 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Talkback:
"The Owner's Manual as Engineering Spec"
Christopher Moore has really stuck a chord with this one. I am sick of over-engineered, over-featured products full of bells and whistles that no one could possibly use, all being shoved in front of my face. The people who make these things have no clue about how they're supposed to be used--they just throw in any old thing they can think of and let the poor user sort out what's important and what isn't. If designers were to think of function first, and then lay on the features to achieve that function, we users would waste a hell of a lot less time.
--joestudio@frantic.com
Out of the mouths of babes: a student of mine, when I was showing a particularly obscure feature in a very complex software program, innocently asked, "Why would anyone want to do that?² I realized I had no answer for him, and I would bet that the engineer who decided to put that feature in wouldn't either. "Because we can² is no excuse for cluttering up a product with tons o' features of dubious use. Doing the user manual first is one way to get unnecessary crap weeded out. I applaud Chris Moore.
--dr.audio@smsteu.edu
I like Chris Moore's approach to doing user manuals, but he's offbase when he says that they should be used as design specifications. As products get more complex, users will find new ways to make them jump through new hoops. If every function and how it should be used is completely understood and documented before the product is even designed, there's no room for serendipity, that special moment when someone finds a whole new way to do something, or discovers a solution to a problem he didn't know existed. If we plan everything ahead of time, we will end up with totally predictable, and yes, boring, products.
--designstudio@bigaudio.com