My essay on Microsoft last week sparked lots of comments.
Here is one from
Mark Hurst, president of Creative Good.
David, I loved your last Web Informant, but I just can't
agree with you about sympathy for Microsoft that "the
average end user's Internet experience is better off today
with Microsoft products."
To be sure, some of Microsoft's websites, like Expedia and
Sidewalk, are well done. And Microsoft spends a great deal
of time and money on usability testing, which is good. But
looking at Microsoft products *as a whole*, I just can't
thank Microsoft for what it has created for the average
online user.
Part of the usability problem lies within Windows, whose
difficulties inevitably seep into the user's Net
experience. I present as evidence the enduring legacy of
DOS, all too frequent blue-screen crashes, and the Start
button that points to "Shut down".
Another frustrating aspect in Microsoft's online user
experience is its featuritis, as shown in Win98's Active
Desktop and Channels. Did the average user ever ask for the
Disney logo to fly around her desktop? Does the average
user want to know what the Active Desktop *is*?
The Microsoft trial has, if anything, underscored the
company's apparent ignorance (or indifference) to the
plight of the average online user. On February 12,
Microsoft claimed, with a straight face, that it is fast
and easy for users to download its browser:
WASHINGTON (AP) - The government challenged a senior
Microsoft executive Thursday on his claim that people can
quickly and easily download Web browsers over the Internet.
Meanwhile, my grandmother was just chatting with me about
upgrading from Microsoft IE v4.0 to v4.1, in order to
enhance the Java Virtual Machine capabilities for better
cross-platform compliance. That was just before she
installed some missing DLLs, debugged the registry file,
and solved Fermat's last theorem. (Right.)
My company has run user tests with real, live "average
online users," and I can assure you that they are
interested in none of these features. Not DLLs, not the
Active Desktop, not downloading new browsers. Their
tolerance for complexity goes only as far as the Back
button.
The kind of online user experience these users *do* want is
exemplified by companies like Yahoo, AOL, and Amazon -- all
wildly successful companies, all of which are committed to
ease-of-use. Not flashy features, but ease-of-use. It's no
surprise that the iMac, designed specifically to simplify
the Net experience for the average user, is also a success.
I'm not going to take sides on the other legalities in the
Microsoft trial, but I will maintain that users deserve a
better user experience online. And Microsoft can deliver
it.
Here's a modest proposal for the DOJ. Run some user tests
to see if there's any productivity loss for an average user
on IE, versus using AOL (or Windows versus MacOS,
whichever). Base the fine on the dollar amount it costs the
U.S. in lost productivity and increased tech support to
keep the Microsoft standard. Microsoft either starts making
its products truly easy to use, or it pays the fine.
Grannie, help is on the way.
David Strom
david@strom.com
+1 (516) 944-3407
back issues
entire contents copyright 1999 by David Strom, Inc.
Web Informant is ® registered trademark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office