found their documents in the beautiful Finder,
what are they going to do with them? This seems to be another case of someone
confusing attractiveness with usability. The article fails to explain why the
author thinks that the Finder makes it easier and/or more obvious for users to
figure out how to manipulate their files. What are the motivations and needs
of these users (apart from 'I want to see icons representing my files') and
how are they fulfilled or not fulfilled by the Explorer and Finder interfaces?
Instead of using a data-driven approach, what would be a better way to go
about the motivation analysis, and what sort of end result might you get?

It's one thing to slag off Microsoft (unfortunately, they tend to make
themselves a fairly easy target), but doing so with no constructive advice to
others in the same situation is a bit pointless.

~~~
nirvana
Some very common file operations are moving files and copying files. On the
finder, you grab the files and drag them to the place you want them to go.
Under windows, people are trained to select the files, press the copy key
command, go to the new location, and press the paste key command.

Microsoft, seeing that the paste function is the most used, makes the paste
button bigger. The problem is, there's a much easier way to do it-- you can
drag and drop in windows (at least I hope you can!). Unfortunately, windows
users don't know this (by the evidence of them using paste a lot in microsofts
stats, and my experiences with average people who are used to windows). By
making the cut, copy and paste buttons bigger and more prominent, Microsoft is
reinforcing the slower, less intuitive way of doing things.

Finder is not sacrificing usability to look pretty, finder looks pretty
because it is more usable. You present users with 100 buttons on every window,
and it doesn't matter how big you make them, they're going to have trouble
figuring out what they're doing- the whole interface adds a constant cognitive
load that slows the user down and increases confusion.

With the finder, there are a lot fewer buttons and its a lot easier to figure
out what to do (in fact, most of the arbitrary commands are hidden under one
button.) In the finder, they use the desktop metaphor, and you mostly
manipulate files directly.

~~~
wanorris
My guess is that Microsoft's research has uncovered a couple of usability
problems for new users with drag and drop.

First, there are two possible new-user intuitions about what drag and drop
ought to do, and it won't always do what they expect. First, it could copy the
file, and second, it could move the file. The default on Windows (and OS X,
IIRC) is to copy when the source and target are two different drives, and move
if it's the same drive. This is likely to produce the correct result, but it
wiil not always do so. If you want one and get the other, you will be unhappy
with the result.

If you have learned cut/copy/paste in an application, then you will know the
difference between cut and copy, and this will help you achieve the correct
result right away. I presume this is the reason for them traditionally
promoting cut/copy/paste over drag and drop.

Second, drag and drop is not discoverable. Items on the a toolbar or ribbon
are trivially discoverable, but new and unskilled users may not even realize
that drag and drop is an option.

This is the advantage of a ribbon populated with commands. Not only are the
commands preferred by infrequent explorer users (cut/copy/paste) easily
accessible to them, but new users have the even more easily understood option
of choosing "move to" or "copy to". Q: How do I copy this file to my flash
drive? A: I select "copy to".

------
sriramk
Has the OP even used Explorer? The 'All my files' is done through libraries
and has been around for ages. And I'm not sure whether Finder is more visually
appealing but it sure is not a great file management tool by any means.

The real question is - what does success look like? If MSFT is able to prove
statistically that users are able to perform file operations quicker, find
commands that they never knew existed before, would that validate this design?

------
cateye
I am using both operating systems intensive daily. In my experience Windows 7
has really far better file management functionality and interaction.

I think also that the redesign will be an improvement. Power users can turn
the ribbon off and use short cuts.

~~~
iaskwhy
He also points how Finder works today failing to realise Windows has been like
that for a while with Libraries: [http://www.file-
extensions.org/imgs/articles/1/69/microsoft-...](http://www.file-
extensions.org/imgs/articles/1/69/microsoft-windows-libraries.png)

~~~
sirn
The biggest difference between All My Files and Libraries is that Libraries
requires you to manually manage library paths if the file is not stored in
default locations. All files shown up in Libraries still retain the hierarchy
layout of original directories.

All My Files just show recently used files (newly added, recently opened) in
Spotlight index categorized by _kind_ (not filetype, e.g. all my .py .rb files
are grouped in developer category) and they shown up as a flat list without
any hierarchy.

I agree that Finder is a bad example, though. (Even though I don't think I
need anything more from Lion's Finder.)

------
mikerg87
If you look at comments Steve Jobs made at one of the All Things D, you know
that Apple wants the file system and finder gone from the user experience. It
believes the apps should manage this complexity for you. You can see this
embodied in iPhoto and iTunes and you see it in how Pages and Numbers now work
in Lion

~~~
Ihavenoname
This strikes to the heart of the article. Mentoning finder is a poor example?
Finder should only be a fall back most of the files should be automatically
connected to an app. It seems such an alien concept that many windows users
can not grasp it even after they switch. I think the the windows mobile OS is
moving in the same direction but I expect a lot of resistance to implementing
it platform wide. The ultimate concern is that windows will spend all their
time on marginal improvements to how things are done where they could skip all
that hassle entirely like you can with the iPhone and some of the latest Mac
apps.

Lion isn't there yet there is a strong argument for just using a tablet. The
explorer finder and all the other expectations for what is in an OS just get
in the way. Most people just want a gadget that gets things done not
sometihingnthey need to root and (re)program.

Windows 3.1 had a pretty awesome file acess system for the time win 2000 nt
was the best though clean search with predictable results. That is an aside if
you need to extensively use search or curate your files something is
suboptimal in tour apps.

------
nchlswu
This analysis has very little to do with User Research. The analysis is all
about a fundamental difference in the approach that Microsoft and Apple take
to file management.

Microsoft's solution may not be "elegant" or changing their current paradigm,
but a paradigm shift is very difficult, especially when you have to accomodate
many legacy users. Microsoft's solution always looked (to me) like a decent
incremental solution that would work for the Windows user base. What's wrong
with that? It may not be as elegant as it can be, but it's definitely not as
ugly as so many are making it out to be. And if it works, what's wrong with
that?

------
ams6110
The point that (most) users just want to "find their files" and not "explore
the filesystem" is a good one. That said I think _both_ Apple and Microsoft
have not found the optimal solution but instead seem to be stuck in local
maxima.

I actually tend to use the shell for almost all file management tasks. But it
seems to me to be an exercise in futility to try and make a file manager app
that pleases both users who just "want to find their files" and those who want
to be able to organize them in a specific way or for other reasons need more
direct visualization of the underlying filesystem.

~~~
masklinn
> That said I think both Apple and Microsoft have not found the optimal
> solution but instead seem to be stuck in local maxima.

The Finder is not a maxima in any search space. It's always been terrible
(where always == since OSX was first released) and it has not significantly
improved over time.

As to Windows's explorer, I've find it regressing over time: I have not found
7's explorer to be superior to 2k/XP's under any metric, instead it's more
confusing (menubar randomly hiding and showing), it defaults to completely
pointless and insane options (Burn as one third of the sparse toolbar?
Really?) and the search UI is a severe downgrade from XP's once you get to
your results.

~~~
iaskwhy
On the upside you have the amazing breadcrumbs... I do prefer Windows 7's
explorer to any other version before.

~~~
masklinn
> On the upside you have the amazing breadcrumbs...

The only use I've had so far for them was confusing me as to how I could edit
the address bar to jump to an arbitrary location. I've yet to use these things
at all, although I don't mind them much.

Same as the finder's path bar (or the contextual crumbs menu on finder
titles), checked out, never used.

------
mkr-hn
I like the ribbon. I'm glad they're starting to use it more outside Office.

------
rplst8
He misses the point entirely. If one wants to do in Windows what he suggests
is so integral to Finder one uses the "recent files" link in the Start menu or
any open file dialog. The purpose of the original blog post was to improve
what Windows Explorer was designed to do - manage large sets of files and
folders.

------
steve8918
I think the main problem with Microsoft is that their strategies have been
more focused on doing things that reinforce their Windows monopoly. I can
understand why, since it's what keeps them alive, but it also forces unnatural
behavior, like embedding IE into the OS, and prevent natural innovation, which
is what Windows is suffering from currently.

Now their focus appears to be changing things so that people will upgrade
their OS. This is also unnatural behavior, because frankly nothing really
needs to be changed anymore, except adding more device drivers and making the
OS faster. Changing things around for no particular reason will likely annoy a
lot of long-time Windows users (like me). They are providing the exact same
functionality, but are just moving things around, to give the illusion of
change and value.

However, I think one strategy they are doing is that by using the "Ribbon"
experience, they are trying to keep newer Windows users from being able to
migrate seamlessly to Linux or MacOS. Right now, everything across all the
OSes is menu based, so there's little friction in migrating. If a new
generation of users are used to the Ribbon, then moving over to Mac or Linux
will be "annoying" to them.

So I think the article is misunderstanding Microsoft. Microsoft isn't making
changes because they want to improve the user experience. They are trying to
_change_ the user experience in order to preserve their desktop monopoly by
leveraging their new users and preventing a barrier of entry to other OSes.
Which makes sense from their perspective because they have the money to do the
research, and they manpower and resources to make these sweeping changes.

~~~
dpark
> _Microsoft isn't making changes because they want to improve the user
> experience. They are trying to change the user experience in order to
> preserve their desktop monopoly by leveraging their new users and preventing
> a barrier of entry to other OSes._

You're looking for a malicious intent in everything Microsoft does. Isn't it
possible that the Windows execs simply believe tha the ribbon interface is an
improvement rather?

Your idea also just doesn't make much sense. If switching to the ribbon adds a
large barrier to entry, then it's also a large enough change to discourage
customers from upgrading to Windows 8.

~~~
steve8918
I don't think it's malicious, I think it's self-preservation. It's a fact that
their innovation has been strangled because of their strategy to circle the
wagons around Windows. Look at what happened once they gave their engineers
some breathing space: they created Bing, which is seemingly decent. Also,
X-box and especially the Kinnect. Microsoft CAN do innovative things, the only
problem is their corporate culture to protect Windows at all costs.

Changing the user experience, to me is a competitive enhancement. Do you think
people actually cared about that much about menus that it needed to be
changed? It's really doubtful. It's obvious that they are trying to
differentiate themselves from the other OS's with it.

Ribbon was the only major new feature added to Office. Again, it's obvious
they were doing this in order to give people a reason to upgrade, because
Office is now fully-featured, with very little reason to upgrade. I'm still
using Office 2003, and I could probably get away with using Office XP or 97.

In terms of discouraging current users, that's why they have the option to
remove Ribbon for older customers, but they will default to the new way for
new users. I'm still using the Windows 95 interface on Windows 7.

~~~
mkr-hn
Have you used the ribbon interface in Office?

~~~
steve8918
Yes, I use it at work (I use Office 2003 at home). I've grown up on 20 years
of Microsoft Word (since Word 2.0 on DOS) so I'm very familiar with the menu
system, and I know the features that I need. So Ribbon is annoying for me. I'm
sure for new users it's not annoying at all, because it's all they know, and
they might find the menu system hard to use.

Hence my point that for new users who tried to migrate to OpenOffice or Google
Docs, they would find the menu interface unfamiliar and annoying. I think
MacOS is annoying because I can only resize a Window from the bottom right-
hand corner, but I'm told they changed that in Lion, which my guess is that
it's to appease old farts like me that want to migrate to MacOS. So Apple is
doing the reverse, which is to make their OS more palatable (but not
completely change) for die-hard Windows users.

~~~
mkr-hn
I've used Office/OO.o/LibreOffice/WordPerfect for most of my life and had no
problem with the ribbon. I've used thousands of interfaces across several OS
families, so maybe neither of us has a clue. Bias and anecdata are hard to see
past.

Are you sure you're not extrapolating your use case into the audience MS is
targeting?

And I'm not sure this is a problem. From my perspective, the ribbon is a huge
improvement. Should Microsoft focus on cross-OS metaphors? I want them to
focus on improving their product.

------
recoiledsnake
For the last time, power users can make it look like this
[http://blogs.msdn.com/cfs-
filesystemfile.ashx/__key/communit...](http://blogs.msdn.com/cfs-
filesystemfile.ashx/__key/communityserver-blogs-components-
weblogfiles/00-00-01-29-43-metablogapi/4380.Figure-24-_2D00_-Alex_2700_s-
customizations_5F00_2.png)

There's more shortcuts than ever now. Power users need to realize that the
default look should be oriented towards the normal user to make things more
discoverable, since power users are the ones than can easily configure things
to their liking unlike regular users.

When you're designing an interface for more than 1 billion users, you have to
make a lot of trade-offs.

