Interface gives users higher degrees of freedom user experience can improve

To give users a higher degree of freedom in the interface, is it really able to bring the user experience to improve it? From the point of view of freedom, is it becoming freer or more free? To answer this question, we can first look at another well-known software UltraEdit interface.

Early on I was thinking about similar problems, giving users higher degrees of freedom on the interface, would it really be possible to improve the user experience?

Recently, the famous screenshot software SnagIt has been updated to 10.0, which is a software that I have been very fond of for a long time. In 10, he added a very meaningful feature: All-in-one. As the name suggests, just perform this action, you can choose to intercept the full screen, intercepting the window, intercepting the rectangular area, or intercepting scrolling pages, and the program will automatically complete the remaining things.

This is not an innovation, because it is also a screenshot of their own software, Jing has achieved such a function. But for the usual screenshot software, this is still a breakthrough, users no longer need to remember whether users need to press Alt+printscreen or need to press Shift+printscreen.

But from the point of view of freedom, is it becoming more liberal, or is it becoming more free? To answer this question, we can first look at another well-known software UltraEdit interface.

These two very large graphs, both from the UE, even the same version of the UE. Only the UE provides the ability to toggle the editing environment. Of course, if I wish to, I can continue to streamline

If not the same icon and menu style, I am afraid it is difficult to see that these three screenshots are from the same software.

• In the first picture, all the features are placed on toolbars and menu bars, what the software can do, what users need, all at a glance
• In the second picture, only the commonly used features appear on the toolbar, other functions need to be implemented through menus or shortcuts, and users sometimes still need to spend some time looking for the features they need
• In the third picture, all the features are hidden in the menu, and whatever you do needs to be found in the menu.

These three types may be extreme, but they are a good illustration of the problem. In these three cases, we can find a rule--

1. When the interface is infinitely close to the complexity, the learning cost of the user is not reduced, but the difficulty is improved.
2. When the interface is infinitely close to simplicity, the learning cost of the user is obviously improved, while the difficulty of using it gradually decreases with the familiarity with the interface;
3. When the interface is customized by the user, the learning cost of the user is directly approaching infinity, but it is almost 0 difficult to use.

So, let's take a look at such a software, a Japanese development of the game modifier, or more should be said to be Debuger program, Usamimi

The software has an amazingly complex content that has unmatched functionality both from the debugger and from the point of view of the modifier. His interface doesn't look complicated at first, but when you actually use it, it quickly gets confused by his heavy menus and changing windows, and then begins to doubt life.

This is a typical programmer-type interface. The author would like to put all the functions in the main interface and multi-level menu, regardless of user experience.

He does have powerful features, but it also discourages users. I spent a lot of time still not fully understanding which one of his most basic tracking functions, although I believe he has all the features I thought of. As a result, I spent much more time learning how to use the software than I could save on my existing software.

In addition, it is worth mentioning that the author used the software "Yoda ' Cryptor" to the shell, and this thing is very difficult, I do not have the perfect to take off him, so even the Chinese can not go on ...

In stark contrast, it is naturally a designer-dominated Apple.

As pictured is Apple's browser safari on Windows.

Safari and Apple always have the same design philosophy, here we can see, he only retains the most basic user options and features, the main interface has little button, simple to users do not have to spend time to regain awareness, almost no cost of re learning.

This simple interface can be said to limit the user's freedom, but he is wonderful, but it brings a great improvement in the experience of the use. The reason for this is that users can use all of the software's functionality immediately, almost without having to learn again .

What I have to mention here is the battle between Firefox and Chrome, as I've written before.

• The idea of Chrome's interface design is actually something similar to Apple's. Reduce the degree of freedom of the interface, no need to learn again, immediately use.
• Firefox, by contrast, has an average learning cost and efficiency, but his greater advantage is in customization. This also means that Firefox has a higher degree of freedom and more time to study.

It's interesting. Because usually, we have not seen which software in the interface is extremely concise at the same time, but also can provide powerful incomparable function and free DIY. At least I've never seen such a software. In General, a software can only make a choice here: to bring the best experience to use, or to provide the most powerful features.

Given that powerful functionality is the cornerstone of the user experience, there are times when the two don't conflict because, in fact, as the functionality grows, so do their experience with many core users. This is not true for all users, who have spent the appropriate learning costs to get these features.

This once again confirms my view that the less time a user learns to use an entirely new interface, the better the user experience the interface brings. With the increase of learning cost, users can still improve the functionality of the users while guaranteeing the user experience.

The degree of freedom of the software does not seem to be as important as we seem, especially if the cost of learning a software is high, it will be a serious impediment to users continue to use the important factor. In order to deal with this, users can only pay very low learning costs under the premise, can experience most of the software functions , become a very effective means. Therefore, the corresponding reduction of software functions, is clearly the best way to solve.

The cost of learning, in essence, plays a role of leverage . Under the restriction of learning cost, a software can not guarantee the excellent user experience at the same time, still has rich and powerful software function. So, how to ensure the cost of learning at the same time, in the function and experience to find an optimal balance, is a software in the interface of the biggest problem.

Currently, most UI designs are based on the user experience. To ensure this, the program has to sacrifice some of the functionality of the software. Of course, now more and more software, very clever to hide more complex functions, or placed in other third-party extension functions. I think it will also be a major trend for a long time.

Now, as I mentioned at the outset of this article, the question of All-in-one in Snagit10 has become clear.

The appearance of All-in-one, it seems, the user can do less, the corresponding degree of freedom is also decreasing; but in fact, many of the functions previously needed to be completed by human intervention are programmed to achieve, which significantly reduces the user's learning costs, The user experience has been greatly improved.

In the end, similar to this, there is the well-known CLI (command line interface) and GUI (graphical user interface) dispute, such controversy has not yet ended.

GUI easy to learn and use, let him from the appearance of the rapid sweep of most of the user terminals, currently almost all end users are using the GUI. However, the CLI has not disappeared because of the high cost of learning, on the contrary, the CLI is still in its irreplaceable powerful function, continues to develop.

If you are interested, you can try to analyze it with your own understanding. I'm looking forward to your thoughts.