Some Users Want Terrible User Interfaces • Hacker News Board

Re: Some Users Want Terrible User Interfaces

#31

Post by habitue » Thu, Mar 25, 2010, 6:38 PM UTC

rmc wrote: post #26

I don't know anything about Bloomberg, and I'm willing to bet that as a niche product aimed at high trained people, it might not be too bad. But I agree in principle with this article. You can see it sometimes in the Linux/FLOSS world. People decry anything that means the average user can use it. "But you should know how to set up networking on the command line!" People like that, they like jumping through hoops. The…

It's actually not about jumping through hoops, it's simple math. Doing a command in a terminal is O(1). Everything is at your fingertips immediately and can be combined efficiently with everything else. Doing something in a GUI is O(n), you have to dig through menus and tabs to get at what you want, and the result is in a form that can't be recombined or filtered or modified at will.

The trade-off is that the command line takes a lot of getting used to in terms of memorizing commands etc. If you don't know any Unix commands, the terminal is almost completely useless unlike a GUI. For beginners, a GUI is a good way to explore and get a feeling for how to do things because GUIs explain themselves.

Re: Some Users Want Terrible User Interfaces

#32

Post by gn » Thu, Mar 25, 2010, 6:40 PM UTC

ugh wrote: post #29

gn wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't mean to be insulting, it's just that I don't see how this particular instance of blurb-cum-comment page adds a lot of value. I'd have thought it would have been more helpful and polite to skip the intro and link to the full article straight away... but then again I'm new here, which is why I asked. Does HN encourage this kind of redirection so that the blurb linked to may serve as an executive summary or tl;…

In general the original source should be linked. Certainly in this case. No reason, though, to call the author of the submitted article a “symbiont”. You could do that if the author of the submitted article is also the submitter (not the case here), but simply submitting the original article would probably be more appropriate.

I see. Thanks for answering.

Re: Some Users Want Terrible User Interfaces

#33

Post by Shorel » Thu, Mar 25, 2010, 7:07 PM UTC

og1 wrote: post #12

I don't know if I can agree with the stick shift argument. There are benefits over an automatic transmission, and you can choose the same model of car with either transmission types. I'd equate the differences to having a settings page with defaults and then advanced user options. I like a better design than not, but I think the traders use bloomberg terminal largely for the data that it displays. I don't think that…

Manual transmissions can save lives for users that know how to drive well.

They are also a lot more efficient in mountains and other difficult terrains.

Re: Some Users Want Terrible User Interfaces

#34

Post by ig1 » Thu, Mar 25, 2010, 8:35 PM UTC

ctkrohn wrote: post #5

As a former trader, I can say that Bloomberg's UI is, while not perfect, in general quite good. You can do almost everything straight from the keyboard; once you get used to it, it's quite fast. In about 30 seconds, I can calculate the yield on a mortgage-backed security, see what the Treasury market is doing today, skim a list of top headlines, and show a graph of the stock market since today's open. Try doing that…

Definitely agree. A lot of people use their Bloomberg Terminals completely by keyboard, whenever they even so much as change the tab ordering of fields on a function people complain. A lot of people have the layouts/ordering memorized.

Think about how much people complain when Facebook change their UI. Now imagine that if when they changed their layout you weren't able to do your job because it took you twice as long to find some information or if you lost a lot of money because you missed a pricing alert. Users are opposed to change for many reasons other than complexity for complexities sake.

If your company is willing to shell out $2k/month to give you a Bloomberg you've got other stuff you can brag about far more than the fact you can use a complex piece of software.

But I imagine the real reason they haven't done anything is simply because it's not worth it. Investing a huge amount of money (we're talking in the high tens or low hundreds of millions here) to revamp your GUI without a clear return on investment would be idiotic. They have been tackling the low hanging fruits though (the new graphs, font, etc.).

Re: Some Users Want Terrible User Interfaces

#35

Post by thyrsus » Thu, Mar 25, 2010, 10:46 PM UTC

og1 wrote: post #12

I don't know if I can agree with the stick shift argument. There are benefits over an automatic transmission, and you can choose the same model of car with either transmission types. I'd equate the differences to having a settings page with defaults and then advanced user options. I like a better design than not, but I think the traders use bloomberg terminal largely for the data that it displays. I don't think that…

Since my transmission is stick shift, I'm not worried about Toyota floor mats, accelerator or brake pedals, or software bugs. I've never had a problem, and I would reflexively respond in a safe way were something to occur.