Evolution from Complex to Simple

    For a long time, the thought has been spinning in my head that a PC is too universal and complex a thing in order to be convenient. This is the main reason for all user problems that generate a limitless amount of often ridiculous and illiterate questions (which in turn generate misanthropy in the circles of technical support).

    However, a technically illiterate user in many cases may not be to blame for his conscious ignorance. Of course, this does not apply to cases when it comes to professional matters. In their sphere of issues, everyone should understand well, but outside it is not at all necessary. The unwillingness of users to delve into the essence of the problems is often quite justified by the fact that they do not need these problems in FIG with their essence. The device of the operating system, the nuances of fine-tuning some hardware or installing software are not interesting information for them. In the same way as for an average boom, detailed instructions for growing dill in the middle lane may not be interesting.

    When a user sometimes needs to type text, MS Word can enter into a deep stupor a question about whether or not to include macros in the opened document. When he wants to “peer at the pictures” on the Internet, he may not have a clue what kind of non-Russian word is a browser. And why some strange people with a fiery gaze say that some Firefox is correct, but Internet Explorer is not (by the way, ~ 70% of the non-technical specialty office workers I have seen are not even able to repeat these words). Well, when a user wants emoticons in ICQ, he doesn’t care that it is not ICQ with him, but Miranda, which is better for some reason and needs a special plug-in (yes, ICQ and the plug-in are also often incomprehensible words :)).

    User problems do not lie in the plane in which computer technicians work. And they speak for this reason in different languages, which constantly causes bewilderment on both sides. The reason for this is the complexity of the software and hardware architecture and interfaces. When buying a computer, the “average” user gets a super-sophisticated megadevice, while he wants to have a household appliance. Simple as a tv or iron. For those who are not inclined to be interested in technical sophistication, the requirements for a computer are often the same as for household appliances. They buy an iron so that it ironed well. And the computer is such that the toys work and the windows are beautiful. But it’s not at all one in which, for example, there is a video card with 512 Mb DDR3 on board, and two DVI interfaces that work seamlessly in Windows Vista.

    However, due to computer complexity and, often, a tendency to software and hardware glitches, it can be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve effective work without understanding the technical details. And until the situation with the architecture and ideology of building computer technology is fundamentally corrected, the support will consider users to be moral freaks. And users will continue to successfully maintain their dubious image and, what’s most unpleasant, to have all the same everyday problems with misunderstanding, why doesn’t it work as it should "this is a silly bucket."

    By a change of ideology, I mean roughly that a computer for a user and a computer for a developer should be fundamentally different things and correspond to real needs, and not hypothetical. Due to the narrowing of the audience of software users and the hardware on which it will work, based on this principle, the number of problems can be significantly reduced. Professional development machines are essentially the PCs that currently exist. Home computers are still found only in the form of game consoles, various gadgets and built-in appliances. Although they have simple interfaces, they are usually sharpened strictly for certain tasks. Office "simple" computers with enough (but not unnecessarily) wide capabilities,

    There is, of course, Apple, which makes ideologically correct computers at the moment, but its products are not widespread. And the migration of a real organization to a new platform is, in most cases, a utopian idea that can bring very high costs. The transition should be smooth, and not spasmodic. And based not on changing the entire fleet of equipment, but on the evolution of software. Only then can we talk about the possible materialization of such an idea.

    PS: In conclusion, just in case, I emphasize that technical illiteracy and unwillingness to think with one's head are fundamentally different things. The first of them in some cases can be justified by the lack of interest and unwillingness to spend time on someone else's work. The second - can hardly be justified almost never.

    Also popular now: