Version Fatigue 398
An anonymous reader writes "An article in TechCentralStation introduces a useful new term: "version fatigue," which describes what happens when you get tired of learning new ways to do the same old thing with each release of software. This is something that tech designers seem insensitive to, but that drives users crazy. Maybe it's because tech designers are more anxious to be creative than to produce things that users like?"
Not on Unix? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not on Unix? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not on Unix? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, there is obviously not a lot of changes to relearn in an OS that still refers to the IO device as a teletype :)
Seriously tho, I think that some programs (Emacs e.g.) get so entrenched that to change the format would be heresy (hell, I got scared when I installed a new emacs, accidentally hit 'end' instead of ^E....and it did what I meant!)
Another reason, taking a more system-wide view, is that UNIX is big on having little bits talking to other little bits, to make one big useful thing. If one of those bits starts speaking a different language, all sorts of things fall over. However, I think that with the fast-moving programs (e.g. KDE, Gnome and their apps) this will become more of a problem, but as GUI programs don't talk to each other so much, this will be restricted to being a user-interface problem.
^X^S
Damn!
:wq
Re:Not on Unix? (Score:5, Funny)
> Damn!
>
you're missing something:
^X^S
Damn!
wtf ?
^C
^D
WTF ????
oh yeah !
^Q
hey ! Where did my terminal go ??
Re:Not on Unix? (Score:5, Insightful)
The nature of X makes it anti-change, in a way. They are about mechanism, not policy. You can see some changes in window manager features. If you looked at Linux in 1996, all you would have is twm, fvwm, and a few others. The biggest UI "eye-opener" was probably Enlightenment. But, before E a major change happened rather inadvertently. If you remember, someone made a fake X screenshot which had a transparent xterm. This is what, IIRC, led to a more eye-candy X UI, starting with E which eventually implemented a transparent terminal. Before E, no one really thought X could be "pretty." It always had that dull Motif/tk feel about it.
Later came KDE, followed by GNOME. They have the goal of transforming what is basically a high-graphics shell into a "desktop" with higher program interaction than what was available in the normal shell and X interfaces. X allows small things like copy-and-paste, but has no desire to handle program integration. IMO, neither KDE or GNOME have come very far and I'm not quite sure either are very much more than a glorified window manager + X at this point.
I think this is a large part of what is, to some people, "holding Linux back." It doesn't just happen with keybindings, either. The file system layout is a good example. A number of people have wished to change configuration from traditional
Commercial *ix might not evolve as much as an open system, but I'm sure the open systems put great pressure on the commercial ones. I don't think you can purchase a commercial *ix today that does not have at least a few GNU-isms, such as gcc for example. Because of the open nature of software, it will evolve. And it will also remain the same. It will grow in every direction that people push it. If Red Hat came along today and said "there will be no bash shell in the next release," many people would have to adapt.
I don't think this is the case at all. For me, I have never felt compelled to learn the intricate features of the majority of Linux software. I know a little about most, but usually not everything. I tend to pick it up on an as-needed basis. I'd also say that Linux demands the user to know more. To use pipes, you must first know a little about the shell. To use X, you must know a little about window managers. To use vi, well you need plenty of time and aspirin and a very open mind (coming from traditional text-editors). I would say that every UI that has ever been introduced into Linux is still there. What _is_ changing, is more UI's are constantly being added.
Okay.. (Score:2)
Nobody is saying a system can't evolve and change... but it's when a new version of something comes out every year and LOTS OF STUFF is just moved around or different that people get really upset. When the old things they want to do just no longer work.
Re:Okay.. (Score:2)
Every small change adds up, though. If you look at two different versions of Red Hat, they will be quite different. I don't think *ix changes more than any other system. Windows now is still very much like Windows95 (as Linux 2.4 is relatively like Linux 2.0). There are large (major) versions and then there are smaller versions.
erm. I think *ix users _don't_ upgrade for this precise reason. Their system is finely tuned to their liking. You might be able to say "Unix users don't upgrade as much as XYZ users." And you might be right. They don't upgrade so they won't have to suffer having things broken again. This is why I hate installing new Linux distros. They never come how I want and I end up spending days tuning it to my liking. *ix users as a whole might not have this "version fatigue" problem, but the cause IMO is not the same. One type of user might upgrade all the time to play the latest games, use latest word processor, etc. If you want the newest gadget, you have to expect it to be new! I just don't understand why people expect to "upgrade" to the same software...
If you look at _software_ for *ix you will notice the same problems. The GIMP is notorious for changing its UI. GNOME and KDE have the exact same problems. Mozilla too.
Well, (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't buy this stuff about how unix is hard and other stuff is easy... I remember LOTS of yuppie boomers who learned old wordperfect just fine.. and that's certainly not wysiwig. Obscure keypresses, hidden markup codes, they understood it all.. and some were really good at it.
The problem is when things change rapidly. Totally.
Emacs keybindings aren't changed because there is no reason to change them. Nobody wants to re-write all that lisp.
Re:Well, (Score:3, Insightful)
This is part of the problem w/ determining ease-of-use. If you went from Windows to Unix in one day, you would be completely lost. More so, if you had never touched DOS before. You would have no concept of command lines or executing programs. Metaphorically, things can be different. Folders don't exist in (traditional) *ix, but directories do. If you took a long time vi user who had never used another text editor, and moved him to a Windows text editor, he would struggle to do anything. The classic vi vs. emacs is the same thing. I wouldn't say either one is more easy to use than the other. There are simply people attached to their tools.
Perhaps the ultimate answer is: ease-of-use doesn't exist. I do believe good documentation and teachers do, though (and overly-complex software, which is only slightly different from powerful software, in that one provides a use per complexity, the other does not).
Re:Well, (Score:3, Interesting)
Many did, however most management staff did not.
Obscure keypresses, hidden markup codes, they understood it all.. and some were really good at it.
True, WordPerfect was designed from the ground-up to be an "Expert" interface. It was specifically designed for professional typists. Even so, 90% of the users never figured out the more complex stuff like font formatting and tables -- stuff that virtually everyone can do in (say) Word.
What's important to understand is that the move from WordPerfect to Word lead to a fundemental restructuring of who types stuff in American business. WordPerfect was still grounded in the days of personal secretaries and typing pools. With Word, these 'yuppie' managers now have to type their own memos (although you could argue that e-mail was the final catalyst in this trend).
This lead to the immedate drop in admin salaries and training costs, which from a business standpoint was a good thing.
I don't buy this stuff about how unix is hard and other stuff is easy...
Just because people HAD to learn WordPerfect, doesn't mean they liked it. I certainly didn't -- the program basically sucked and relied on the user memorizing a bunch of pointess crap. Even in the context of DOS console apps, WordStar was much more user-friendly.
So, yeah, it's possible for people to learn (say) Emacs. But what's the point in doing so? Defeating the computer? Lowering productivity? Impressing the zitfaced IT geeks?
Re:Not on Unix? (Score:2)
I can't remember the version, but it was around '95 that emacs *did* have several changes made to the keybindings in ange-ftp.
ange-ftp is why I learned emacs. It provided the ability to manipulate remote files seamlessly, and download files in a hidden window while you did whatever wanted to do with emacs. With the crypt++ add-on, you could even edit remote
Then it changed, what used to be "copy the file" became "chmod the file" (if I remember correctly), and a several other changes happened at the same time. A real pain in the butt dealing with the context switches on different systems with different versions of emacs. Granted it could be handled with some elisp changes, but eventually I switched to vi.. which hasn't changed.
Re:Not on Unix? (Score:5, Insightful)
Suppose you have a programmer in 1992 with 3 years experience and transported him/her to 2002. If that programmer was a Windows programmer, he'd have a hard time finding a job today and have a hard time adapting. If that programmer was a Unix programmer, he shouldn't find it too difficult to find a job or adapt to Linux today.
It's not that Unix hasn't changed much, it's just that most of the changes in Unix are not gratuitous. Technologies are more modularized and centralized and technical advances tend to build on established technologies. Technology and experience are investments so you want to maximize their returns.
In Windows, technology is fashion. It changes regularly and is dumped when it's no longer a buzzword. (Take a look at all the unrelated and obsoleted Windows database APIs that were introduced in the last 10 years.)
For an example of this difference, take a look at the Linux kernel and the Windows base OS. In Linux, nearly every new concept seems to want to use either the mmap model or the "everything is a file" model and follows common initialization and update APIs. In Windows, every new concept requires a new data structure with new APIs and new initialization and update APIs. There's a lot more to learn and programming on Windows tends to be a lot more complicated on Windows.
Re:Not on Unix? (Score:2)
fFor example, with closed source, the one coder can change anything she wants, with no repurcussions. there are no other versions which may be in use, therefore there are no concerns fFor maintaining legacy.
in open source, however, any number of people may have created a link to a fFeature. so that fFeature MUST remain available. or at least the coder must allow an alias to the old fFeature.
at the risk of sounding like a typical slashdotter, rallying around open source: it's true. if you make a program openly available, your legacy will kinda need to remain.
Are you kidding? (Score:5, Insightful)
hahaha. *sigh*
Meanwhile, I'm still looking for hardware to load Debian 2.2 onto.
Thats MORE True With Development Environments (Score:5, Insightful)
We have had ODBC, Jet (various versions), SqlLib, RDO (various versions), ADO (many many versions). ODBCDirect, and now ADO.NET.
All do the same thing...Open the database, Get The data, close the database, and move on.
It is ridiculous.
What a pain (Score:4, Interesting)
Every Access version prior to 2000 used DAO (Data Access Objects). In the Visual Basic Library References, DAO was checked.
In Access 2000, they pushed ADO (Active Data Objects), which many have said is more complex and slower. They removed the Library Reference to DAO and sneaked in the Reference to ADO! To make matters worse they duplicated the variable type "recordset" in ADO and DAO, which renders useless almost all Visual Basic Code that worked with a table.
If you used the phrase "Dim x as recordset", you had to do one of the following:
- Uncheck ADO and Check DAO (Forcing it to use the older version)
- OR Check Both ADO and DAO, then search all code and replace every "Recordset" with "DAO.Recordset"
- OR Leave ADO Checked and DAO Unchecked, then search all code and rewrite every line that opened a table.
It's already bad enough that Access Databases start misbehaving when it's shared by too many people or live tables exceed 80,000 records, or the database exceeds 1.9 Gigabytes. At this point you're already thinking about scaling up to SQL server, Oracle, or my SQL.
In addition to that, more and more features are added while the "little Jet engine that could" becomes more and more critical to the operations of an organization.
Does Microsoft think that Access programmers have nothing better to do than get interrupted by every department that has upgraded to Access 2k? How hard would it have been to tell the upgrade wizard to automatically link to the DAO Library and automatically replace every "recordset" with "DAO.Recordset". You might think that it means more money for a consultant but all it does is accelerate the time to burnout. They're getting harder to find every day.
See:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group
I've also heard that Microsoft's Visual Basic strategy towards
See:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=v
It's no wonder that companies are switching to open source. Anyone's patience will wear thin after having to jump every time that Microsoft tells them to.
Re:What a pain (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, open source databases have been around a long time. PostgreSQL has its roots in the late 1980's, for example. Also, the reason there isn't an open source equivalent to Access, is that open source developers quickly realized that Access is pretty much a joke and went to work on real RDBMS systems like PostgreSQL.
Re:Thats MORE True With Development Environments (Score:2)
This is such a perfect example of the moving technology target that MS presents it's programmers, and ultimately is the reason I stopped working with MS technologies and switched completely to Java.
The most important thing I found with Java (and in this case data access methods therein) is that there's a framework that effectively hides the details of the access from you and allows for future updates to that layer without busting your old code. Microsoft has no concept of this and replaces their technologies so often that you are constantly reworking code for little to no benefit.
Aside from C++, this seems to be a problem with all MS supported languages, and is one reason I'm not taking the
Re:Thats MORE True With Development Environments (Score:2)
Memory management? Security? Ba! There is security and memory management in both.
And will ADO.NET be the final version? Not a chance. Right now MS has been introducing a new database technology every 1.5 years. So I am guessing at the end of next year there will be yet another database access technology.
Re:Thats MORE True With Development Environments (Score:2)
Having used most of MS's data access technologies I would have to say that ADO has been the best one so far(haven't used ADO.Net yet in production). Disconnected recordsets and ease of use are probably it's strengths.
It has more to do with the fact that MS has absolutely no idea how to solve the persistence problem. Not that say anybody else is better.
Lets assume that MS(or anyone else for that matter) doesn't know how to solve the persistence access problem. How then do they go about solving it without trying new technologies out?
go slash! (Score:2, Interesting)
Seriously, though, this article is a load of hooey. "Fatigue?" Please. It is an inconvenience at most. Is anyone complaining because their new Toyota doesn't have to be cranked before driving? Yes, interfaces and feature sets change over time. If you don't want the change, don't upgrade.
UI designers are by and large working for you, not against you. They're the ones who gave us context menus, tabbed browsing, keyboard accelerators, and every other Good Thing (tm) to come out of Redmond. This whining will get you nowhere.
Re:go slash! (Score:2)
You can turn this off in windows:
Control Panel > Display > (tab that changes with each version ;-) > uncheck 'smooth edges of screen fonts'
Or did you not learn that feature? It was introduced in the 'Plus!' pack so if you have original win95 this is not an option.
{sarcasm intended}
Re:go slash! (Score:2)
It is an inconvenience at most. Is anyone complaining because their new Toyota doesn't have to be cranked before driving?
Well, even cars can come with manuals [slashdot.org] these days. But the fact is, cars have been the same for the last 50 years, and only the automatic gear is a big shift from the original 3 pedal setup. If these pedals were to change every 5 years, this would result in a lot of accidents, so they don't do it. A computer program always has the "Undo" button, which a car sorely lacks :)
Even so, I wouldn't place the emphasis so much on the user interface which, thanks to Microsoft and to a smaller extent KDE and Gnome, is largely standardized (a lot of programs now implement the same shortcuts to open a file; a right-mouse button click usually pops a submenu, etc). So you'll get the hang of that quickly. I think there are other, more fundamental problems with versionitis nowadays:
First, with new versions of programs and devices, functions come and functions go. However, usually only things come, and none go, and that's what I think the author is complaing about. Each version of a product usually adds features and he's getting tired of having to wade through the manual to see what has been added or removed.
I can't blame him; most products (hard- en software) nowadays contains so many features that its user manual alone is able to bend light by its mass. Nobody wants to read through all that. Not unless you're an autistic [imdb.com] anyway... So what you get is a conflict: you spent that much money on something advanced, and you would like to use it all, but you have to go through the manual to get acquinted with it.
Second, there's the continual upgrade cycle. Your VCR goes along 5-7 years; with care, a car can last 10 years easily; your furnace: 20 years; a hammer: your lifetime; average software product: 1 year.
That's right; there's usually a new (major) version of your software every year. And often minor updates 2-3 times as many. So it's no wonder people get tired of getting through this cycle again every year. And unfortunately software developers do have the habit of changing something fundamental, like changing the order and place of menu-items, shortcuts and dialogs (especially dialogs). Which is quite an irritation factor.
This is also often the reason why users don't want to upgrade. What you see a lot is that users are satisfied with their current version of the software because it works fine for them; it may have a few bugs and quircks, but they know how to work around that. Unfortunately users are being pushed harder and harder by software vendors to upgrade. What you often see is this: when a vendor brings out a new version X of a program, after a while they stop supporting version (X-2). If you have a problem, or want drivers, or anything else related to that 'old' version, you'll get no help. They'll say: "we can help you if you upgrade to version X (or perhaps X-1)". At a price, of course.
In all, I think his term version fatique is well-coined. It describes exactly the feeling of a lot of customers when they hear the announcement of a new version (Open Source supporters excluded :)): "Oh no, not again." or "Now already?"
Redmond? (Score:2)
You're probably talking about a different Redmond. I've often heard of Cupertino described as the Redmond of California. Maybe that's it.
Appending to parent post (Score:2)
I should have remembered to add this "feature" to the original post. My bad.
We'll move the steering wheel to the other side (Score:2)
Don't like the way we moved the steering wheel around from last year's model? Don't buy the new model.
That's whay your argument sounds like if you get your nose off the screen and take a breath.
Now, do you still think it makes sense?
Your example is totally wrong (Score:2)
It's more like the developers are saying"we thought that the gas pedal would look so much cooler on the left, but then we had nowhere to put the brake so we just stuck it on the right. Please try not to get into any situations where you have to suddently avoid hitting children until you unlearn your 15 years of trained reflexes."
By choice or by mandate? (Score:2)
That's a nice bit of advice.... if you aren't subjected to mandatum from higher-ups who decide unilaterally to upgrade.
Complaining because of the new Toyota? Try finding your mid-size automatic company car replaced by a SUV with a stick because the boss likes the shiny chrome bumpers.
for the mainstreamers... (Score:2)
I think that this is a case where version fatigue simply introduces a slower and more annoying way of doing the same thing the same way.
Re:for the mainstreamers... (Score:2)
Because other companies send me word files in word 2002 format with nested tables and other funky objects that "strings" doesn't work on?
Market forces (Score:5, Insightful)
Without trying to be too cynical, this is a very obvious reason for the re-release of old apps with very minor changes to the previous version. How many NEW features of your latest word processor/IDE (delete as appropriate) do you really use? Chances are very few.
The re-release cycle is a real problem for consumer oriented companies. In a technical/business backend server market (like telecomms or banking) the problem is even worse - shift an app, which will run for ten years trouble free and provide full functionality, once and you may have destroyed your job! Who needs you once that ships?
Nah. Market forces dictate that broken or incomplete software will be much more dominant in the commercial marketplace.
Re:Market forces (Score:5, Informative)
maintenance licenses (Score:2)
in the industry than you realize.
Most commercial UNIXes as well as other "enterprise" level software (databases, specialized APIs, runtime licenses, etc.) that does not need to be upgraded every 3 months is usually under "maintenance" for 100K+/year.
This is a pain to deal with sometimes (esp. with node-locked licenses) but the big companies manage to handle it transparently. I hope the idea never hits it big on the consumer market.
(XP is a disturbing path towards that trend).
Re:Market forces (Score:2)
Trouble is, what it actually gets is everything a *developer* wants in it, which ain't necessarily the same thing. And the developer implementing it won't necessarily write it in any way that anyone can use it effectively. And the end product becomes bloated with features that most ppl will never need, simply bcos someone thought it was "neat". Can you say "Emacs"...?
Grab.
No... (Score:2, Informative)
No, every user wants something else in the new release, and whatever subset of wishes you choose to implement, the other users are going to be disappointed.
Regardless of the technology (Score:3, Insightful)
It's time we let this little tidbit be known. Quit fixing things that aren't broken!
Adobe (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem is, interface design is still an art and not a science. What little research that has gone into interfaces has gone completely unnoticed by the industry at large. I suppose there isn't vocal demand for improvement, so it won't happen.
Re:Adobe (Score:2)
Especially true for Adobe products (Score:5, Interesting)
What I've learned is that when your work (and productivity) depends on a particular flow and interaction with your applications, even the smallest changes can significantly impact that and result in a very sour attitude towards new releases of software.
Now, what's the solution? I keep saying that there's no way for Adobe to add new features w/o incrementally changing the way you interact with the application
Re:Especially true for Adobe products (Score:2, Interesting)
Really surprised you by-passed the all too obvious MS slam here. IMHO, MS is the absolute WORST for this.
Re:Especially true for Adobe products (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Especially true for Adobe products (Score:2)
Yes, I agree! Photoshop is the worst offender. (Score:2)
I'm ok with changing the basic interaction with the software (type tool, choosing brushes, etc.) if they want to introduce new features, but changing the key commands for tools and operations that have already been there is totally insane!!
Re:Yes, I agree! Photoshop is the worst offender. (Score:2)
WTF are these new transfer modes??? Color Dodge doesn't work the same! How come layer transparency doesn't work the same?? WHERE IS THE FADE FILTER COMMAND???
Of course, it's all still there. (Vivid Light usually does what I want, the Layer Fill parameter [under the opacity] effects tranclucency first and THEN applies transfer mode, and vice versa for opacity [ I LOVE this btw ], and Fade Filter is under the Undos in the Edit menu (Why? Oh well at least it's there).
Oddly enough this brings up in interesting point: Microsoft actually did something right. IIRC there is a preference option in MS Word '98 called "Word 5.1 Menus." I.e. if you are used to the old-school style, it's availible. I think Adobe and other companies should do more of this kind of thing. I don't know much about Windows or any of the X11RC enviroments, but for Mac it's easy to re-arrange the menu items, as well as tailor your event loop to be versitile enough to handle it (lookup tables work nicely). It's extra bulk but it can be helpful.
As far as new features, well, new is new, you gotta learn it sometime. I liek most of the new stuff though, especially the Healing Tool. Yum.
Uh.. (Score:2, Interesting)
I can't think of any good examples of commodity software whose surface, elementary functions have changed in any massive way across revisions. The cosmetic look-and-feel changes, certainly -- but you can *still* click on that "B" button to get your text bolded, etc.
Besides, if users aren't spending the time in getting to learn the more esoteric functions, doesn't it make some sense to try to reimplement those functions in a fashion that renders their use more intuitive? Even if it's at the expense of the (apparently few) people who have spent the time learning how to use them?
I understand the frustration -- but, well, you can always *not upgrade* if what you have works for you.
Re:Uh.. (Score:2)
Change happens for a reason, and you either invest a little time up front to improve your processes or you get left behind 3 versions later. That's what creates the techie/user dichotomy--the respective embrace and fear of change.
Ask a user to think about what they were doing 5 years ago (hell even 2 years ago) and then ask them if they would want to go back. They may bitch about learning new things, but they'll have no problem using them once they get the hang of it.
it's keeping us from upgrading (Score:3, Informative)
I sometimes wonder what goes through the mind of the developers when they change a perfectly good working peice of software, and make it one that is harder to use.
this explains... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:this explains... (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, it's whining, to a certain degree. I did the same thing when Apple went from System 6 to System 7 and changed how you handled control panels and extensions, and when they went to the "Platinum" puffy Windows-y interface in OS 8.
The changes from 6 to 7 were good for the system, "Platinum" didn't do much for me (I still prefer the clean black-and-white interface of System 7), and osX is a whole new ball game. It's starting to grow on me, and I'm finally learning to go to the Dock instead of the Finder to empty the trash. I'm actually starting to enjoy the Dock now - it's a nice retractable place to put a lot of icons I used to leave lying around on my desktop. I guess change can be good after all
-----
Apple hardware still too expensive for you? How about a raffle ticket? [macraffle.com]
Let "them" know you're not a terrorist! [cafepress.com]
Re:this explains... (Score:2)
Believe it or not, Apple had a really good reason for changing the "New Folder" shortcut. In virtually every other application, "Cmd-N" means "New Window." Apple decided that the Finder wasn't so special that it needed to break the standard, so they made Cmd-N behave just like every other application out there. Type Cmd-N anywhere, and you know what you get: a new window. Consistency is good, and Apple fixed a consistency problem by making Cmd-N open a new window instead of create a new folder. Sure it took 2 days to teach my fingers the difference, but they were right to make the change.
Re:this explains... (Score:3, Interesting)
No standards, nothing you can count on. I don't know how many slick curvy shiny little apps I've tried where you're randomly stabbing at everything on the screen because you don't know what's a control and what's just window dressing (e.g., Kai).
And this tendency to make regular Windows apps look like Web pages is just ludicrous. There were so many violations of common sense in just the installation of Visual Studio
Oh well, I've ranted long enough.
chrome is evil (Score:3, Insightful)
Why can't a button be just a button, and why do skins seem to automatically mean bitmaps pasted over buttons?
-jhp
User Design Fiasco (Score:2, Interesting)
At one point in my career I had three different versions of Word on three different machines. It was hilarious dealing with the different versions and how many differences there were, only to find out that, feature wise, they were almost identical.
I really hope the OpenOffice guys have a modicum of self control on this issue now that I've switched over to that office suite
New GUI Tools/Widgets (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, between my wife and my mom I've had plenty of experience with the frustation users feel at radical changes. For instance the new option in MS Office Apps that default hides infrequently used Menu options and toolbar icons. It took me almost an hour to tell my mom over the phone how to get her right-justify button back.
There is hope though, if Adobe keeps patenting obvious GUI interface concepts we'll all be back to command line programs and the point will be moot.
Us techies know how to deal with it ... (Score:3, Insightful)
This doesn't sound like the techies I know. I've worked in the computer biz for three decades, and as long as I can remember, there has been a standard excuse for not upgrading to the latest release: "I've learned to use the old one. It's working fine for me. I've got work to do, and I don't want to waste time learning to use the latest version. Maybe when I find I need some of the new features, I'll consider upgrading."
This has always been a fact of life in the "tech" sector, to the frustration of the Customer Support people who are always dealing with people who are 30 revs behind. You don't hear about it much because techies don't make a fuss over it. We just quietly listen to the hype for the latest versions, and we ignore it, unless we hear something that we think will be useful enough to justify the time lost in an upgrade.
There are some linux systems that have been running continuously for around a decade now, without any upgrades at all
Re:Us techies know how to deal with it ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Admittedly the work of most of them is file/print and it isn't going to kill them, even with roughly 3/4 TB of disk per system, but even the busier systems (Exchange, SQL server, Web server) don't die on us.
I think Win2k deserves more credit for uptime than it usually gets.
Re:Us techies know how to deal with it ... (Score:3, Insightful)
You can flap your lips all you like but it doesn't prove anything. Give us proof. Not the usual "blah blah blah we have a Win2k box blah blah blah never rebooted blah blah blah uku billion terrabytes workload blah blah blah."
That's all I ask, proof. Proof. Proof.
As for the win2k web servers not having very long uptimes, perhaps it is because it is a common practice to reboot them every week to prevent "unscheduled reboots".
t.
Good vs Evil (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, I still know of people who would still be on Windows 3.1 and word 5.0 if they were not forced to "upgrade" for one reason or another.
heck, even look at webpages. With the new privacy statement implemetations in IE 6.0 people coding in basic HTML will tend to be locked out because the browser will generate an ominous error message about a lack of a privacy policy. The Current implementations of P3P are a legal minefield, so much so that at least one person has advocated dis-avowing p3p altogether [disavowp3p.com], just for your corporate safety.
Version fatigue comes in when the new bells and whistles do not obviously justify the changes needed in work habits, and do not expand the core functionality in a useful and meaningful way.
there are only so many ways to re-invent the wheel.
Microsoft, for example, has got itself on a treadmill, because it has to come out with a new version, regardless of worth, every several years. This has irritated me so much that I hope they trip on the treadmill, fall, and do serious damage to themselves.
Re:Good vs Evil (Score:2)
Didn't they already trip and crack their heads on something? I thought that was where Windows ME came from.
Not "Creativity", indeciciveness... (Score:4, Insightful)
I see Apache 2.0 as an achievement in this regard. When I was researching the new 2.0 branch I was expecting a new mind-bending config that'll destroy most of the work I had done over the years in standardizing my Apache builds; not so.
I can't say the same for every other software package out there, including almost every new major release of RedHat.
Users and Interface (Score:3, Informative)
*** Rant On ***
As a programmer I can speak to the software end of this conundrum involving "version fatigue." In the companies I've worked for, the programmers are the lifeblood of the enterprise, but often treated as little more than throwaways (albeit usually relatively well-paid). And, software projects/products rarely have a clear definition - so their development is a moving target. So programmers cannot define what they should build - because they lack any control (other than to drive from the backseat) - and no one else can definitively tell them.
What does this have to do with versions you say? Well, for software that actually gets out the door (the minority of projects to be honest), it's almost never *right*; in addition, it has a bevy of unnecessary features, which made it in due to an unclear vision of what the result should be. Therefore another version is needed to "get it right", of course the unclear vision remains so some improvement is made, maybe features are cut (a rarity), and some new unnecessary features are added, and others changed (but not for the better and sometimes for the worse).
A good book on this topic is Alan Cooper's "The Inmates are Running the Asylum" Amazon [amazon.com]. It focuses on User Interface Design, which at the end of the day really means developing the disciplines and indentifying the user(s) to actually define what should be done before it's done!
*** Rant Off ***
It's a bit hard to get it right The First Time. (Score:2, Interesting)
Revisions and subsequent "version fatigue" results when they find out that, no, their intuitions were wrong, the users hate it/can't catch on easily enough, etc. The fact that it is even considered "fatigue" is that the concept of TIMTOWTDI is only applicable to the coder, not the user. They are stuck with what is sold to them, but in a move of consideration and a hope that the software can be more friendly, there is a revision. Different, must be relearned, but hopefully easier to use than the current product.
The biggest issue with this is that beta-testing is not done incremental, but comprehensively, in so many cases. The final result is that the overall amount of bugs that can be reported tend to dwarf "ease of use" issues, which are left to later revisions and version patches. Sad, but overwhelmingly the status quo.
This is arguably *the* most critical problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Our focus was on development, specifically why MS developers seem to have arrested development at about the level of 2 years of real experience. This isn't a slam against them - this was so widespread that we knew it had to be environmental.
We eventually figured out that the problem was Microsoft's constant reinvention of the wheel. We focused on the GUI, and compared the fact that we had been using the same libraries for a decade (Xlib for low-level routines, Motif for lists, menus, etc.), while in the same time MS Windows had released something like 4 separate, and incompatible, graphics libraries.
This mean that while we were able to build on our prior experience - and more importantly build on other organization's experiences as we brought in new employees with fresh ideas - the MS shops were constantly struggling to "stay in place" and there was essentially no institutional memory.
To be honest, I think much of the problems with MS Windows applications can be traced to this. After 10+ years of Unix experience, most people have been bitten by a fair number of "it could never happen" errors, and they instinctively take care to avoid a repeat. A MS Windows developer has probably seen as many errors, but how do you map the solution for a library three generations ago to the current one?
Re:This is arguably *the* most critical problem (Score:2)
However, you could make the argument that the MS libraries are thus better and better, with each revision. You could also say that Xlib sucked in the 70s and it sucks now; that Motif sucked in the 80s and it sucks now. Some say this is why "linux on the desktop" is not "done". If the UNIX environment could get a new graphics library or even a new way of thinking, much could be done to improve things. If we didn't have to constantly have to work around stuff that we learned was bad 20 years ago, we could make things better.
I don't totally agree with this, but it has been said many times before, and I can't totally disagree.
My view is that there is a happy medium between having stuff that has been around for 40 years and stuff that is constantly changing (read: improving). Yes, it is good that my cumlitave experience on UNIX is mostly applicable, but it would be nice if more improvements were possible. But I don't think it is good to change too much either; you get a bunch of people that can't possibly have more that 2 years experience in anything that matters.
Re:This is arguably *the* most critical problem (Score:2)
Re:This is arguably *the* most critical problem (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm an M$ developer for the most part (though I'm moving away as fast as my career will allows) and it gets utterly insane. After several years of ASP, VB, ADO development, suddenly I have to deal with
This is why I'm moving towards PHP, *nix, Java, and C++. This is insane.
Re:This is arguably *the* most critical problem (Score:4, Insightful)
"Unix may be a steep learning curve, but at least you only have to climb it once."
I think I finally understand what it's getting at now.
My experiences with large vendors (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of this vendor's clients I have worked with would still be using the original version they installed, if the vendor would support them. But the vendor's stock price is driven by revenue, and revenue is driven by sales. In the end 'version fatigue' helps the vendor's buttom line, and is great for consultants like me.
-josh
And this is why... (Score:2, Insightful)
Our contract with our ERP vendor stipulated that at the initial purchase of the software license we got all the source code and perpetual right to use that source code internally for any purpose whatsoever, as long as we didn't try to make any products for resale out of their code. Well, we're about to cease paying annual maintenance, freeze at our present version of the ERP software, and take over support/customizations/etc all with our own internal staff, and tell our ERP vendor to go take a long walk off a short pier.
We've been paying about $100K per year maintenance, and getting crap for support. Basically when we call tech support, all we get is a bubblegum-smacking teenager on the phone who barely can read the owners manual back to us. Seems as the vendor has almost nobody left who knows their own product, and the few techs who do know the product are always too busy dedicated to bigger, "more important" customers than us. We usually end up solving the problems ourself and that new knowledge gets put into the vendor's support knowledgebase. Hell they should be paying us unstead.
Oh, and by the way, the web based product we're getting shoved down our throats, absolutely sucks. It's a poor, consumer-grade unreliable toy product. The pure client-server version we're running right now is professional grade. Too bad the vendor doesn't see value in building upon that product, maturing and evolving it into a better and better product.
Version fatigue.. (Score:2)
Perhaps a different phrase ought to be suggested to describe what the article addresses. Maybe "User-Diditbefore-Don'twannalearnhowtodoitagain-i
JMHO
Its a bad cycle (Score:4, Interesting)
But, users don't want to pay for a new version if it looks the same as the last one. They feel like they are buy what they already have, so you have to change the interface or the won't buy.
But once they buy, they complain that they have to learn a new interface.
Its a lose-lose situation.
Would anybody have upgraded from 2000 to XP if it wasn't for the interface change? No. Most software already has the features we need, from now on it just interface changes over and over.
Thats why my moms business is still running win98 and office97. why upgrade? there are no new features the average person needs, except for clippy in an irregularly shapped window.
Maybe that's why... (Score:3, Insightful)
I thought at first glance... (Score:5, Funny)
Pure Laziness (Score:5, Insightful)
Rant mode: On.
This is pure intellectual laziness. What is wrong with being in a "learning mode?" We do it our entire lives! Why should someone want to actually stop learning?
I've noticed a very disturbing trend lately. It could just be my perceptions, but it still gives me cause for concern. Many people (both general consumers and professionals in business) don't want to bother learning anything. They want to tackle complex tasks that could never be done before, but insist on not having to learn the tools to do it. I see it here at work with people who insist on holding on desperately to suboptimal programming tools when others would tackle the job more effectively. I even see it in my own family: I once got a call from my mother, while she was on vacation, asking how to access the voicemail for her cell phone. She called me at work, in the middle of the day, simply because she had never bothered reading the instructions from her service provider! (I taught her the meaning of RTFM that day.)
I understand that many products can be difficult to use, especially software. It takes effort to learn these products, and effort to use them. However, very often we barely have the technology working. How can you expect it to be easy to use as well? Automobiles, television sets, and radios are all products that many now consider fairly easy to use. Now ask the question: How long did it take for them to get to be so simple? Some of these products have been continually developed and refined for over a century. Now consider how long VCRs, camcorders, and software products have been around. By comparison, these are all fresh out of the R&D lab!
People need to realize that complex tasks can't generally be simplified overnight. It takes time to find the solution to the problems at hand, and even more time to refine the solution such that it is both effective and efficient (i.e. it requires a minimum of effort to use.) All of the complaining does nothing but add to the noise.
Rant mode: Off.
Thanks for reading.-kjz
Re:Pure Laziness (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a difference between learning and re-learning.
If I already know how to perform a certain task in Foo 5.0, I should be able to apply that knowledge when Foo 6.0 comes out instead of digging through
help files trying to figure out why the old method doesn't work anymore and what the new method is.
Adding new features is great. Changing the way existing features behave should be avoided unless there's an overriding NEED to do so
Re:Pure Laziness (Score:3, Interesting)
Nothing. Nothing is wrong with a learning mode as such. What really makes a problem is being put back into a learning mode for the same task over and over, which is peculiar to computer software. This makes you less efficient in accomplishing that task than you were befor, for no apparent reason. Making you more efficient is generally notg your goal when using a computer; your goal is to be more efficient than you would be without. Or with the previous model. Or with a typewriter.
Also don't forget that not all learning is learning of explicit knowledge, rules and sentences one could quote in an exam. There is tacit knowledge, there are habits formed in everyday use of a thing, and there are strategies helping to find knowledge in the world when it can't be found in the head. What isn't there is an unlearn button. Learning a new way of doing something after having learned another way very well might be more difficult than learning a totally new thing.
Re:Pure Laziness (Score:4, Insightful)
This is pure intellectual laziness. What is wrong with being in a "learning mode?" We do it our entire lives! Why should someone want to actually stop learning?
Well, as a technology person, I can understand the sentiment. I too have been frustrated by the dangerous and ridiculous fear most users have of change. But you need to look at things from their perspective.
If you're anything like me, you are concerned with the nuts and bolts of IT. To us, new user interfaces are no big deal. We have to keep learning all the time, or we get like that old bitter, grizzled engineer who sits in the corner and talks endlessly about how great Lantastic was. This significantly divorces us from the world of those for whom IT is a tool, not their job. A lawyer who spends their life keeping up with contract law and reading 100 page briefs on a daily basis simply doesn't have the intellectual bandwidth to deal with where her fucking bullets&numbering button went in the new version of Word. This is not a reflection of her intelligence or ability to learn. It's a simple matter of not having the time.
If we can agree that the problem is unreasonable fear, then I would suggest that this notion that IT exists to serve itself is the real cause for this fear. Users think of us as self-serving elitist upstarts who don't care about their problems. Just look at this thread. Programmers bemoan the idea of writing quality code because it would put them out of a job. I guess I kind of thought quality code WAS their job. If they don't want to do it, then they don't deserve the work. This idea that IT should be a self-sustaining beast without the inconvenience of worrying about bothersome users is short-sighted and unethical.
I am no fan of Microsoft. In fact, I am a rather vitriolic critic. But if there is one reason by which their business success might be legitimately explained, it is that they look at their entire product line from the standpoint of the user. Features such as your Outlook journal automatically keeping track of when you work on Word documents, for example, are very cool toys for the user, but make a huge mess of the back end for us to deal with. They don't do this consistently, and they don't even do this well, (hell, they're the ones causing all this version fatigue!) but they are about the only people out there thinking of the user first and the server room second.
Until we can eschew our elitism, and develop some sense of a work ethic with regard to making IT work for the people who need it, we will not overcome the user fear barrier.
Two sides to it (Score:4, Insightful)
The other side of this thats ignored is the programmers. A lot of us are NOT trying to ram out Spectacleware, we'd like to talk to the users, like to go "slow and steady" and don't get the options. We don't often get the chance to make that decision, however, because someone wants something out the door pronto.
Version fatigue? I'd say its being suffered on both sides because the people making the decisions don't care about users or programmers.
Why this happens.. (Score:3, Interesting)
If you take the current version of most software and do some usability testing with new users, you'll probably find that there are things that could be done better.
But when you make those changes, to please the new users, you're messing with the users who already know how the thing works.
Microsoft Visual C++ is a perfect example. With each new version they move things around - but they have "compatibility" modes for people who liked the old way. Even with the newest Visual Studio.NET you can still pick the old VC 2.x keyboard layout and use it.
That's a pretty good solution, as long as your app is customizable enough that you can use the customization to emulate the previous version...
The only real problem with this solution is that it makes it so nobody else can use your customized version. If I go over to my co-workers desk to try to fix a bug, I can never remember what hotkey to hit to get it to compile..
(Maybe the solution to this particular problem is to make it easy to set a "guest" profile that temporarily overrides the current profile).
Windows is a huge victim of this problem too - the whole redesigned Start menu in XP annoys most existing users, but new users (users new to computers, what few there are - I helped a friend "get online" and got to watch this) seem to like it..
- Steve
Re:Why this happens.. (Score:2)
As a tech person, I am *not* insensitive to this (Score:4, Interesting)
My Linux friends are often amazed at how uncool my Linux desktops are, or my emacs config files are, or a whole slew of other things. The reason for that is that I am f'in sick of having to completely reconfigure the system every time I upgrade, or hop machines (which is almost always an upgrade or a downgrade; otherwise I could at least carry my config), or change software packages.
I switched which machine was doing my email processing last week, and I just wanted to copy the config across from one to the other. No dice; one ran exim3, the other ran exim4, which has a whole new, completely incompatible config file. The conversion script was wholly unhelpful for my config, so I had to do it by hand.
If versions weren't changing so often, or if it were easier in general to carry configurations around even across versions (an impossible task in general), I'd be much more likely to actually configure things. As it is, I carry around a *small*
Granted, I'm more violent to my systems then your average user, even more then your average Linux user, but it's still exasperating.
People, it's not a mark of manliness that your program requires text file twiddling to configure. Give me an easy, easy, easy method of at least setting the the basic parameters. Like Mozilla: The basic parameters are in the config box, but there's a lot of obscure ones you need to hit the prefs.js directly. That's fine with me.
And don't even get me started on re-re-re-re-re-re-learning keyboard shortcuts.
Reading these posts make me realize that . (Score:3, Insightful)
They have no [expletive deleted] idea what the problems are because THEIR software has been stable for decades.
Using "make" or a shell does NOT make a coder into a user. It does not provide the programmer with any perspective into "user-land."
That's why most Linux GUI stuff sucks, can't copy/paste across applications, doesn't follow guidelines and is so ideosyncratic you just want to strangle the coder.
Being a domain expert is fine if you're working in that domain. But coders are supposed to be experts working in their OWN domain: CODING.
I wouldn't want to look at or use code produced by a domain expert (it'll be correct but it'll probably be buggy, unstructured, unmaintainable perform like a resource pig.)
By the same token, I wouldn't trust code that has been produced by a software God but has not been verified for correctness by a domain expert (it may be sweet and run like blazes but I can't trust that it actually solves the problem its supposed to.)
One piece of software... (Score:2)
The cool thing about Limewire is that even though the technology behind it has grown and they have been working hard behind the scenes - the software is virtually the same since I first used it.
KISS, Knights In... I mean keep it simple silly.
Of course though there are users out there like me who want to be able to play with all those cool options.
Fuck this "version fatigue". There should be a least two applications for each task - there can be a niche market for those apps that don't change and there should be that market for people that can read at the PC!*
* I've noticed lately that perfectly literate people can't read when they sit in front of a PC. Tell them to click "Ok" and suddenly they can't read, is this where 'computer literate' comes from?
Never abandon an interface convention! (Score:3, Informative)
Unfortunately, that's about the only prominent example of MS following that advice. After years of working on windows NT 4, for instance, I finally convinced myself to leap to win2k because the amount of supported hardware was just so much better. And I had NO idea how to administrate my machine! Just trying to partition my drives was a huge hassle; I used to be able to open up the disk management node in the control panel and now... well, I found it; it's in "administrative tools -> computer management."
Which is fine, but it was somewhere else for so LONG. Would it REALLY have hurt to leave a link to that program from its old place? And the sad thing is, MS isn't really the worst offender. I'm thoroughly confused every time I get a new version of KDE; in some ways, I'd be just peachy on using KDE 1 just because I remember how to configure it so well (and I would, except that the mail client sucks prior to version 2.2).
In all, I think there needs to be a good deal more attention paid to interface design before the FIRST release. Because, for better or worse, the first interface you give someone is the one they're going to expect from your product. If it sucks, you're just going to be pressured to maintain a sucky interface, or frustrate your customers when you discard what they're familiar with.
Free Software doesn't have this problem. (Score:3, Interesting)
Free software though doesn't need to sell itself. Free software is made to solve a problem, not make money. Big difference. Changing an interface between versions only makes a problem worse, since it's harder for the user to use the software. Instead free software is changed each version to help better solve the problem it was designed for. Just another reason to trust Free and OSS more.
Useful new buzzword... (Score:3, Insightful)
...this "version fatigue". I hope it gets as widely adopted as "vaporware" did. Version fatigue is an excellent way to describe that part of so many new releases of older products that are nothing more than moving the chrome around on the sheet metal, and have nothing to do with the underlying chassis and powertrain.
Sometimes one pithy identification of a problem is enough to cause radical changes for the better. Version fatigue might be a very powerful addition to the lexicon.
Version fatigue from bad initial design (Score:3, Interesting)
Iterate sufficient times, and what you get is version fatigue.
If you had spent enough time in the design phase, possibly with some prototyping, you might have escaped a bit of all these changes.
That said, if you look at Microsoft Word, I would argue that the version fatigue is not that great. Type at the keyboard, change the fonts with the dropdowns, and hit the printer icon. The floppy icon for saving. The looks are slightly changed, but almost everything is done in the same way as before (which is why I'm relatively happy with Word97). Gimme a good reason to get Word XP! If you can, I bet I wouldn't get version fatigue, since the fundamental functionality is relatively stable.
Changing the interface when the interface is flawed is an unpopular but necessary task. Changing the interface for the sake of changing the interface is a PR nightmare.
Macromedia (Score:2)
They have also been very good about keeping their menu structure generally the same. Some things might colapse into a submenu, but they are still under the same main menu as they were before.
a good book (Score:2)
That is what killed Wordstar (Score:2)
Everybody knew ^S^D^E^X left/right/up/down and the ^K file commands. It flowed as naturally to the fingers as vi commands do today :-)
I cannot imagine what possessed them to change all the keybindings - but it killed the product stone dead.
Cheers, Andy! [ showing his age ]
A ridiculous criticism -- it informs nothing (Score:2)
Yeah, right. Users are just plain exhausted by all the new functionality they get. The criticism, certainly not entirely unfounded, that arbitrary and capricious changes make life difficult, will never cost any company anywhere a sale. Never. The only customers aggrieved are already their customer, and if the customer is disinclined toward change or learning new ways to do things, would NEVER BE INCLINED TO ADOPT AN ENTIRELY NEW AND DIFFERENT product by a competitor.
On the other hand, avoiding changes to the status quo and avoiding inclusion of new and modern features (many of which include adopting new GUI standards imposed by OS manufacturers) will eventually assure the demise of a product, as the product gets branded old and obsolete, and gradually the competitors overwhelm us with competitive upgrades and the like -- soon, we are the stranger to the next generation of sedentary users. Yes, of course, we will retain a handful of those who like things "as they were," and they will be the last to leave us. However, they weren't going to buy the new upgrade anyway.
In short, OF COURSE, we shouldn't make stupid and arbitrary changes -- but tech designers who make sound, decent and forward-moving changes will ALWAYS be closer to the heart of the consuming public, even though a few old farts will grump from time to time (until they learn the new stuff).
Version exhaustion? Nothing a good cup of coffee and a manual couldn't cure.
Re:Please... (Score:2)
Apache fixing bugs is a good thing.. but what if they changed random config file options between releases for no apparent reason? You wouldn't be able to move config files between releases as easily.
Re:Please... (Score:2, Insightful)
Except we're not talking about bug fixes in a daemon; we're talking about learning a new user interface and way of working with every release of the software.
The reason we're seeing the version fatigue is that user interfaces haven't developed enough standards that new features can be added in non-bewildering ways. It's just like the early days of the automobile - as new electrical components were grafted onto them, the interfaces to them were complex and varied by auto maker. But by now there are pretty much standard ways to operate the radio, the headlights, the turn signals, etc.
User interface version fatigue is a sign that software user interface design is an immature field.
Re:bah. ignore the users. (Score:2, Insightful)
Obviously, you can't just let the users submit a list of things they want and then build that software, however good software should always take its users into account. I mean, you are building the software for users. I am no professional UI designer, but I can tell you that a good UI designer will take a look at how a tool is currently being used and try to find ways to make that tool more effient. I hate to go down the analogy road, but what if the auto industry ignored their users? You might have cars that people couldn't fit into.
In the end, users are king b/c they either pay for your software or they help make it better (as in the OSS world).
Re:bah. ignore the users. (Score:2)
A good UI designer will do this, but a really great UI designer will be involved in the initial stages of design, doing a task analysis and coming up with the basic program interaction before any code is ever written or any features decided upon. UI designers can make a program so much more usable, but often they are brought in well into the late stages of design. By that point so much of the product has been designed and decided upon by programmers and so much code has been written that there's really not much a good UI designer can do make the product usable without a major rewrite.
Re:bah. ignore the users. (Score:3, Informative)
Of course its NOT easy to figure out what users want, and it requires some savvy to figure it out and get sign-off. That's part of the programming lifestyle.
I can sympathize with version fatigue, though. I'm tired of companies (read M$) deciding how I think.
Re:bah. ignore the users. (Score:2)
What users *say* they want is not always what they *actually* want.
I would say it's good to listen to them if they want to point out a problem (something they find confusing or dislike) and try and do something about it but *never* simply listen to their advice on *how* to solve a UI issue!
If your good at software design, you should know more about it than they do and you should be able to come up with solutions they'd never have thought of. Generally they like to make statements without considering other factors or at least allowing the fact that their might be other factors.
Re:neo artists (Score:2)
I used to work with someone who continually referred to programming as "art" and not "science".
THAT is exactly what the problem with software is. Along with the fact that these "artists" feel the need to continually be creating and recreating programs that users (at least the rational ones anyway) just want to work.
Definition for Legacy system - A system that works.
True, but... (Score:2, Interesting)
Agreed (Score:2, Interesting)