| |
David,
On
the subject of RTFM:
I
have worked, to some extent, on three sides of this argument. As
a former tech. support dept. manager, I have to say that there are
many users of computer equipment and services with unrealistic expectations
of the technology. The state-of-the-art in computer technology is
such that there is some learning which the user must do in order
to get full use of the technology. You must, to use a trivial example,
plug your modem into a phone line which is not in use before you
can connect to the Internet.
Most
support reps dont mind ignorance. We are all ignorant outside our
speciality. Most support reps dont mind stupidity. It might take
a little more time to get the problem solved, but that is the job.
Most support reps hate intelligent people who will not give accurate
answers to specific questions, or will not follow simple instructions.
From
the viewpoint of an application developer, I agree completely that
the state-of-the-art is dreadful. The designs and code that I work
on are based on designs I have seen and used, which are based on
designs earlier developers saw and used, which are based on earlier
designs back to the first user interfaces. I can work with those
interfaces well only because I work with those interfaces constantly.
A new user learning to use a computer for the first time has got
massive hurdles to overcome before they can begin to get the value
from the technology. This is something I recognise and am trying,
slowly, to change. It is probably something that most readers of
this site recognise.
In
the meantime, the users (including those who pay my wages...) suffer.
From
the viewpoint of a user: If I have a problem with an application
I will either ditch it as a bad tool (and demand my money back,
where possible) or call tech. support. If I call tech. support the
last thing I want to hear is 'RTFM'. If an application doesnt make
its usefulness, behaviour and value completely obvious, then it
is broken. I dont really care if it is massively useful when I use
it in a counter-intuitive way: If I cant get it to perform the required
task in an easy and obvious way, it is broken.
Brian
O'Byrne
|
|
| |
Hi
David,
Enjoyed
the article quite a bit. I've been spending some time recently on
Apple's QuickTime 4 support message boards. It's a shame Apple hasn't
picked up on some of the things discussed in your article. Customer
frustration is palpable and tech support often ignores their questions
or refers them to another section of Apple's site (and good luck
finding anything useful at the the link they've given you). Even
if you *are* someone who reads the manual (like me), it is often
impossible to find the information you need. It's nice to feel vindicated.
Thanks.
Rachel
|
|
| |
Hi
David
I
am a cognitive psych. student interested in HCI, and I'm looking
for a topic for my honours thesis. I am wondering if you have ever
read any research on why people don't RTFM, or if you could point
me in the direction of any potential sources of such information.
I know that I personally will try to use a new artifact intuitively
before turning to the manual, and I imagine many others do the same.
Then, when we have problems, we want them solved quickly so we turn
to someone else, rather than slogging our way through the manual.
All
of this seems simple enough, but I wonder if there is any research
to back it up?
thanks
aa
Hi
aa,
I'm
sorry but unfortunately I believe you need an academic to assist
you here. Perhaps someone who reads uidesign.net would like to get
in touch, if they know of any studies which would be helpful.
David
|
|
