DW> Oh, and I surely agree that utter dependence on the
DW> below-lowest-common-denominator "target user" (who won't actually
DW> become a user no matter how much you dumb the thing down) who straggles
DW> into some usability lab as the most important input for UI requirements
DW> is not a good thing for real users. But we still occasionally see
DW> posters here complaining that it's too complex and hard to understand
DW> and use. What are you going to do in that kind of an environment?

Not pretend that these occasional posters represent the majority? Do not
"what the users want", but what the _majority_ of users want? what _mature_
users want?

Though maybe it's integral part of American mentality - demonstratively
taking care of the rare few disabled, completely ignoring and actually
inconveniencing 99.9% of the regular. When you are stopped for 1 minute at
the red light at the intersection with tiny rural street having 1 car in 30
minutes, it's the same thinking.

Vadim Rapp

Money interface = pretty
Quicken interface = practical

Oh, and perhaps off-topic, I think the balkanization of the product
(Essential *, Advanced *, MEss, etc.) has also surely been a disaster for
users and, maybe especially, for those of us who try to help other users.

It's probably done something for Microsoft.

Oh, and I surely agree that utter dependence on the
below-lowest-common-denominator "target user" (who won't actually become a
user no matter how much you dumb the thing down) who straggles into some
usability lab as the most important input for UI requirements is not a good
thing for real users. But we still occasionally see posters here complaining
that it's too complex and hard to understand and use. What are you going to
do in that kind of an environment?

M05 was a disaster for the UI--Tools|Settings kludged in front of all of the
existing dialog boxes for one--and there were several other changes along
the way--the M02 Bills update comes to mind--that just reek of having been
done by people who don't actually use the program. There's lots of stuff
that's just been scabbed on over time without regard to consistency or
transfer of training from one part of the program to another or even
fundamental financial logic. (Requiring scheduling a number of shares for a
future investment purchase comes to mind.) Once upon a time (M99? M2k? M97?)
you had the feeling one person with a vision really designed the UI. Now it
reeks of committee think and maintenance programmers.

"I'm used to it" is probably the best answer I can give you. I don't find it
unproductive and rarely--except in Bills & Deposits where so many things
that can be entered can't be scheduled--find it counterproductive. But I'm
**way** used to it.

"Vadim Rapp" <vr[at]nospam.myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:Ozclt6D3HHA.4400[at]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
- quote -

Hello,

I was quite surprised recently when, looking for the guidelines on user
inface for Windows programs, I encoutnered this article http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms997506.aspx
at Microsoft website, where Money 2000 (and later, apparently) appears as an
example of proper interface. They also mention that there was user study
where 10 novice users ("10 participants who had never used a personal
finance product before") performed better in Money 2000 than in Money 99.

From all my experience with Money, I'd say that its interface is one of the
worst I've ever seen in an application. It's convoluted, non-consistent,
non-logical, non-intuitive, and generally, whenever I need to do any
non-everyday-task, I have to spend some time to find out where is it. For
instance, even such simple item as "manage online services", is not
something that you would find in 10 seconds.

This applies to the new versions - as I now understand, those where they
inplemented this "Inductive User Interface", presumable, indeed, from M2000.
Before that, finding the right place was never a problem. This web-like
interface is certainly, without doubt, much worse than traditional menu- and
toolbar-based interface.

The choice of test participants "who had never used a personal finance
product before", and nobody else, I suspect, can be only explained by the
objective of quick getting new users to the minimum level sufficient to not
return the product, however completely ignoring mature users.

So I'm wondering, do old users share this my opinion? Do you agree with the
above statements (which probably would mean that Inductive User Interface
was a degradation), or you find today's Money interface productive and
convenient - so it was a progress?


regards,
Vadim Rapp