Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!sri-spam!ames!oliveb!pyramid!voder!apple!kentb From: kentb@apple.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: Programmers and Users Message-ID: <797@apple.UUCP> Date: Wed, 20-May-87 12:27:33 EDT Article-I.D.: apple.797 Posted: Wed May 20 12:27:33 1987 Date-Received: Fri, 22-May-87 01:08:38 EDT References: <452@atux01.UUCP> Reply-To: kentb@apple.UUCP (Kent Beck) Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, USA Lines: 41 The notion that it is "human factors" that are needed to make programs "user-friendly" is a dangerous fallacy perpetrated by human factors "experts" in the interests of job security. The Mac gives us many examples of programs which follow the user interface guidelines to the letter but are horrible programs to actually use because not enough thought went into structuring the application in the first place. While it could be argued that the Mac UI guidelines are slightly less than the pinnacle of human factors thaey aren't too far short. What is really needed is more understanding of the problems the computer is being used to model, understanding that only the eventual users of a system (the people with the problem, remember them?) have. I was graphically reminded of this when I consulted on a project which the software engineers had nearly complexified into extinction. We went to the application engineers, the ones who knew about the problem the system was trying to solve, and had them design the interface. The software engineers had to implement the system, though, and nearly ruined it again. Put me down for one vote against "human factors" and one vote for "user factors". Kent Beck Apple Computer, Inc. 20525 Mariani, MS 27E Cupertino, CA 95014 uucp: kentb@apple.UUCP csnet: kentb@apple.csnet 408/973-6027 -- Kent Beck Apple Computer, Inc. 20525 Mariani, MS 27E Cupertino, CA 95014 uucp: kentb@apple.UUCP csnet: kentb@apple.csnet 408/973-6027