Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : MSFT Internet Explorer vs. NSCP Navigator -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Reginald Middleton who wrote (22100)	12/10/1998 10:45:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Respond to of 24154

Focus groups and consumer feedback? Very relevant to software engineering, Reggie. How come none of these focus groups ever ask for an OS that sucks less? Could it be that the focus groups are always focused on the "more features" side? Maybe they should be given more alternatives to focus on. Cheers, Dan.

To: Reginald Middleton who wrote (22100)	12/10/1998 5:23:00 PM
From: Charles Hughes	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

<< Anyone with a solid grasp on focus groups and consumer feedback would realize that the ease of use and utility factor can easily override a considerable decline in speed and/or performance >> OK, as someone who helped write the most popular focus group software in the world ever, Quick Tally, I'll bite. First, focus groups on software seldom address this kind of issue effectively, because by the time a group of users has had time to become expert in using some interface, that product has already been marketed. But you surely are right that effective use is more important than speed. Not according to MSFT so much, which has issued the speed excuse numerous times in the past when usability was challenged. But I think so. And so did Xerox and the X consortium, which pioneered this idea. Actually it is software interface designers who best understand this point, not the psych BAs who run focus groups. In any case, it is easier to flexibly combine, recombine and integrate parts of the interfaces to increase usability when those parts are totally modular, not when their code is 'integrated' in some willy-nilly spaghetti like fashion. It is also far easier to change the code in response to user focus groups, newsgroup posts, or bug reports when all of the code implementing a particular function point is to be found in one module only, which is then inherited from or called by other modules. This is not what MSFT has done. The GUI itself is the common interface that affects user learning curves, and the more complex the basic GUI is the longer it takes to learn. Adding IE to the GUI even for applications that do not need IE increases complexity for the user. When the GUI itself becomes inappropriate or overly complex for the application, then the application designer may want to replace the GUI for that application only, but never the reverse. Cheers, Chaz

To: Reginald Middleton who wrote (22100)	12/15/1998 3:04:00 PM
From: Keith Hankin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

Anyone with a solid grasp on focus groups and consumer feedback would realize that the ease of use and utility factor can easily override a considerable decline in speed and/or performance (why don't you think Unix is more popular in the consumer market?). It appears that this is how MSFT bests many of its competitors. It offers the consumers what they want. Communicator should have a common interface across its entire product line like office does. This makes it easier for the consumer to learn and erects barriers to entry. Fusing the Os and the browser does the same. So then do you think that the consumer would benefit by fusing the radio to the car? There is no benefit.