In your experience as a developer, what kinds of things have turned away users and prospective users from using your programs? Also, what kinds of things turn you away from using someone else's programs?
For example, one thing that really bugs me is when someone provides free software, but require you to enter your name and email address before you download it. Why do they need my name and email address? I just want to use the program! I understand that the developer(s) may want to get a feel for how many users they have, etc, but the extra work I have to do really makes me think twice about downloading their software, even if it does really great things.
Requiring lots of information when signing up -- name and email is bad enough, as you say, but some registration forms have many many fields. The fewer the better.
Charging money but refusing to disclose the price unless you speak to a sales rep
Having a web site that only works in certain browsers
No releases since 2003
No documentation
Support forum with many questions and no answers
Here are a few annoyances that I haven't seen anyone else mention:
Programs that auto-launch one or more processes at system startup that run constantly in the background (invisibly, in the clock tray, or otherwise).
While some of these are necessary, most would either be better implemented with a utility that runs periodically (use the system's task scheduler!) or don't need to be launched until the associated program is launched.
Dialog boxes that pop up on top of all open windows (even those of other applications).
This is even more annoying if you run full-screen apps.
Pop-up dialogs that won't let you switch to another app until they are dismissed make me want to throw something.
Stealing my file type associations or changing the icons associated with a MIME type when I already have that type assigned to another application. At an absolute minimum, ask me first.
Storing user data/documents in file types that can't be opened by other applications
The worst is when files are also bound to a specific version of the application
Automatically cluttering my desktop and quick launch menus with icons
Automatically adding a link to your crappy website into my web browser's bookmarks
Assuming I use Internet Explorer and launch it specifically instead of querying the system for the default browser (same goes for media player, email client, etc)
Failing to understand the difference between user-specific settings and system-wide settings
Re-mapping common, near-universal keyboard shortcuts (cut, paste, undo, print, refresh, etc) for no good reason
If you're going to re-map Ctrl+C from "copy" to "close without saving anything", at least pop up a dialog warning people when they use it
Requiring an exact version of a library or framework. I don't want to have to uninstall the .Net 2.0 framework and re-install 1.1 just to run your program.
Spelling, punctuation, or grammar errors in the user interface or documentation. If you can't be bothered to at run (at least) an automated spelling checker, then you probably also didn't bother testing your app properly.
Displaying error messages to the user in a way that isn't useful. I don't care if "unexpected error #3410 occurred", I want to know what on earth that means and what I should do about it.
If you thought the error was important enough to program in a unique error message, why did you instead program error-handling code that could gracefully handle the situation? Only let me know about an error if I caused it directly or if I can fix it.
On a related note, aren't all errors unexpected?
Sending me to a website when I click "Help" instead of including help files with the local installation. I don't mind if you periodically download updated help files from the web, but people still need documentation when an Internet connection isn't available.
Bulleted lists that are way too long.
Setup programs that come bundled with all sorts of freeware (even things like Google toolbar) that are selected by default. I just want the program I downloaded, not all sorts of other programs. I can understand that developers might get something in return for including these add-ons in their setups but I hate it when they are selected to be installed by default.
Automatic updates and "information" screens that pop up every single system startup.
Yes, you updated yourself good job but I don't care nor want to know that you have. Do I really have to click "No, I don't want to upgrade to the pricier version" every single time I start my computer?
Ad infections. You know the kind where if you scroll your mouse over the text your reading it'll pop up a thing so you can't read it anymore. And flash ads that have sound(especially that you can't turn off. this was the reason I installed adblock plus) and pop up windows that happen multiple times while your sitting on a page.
Also, pop ups telling me to join a sites news letter mailing list. (where the "no" button is very small)
I will rethink downloading something if I think they will start sending me SPAM if I give them my e-mail address.
At a previous employer we had a program I helped write that was online as a "free" download. They had to put something in for Name, address, phone, and e-mail. Oh, and no opt-out checkbox. It annoys me when other companies do this, but I didn't have any say in the matter.
The info needed for free things gets me too, but other than that:
Bundled software, most of the time adware or browser bars
Having to click too many times to do a simple action
Websites that advertise "Free Download!" for something that turns out to be a paid app. Wow, so generous to allow me to transfer data over the internet for free.
Putting an icon in the taskbar when I don't want it there.
I installed an app called Pamella that records Skype calls. I'm fine with 1 icon in the taskbar -- Skype's icon -- but Pamela adding a second just got me angry and I uninstalled it.
Ugly / unfit user-interface. For me, this is really important.
Having to register to download the program (specially if it's freeware)
Browser-specific / requiring special/other applications to work properly
Bloated applications that start with a few MBs and finally grow to 100's of MBs and huge mem consumption.
That'd be most of the things that turn me away from a program.
One of the things that bugs me the most (using, not downloading to try in the first place...):
I download or buy software it is because I want to USE it for something. If it is so friendly that it is 100% intuitive and needs no documentation before being useful, great! If it has comprehensive on-line or other help that answers all my questions as they come up, that's OK too.
However, if it has any kind of learning curve at all and nothing but my own persistent trial and error before I can do anything with it.... Off the drive it goes, within the first 5 minutes. Well, maybe I will use it if I am being paid to, but even in these cases I would probably recommend something else.
A user interface that is so simple that practically no documentation is required, or that has documentation that is accessible is a joy to use. If the program is complex and requires non-trivial documentation, that documentation should explain EVERYTHING a user might want to know, making no assumptions about his or her prior knowledge. That also puts my appreciation meter way up there.
Make your software actually do something people want done, and make it painless for them to do that with it, and you will have lots of satisfied users and word of mouth recommendations.
I left this on my list but it's a big enough annoyance that it probably stands on its own:
Software that requires users to pay for bug fixes, security patches, or critical updates.
If you have a patch that adds some new feature that I want, I don't mind paying for it. If you made a mistake and you are trying to get me to pay you to fix your mistake, then that's where we have a problem. Any physical product manufactured and sold would call this a "recall" and wouldn't dare charge customers to fix it.
In the past, some software products have shipped with known flaws to encourage users to buy the "critical updates subscription". This is downright evil.
How much pain am I going to endure to develop a conscious competence in using the program? Some computer games I tried to play but after a few hours if I haven't figured things out, I'll stop playing. If a program is hard to use and I don't have a really good motivation to resolve it, that will stop me right there.
How complicated is the installation process? How many minutes will I spend getting the basics of the program understood so I can be productive with it? How close to other programs is it, so that I can leverage how I use other programs to use this,e.g. if I've used Microsoft Office for years are the menus similar to that or is it someone else's idea of the ultimate menu system? Those are the questions I tend to wrestle with in a new program.
If something takes hours to install and then more hours to configure for my use, this really makes me question how useful is the software, really. I can understand the appeal of software that can be customized in a bazillion ways, but if I'm just getting used to the software, do I want these options at this point? To give an example of how absurd this would be in other situations, imagine if you had to list all the ingredients in a pizza or an automobile before getting to the options that mattered to you? You have to list everything in the pizza dough or car's body that most people don't think twice about what is there.
Related
I've seen multiple questions, along the same lines as this, however they're usually quite outdated, and/or not answered well if at all.
I've been experimenting with Visual Studio LightSwitch, but it has many problems, and is also considered dead by much of the community now, just as Access is.
There isn't really much to say, so my question is, IS there a decent alternative? Or do I just have to make do with Access?
As you've already seen, there is no straight route. What to choose usually ends up in "that depends", and so it does - the only common factor is, that you are facing a total rewrite.
However, one way to cut it really short for a setup with few and known remote users, is to use Remote Desktop and Terminal Services of a Windows Server.
LightSwitch is not officially dead. I have done a few applications with it, and it is fun because it is so much different from Access with its firm screen design. Originally, it required Silverlight which now is dead, but today you use HTML5 at the client, so it won't get outdated right away.
From Access to Web the usual path is PHP.
But Its a lie
I am facing this issue with my installer:
Installer exe when downloaded from the websites in Chrome are flagged as being malicious software.
To overcome this problem so far we have tried changing domain names,but its not a permanent solution.
Even after signing my exe with Thawte certificate the flag is still there.
I have scanned my exe with all popular AVs and there is nothing malicious in it.
How can I get rid of this chrome flag?
The webmaster site doesn't do anything to help with the false positive on installers. All it does is tell you the file is potentially malware without giving you any way of appealing or asking for a review of their findings.
With FireFox and Chrome and others using this data, you would think Google would provide a way to appeal. It is ironic the company starting the false positive initiative with Microsoft is the worst offender in creating false positives.
You may be able to get around the issue by supplying your site's URL to "Google Webmaster Tools". You don't even have to supply a URL for every single "malicious" file; an overall, top-level URL for your site (or, for your little corner of Blogger.com) seems to be adequate.
If you've got a Google account, just log in and go to this URL. There's a prominent textbox with an "Add Site" button next to it that does the trick. This worked for me, in a matter of minutes (and I don't have a "certificate", other than the one I got for winning a raft race in Pre-K).
Oh, and I too have experience working in heuristics, as part of my degree. "Heuristics" are really just what ordinary, unpretentious people call "rules of thumb"!
It may be that Chrome is using heuristic analysis, to determine that this file is "malicious". That is to say, it is basically saying "Because this file possesses these qualities, we therefore believe this file to be malicious".
Given that a few years ago, someone got hold of a root certificate authority, and proceeded to make genuine security certificates (so that people wouldn't be suspicious, and because they were actually genuine, browsers did not notify the user), for their sites which asked for personal data (bank username and password, etc), and stole it, until that authority was annulled a few days later.
Therefore, simply having an .exe with a certificate (a genuine one, which of course, you have), won't suffice, in Chrome's mind, for the above two reasons.
I'm sorry I can't tell you how to get rid (or at least alleviate somewhat) this issue, but I thought it'd be helpful for you to have some possible reasons as to why this is occurring.
**EDIT: Sources to back up my claims: http://news.techworld.com/security/3266817/online-fraudsters-issue-fake-security-certificates-for-google-yahoo/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14819257**
I also have experience working in heuristics, as part of my programming degree.
We have released a beta version of our software, and as we talked to people who started using it, we have found that a lot of the features (which we thought were essential) were not known and not used by the users.
What are the possible ways to inform the application users about the features of the application? I personally find the "Tip of the day" popups extremely annoying and disable them quickly. Are there better ways?
It depends on the: features, application, platform and users.
There is no magic usability dial that you can just turn or button you can just push.
Even within the above there may be multiple ways that a feature can be made more discoverable but it the right one(s?) may be dependent upon how much flexibility you have. In that you've just released the app to actual users, I'm guessing that you're not in a position to restructure the app or make dramatic changes to the way it is architected to improve discoverablity.
This is why usablity testing (with real users) should be started early (in the development process) and done often.
If you can provide a more specific example of a feature that you want to make more discoverable then you may get a more sepcific answer. And if you ask it at https://ux.stackexchange.com/ you may get a better answer still.
Issue a "changelog" with new releases, that will show as part of the installer wizard in a "readme"-type dialog.
Yes, tips of the day can be annoying and are often turned off, but try a one-time dialog when the newly-updated program starts, with a summary of new features.
Extensive help documentation, including a series of "How Do I" articles.
Use icons with ToolTips to attract attention to new menu options/buttons/features in the first version they're released.
People often seem dead-set against learning the software they use on a daily basis. Most office-type jobs require regular use of MS Office, but I doubt very many could even tell you how to create an Excel chart without fumbling their way through it while doing so. The best you can do is make the learning resources available.
This question is for web developers and architects.
How do you think is it a good or bad idea to have a website where you're able to edit all the templates (HTML, CSS, JS, images..) right from the admin panel?
In this case if you update website often, you don't need to search for a local version of your website on you development machine, search for a specific page, make modifications, commit it to source control server, make deployment.. Instead, all you need is just right click on the page or any element on this page, click Edit, update a piece of HTML and click SAVE - 30 seconds maximum - all from your browser ;)
You still can have version control system with this approach and rollback any template which was modified by mistake by 2 mouse clicks on a website.
I personally like this approach and need to know your opinion. So what do you think?
Note, we are talking about big websites which have to be updated often, multilingual ones etc.
Realworld web-applications which use this approach:
Wordpress
vBulletin
Personally, I think it would depend on the complexity of the website.
What you're talking about here is directly editing the structure (and potentially behaviour) of a live website. Sure, it may take longer to make the changes on your development server before rolling them out but if there's any chance of breaking either the appearance or functionality of the site then I'd think definitely think twice.
You shouldn't be allowed to modify the entire layout of your site through the site itself in my opinion. The reasons being the lack of version control and the inability to preview what you are doing, which translate into the inability to come back to an older version. Plus if you modify it locally, you are allowed to make errors that break everything, a luxury you can't always afford if you're doing it directly through the website.
Being able to add/remove content through the website is great though, it would be very painful to update a blog by modifying your HTML each time!
I once created a site that did exactly that. (Well, without any option for source control - had to learn that one the hard way...) Looking back at what I did there, a few things come to mind:
It was a traditional website with information about my sports club, that only changed occasionally, not a web app in the modern sense.
I wanted to be able to apply fixes even though I had no access to my dev machine (because it was a private project, I was at work, and ftp connections were not allowed by the comapny proxy).
For those specific reasons, the approach was a good solution. Today I would use one of the many good frameworks for this purpose (Joomla, Drupal etc) instead of coding it myself.
On important item: I was able to edit the pages that were used to generate the main site, but not the generation program or my admin pages. For those, I had to use my dev machine and upload file changes by ftp.
I think it is a good approach, if done correctly (my implementation certainly wasn't)
Editing HTML/CSS/JS files through your web browser can make things easier, as long as the editing implementation is neat, organized, idiot-proof, and keeps track of revisions.
A major issue to consider is security. The inability to modify actual files from the content management system in most software packages is a security precaution.
Learn to use a version control system effectively and efficiently. Tools like git or bzr can take care of a lot of the tedious stuff automatically, like package building, uploading, etc.
I hate it. Web development, much like the web servers themselves, shouldn't be "comfortable". Web development should be a mother gentle caressing scary experience. It should sound, look, even taste dangerous.
Neophyte web developers should be put through their paces learning the subtler aspects of their chosen text editor before they are even allowed to open a web browser; and not be allowed near a graphical web browser before 6 months of working only using lynx for debugging.
Laziness is our bane. No more, I say.
Edit: This is, perhaps, a bit tangential to the issue at hand. It should also be mentioned that visual identity that is too simple to change will change too often, leading to confused and frustrated users.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
Say I had an open-source project which I wanted to try and generate some exposure for. Would it be considered unethical to set up a project entry for it on several sites such at github, sourceforge and google code, for example?
This would be purely for giving it greater exposure. I realise there might be some practical reasons for doing this, such as wanting to use github for source control, and sourceforge for issue tracking, forums and such. For the sake if this question I'm wanting to focus more on the case where you use one of the sites as the main site for the project, and make "stub" projects on the other sites that point back to the main site.
My gut feeling is that while it may not be outrightly unethical, it might be bordering on the sleezy side...
Stick with one provider. "If you build it, they will come" :)
Besides, once people do start coming, they'll just google the project name anyway. Finding the same project on Sourceforge, Github and Google Code is just going to annoy the hell out of people.
I don't know about the ethics, but consider the practicalities:
you will have to do multiple repeated
uploads to several different sites,
doing it to a single site can be a
pain
users won't know which site to report
bugs at
if you use the SVN/CVS/git
repositories, you will have multiple
copies of your code in different
repositories - a very bad idea
I'm sure there are other problems. So stick to one site - I've been using Google Code for a small project I've just started (CSVfix, if anyone is interesed) and I can recommend Google as being very easy to set up.
I think this is fine, for the reason that each provider may have something you want. You should pick the services that are best for your project. For example:
Google code has file hosting, but the issue management is terrible, so
Launchpad has great bug tracking, but no wiki, and we use Mercurial, so
Bitbucket.org has mercurial hosting etc..
So it might be reasonable to use Launchpad for bug tracking, and Google code for hosting files and wiki, and Bitbucket.org for hosting source.
I would suggest choose your preferred host for your project. You can publish about your project on many forums. Exposure will come via search engines.
I don't know why you think it would be unethical or sleezy. Maybe you can say more about that so people could address your concerns directly. To measure that, consider if you are intentionally breaking the rules of the service, lying to anyone about how you are using the service, and being deceptive in some other way. If you are using multiple services, I don't think you have anything to hide.
Consider the Perl community, which is the one I deal with. Several projects are hosted on one of the source control services, such as SourceForge, Google Code, or Github. The main distribution for most Perl stuff is CPAN, though. Other people may distribute through Freshmeat or some other service. The main issue tracker comes from Best Practical, which hosts a free RT for every Perl module on CPAN. Most of the people I know use the best from more than one service. Indeed, the Web 2.0 way is to create applications by cobbling together services from multiple vendors. :)
You should also think about the social construction of these free sites. Places like SourceForge and Github give out free accounts, but they also sell services. They get the buzz through the free stuff that allows them to sell the premium services. I don't see anything wrong with that. If you're using the free services, just realize that in return for your free use, they get to use you as free tester, advertiser, and so on. Again, I don't see anything wrong with that. It's just part of the deal. You aren't just taking from them, you are also giving to them. There's an exchange between consenting parties.
What would be unethical, I think, is any service that forbids you to use another service or intentionally sets up a situation which would make it hard for you to use another service by not being compatible with common tools or not giving you access to your data (e.g. somehow disallowing git-svn, and so on).
Services spanning these various hosts will be inconvenient and difficult to maintain. For the above mentioned reliance on search engines to generate traffic take care to chose a name that differentiates your project from the web noise. A clear indication that traffic will not arrive is if your project first gets a re-recommendation on spelling. Take for example the people who brought you the chattr project from GNU. Immediately chatr is suggested as the proper search and your traffic will suffer accordingly.
as i has already been said having to maintain the code on several hosts will make it more trouble then it is worth. What you have to think is you would need to make sure that it uploads properly over several hosts, it would more then likely cause confusion to some over if one copy is legit and the others aren't which in turn could cause a bad name for the project before you even start.
End of the day there are much more, better ways to spread the word of your project, social networking sites, specific related forums are two main ones for you to consider, either way you would be better off spending your time posting to several sites then you would uploading and maintaining code on several sites.
I consider having several (independent) mirrors to be a benefit for the community, because such distributedness assures more reliable accessibility of your public work, now and in future (it will survive the failure of any single hosting site).
That's why I want to keep track of the available diffeent options to publicly host open-source projects:
Which public hosting sites for darcs projects are there?
Which public Git hosting sites are there that are free software?
I believe it's rather ethical (or moral) to put some effort into ensuring that your public work is published in the most accessible way (well documented, and with some guarantees about it being accessible at any moment when someone is interested).
The effort for you to push your work to several places independently (I mean, they won't depend on each other) and manage all this is probably not really a nightmare (as suggested in some other answers here), especially with a DVCS. For example, one can even set up Git so that one pushes to several places with just one command.
I feel that unless you are forcing someone to read something done by you, but you are rather just putting your stuff somewhere for it to be findable and accessible if someone is interested, you are not egoistic or ego-whatever.