Philosophy of minimal disturbance of existing users

John Crisp jcrisp at
Tue Sep 18 21:53:48 UTC 2012

On 18/09/12 18:28, Kent James wrote:
> On 9/18/2012 12:31 AM, Magnus Melin wrote:
>> I'm completely aware users don't generally like to learn new
>> procedures to do things. That doesn't mean they shouldn't ever do so,
>> for their own good. The goal of course is that it would be very
>> intuitive and a positive overall experience.

And there lies my argument 'for their own good'. Says who ?

> Most of the arguments against "Philosophy of minimal disturbance of
> existing users" tend to be the extreme example, such as "they
> shouldn't ever do so". The argument isn't for zero change, it is for
> much more caution than we have shown in the past.
> If in my daily work I use an old, inferior user interface, that does
> not mean that TODAY (which has been happening every 6 weeks in the
> past) I want to learn this new, superior way. And some of us never
> learn (like me and the "new improved" ribbon interface in Microsoft
> Office.) Can't we show a little respect for the user's time here,
> perhaps by being a little more gradual and optional?
>> If you only change things for new users as the product evolves you
>> can't get the majority onto the improved defaults so they would never
>> find out the true capabilities of their software.
> Users are not interested in the "true capabilities of their software"
> they just want to get their work done without interruption today.

I, along with probably the vast majority, only ever use a tiny fraction
of the functionality. I am not against change, just not change for the
sake of change in a misguided attempt to be  different.

We started using TB because it WAS simple, but refined. Reliable.
Steady, incremental changes, not a headlong rush over the precipice in
search of nirvana.

It has become more 'fluff' and less reliable and hence why we have been
looking at other, simpler, products.  I am sure that we are not alone.

More information about the tb-planning mailing list