Is the User an Idiot?

Once upon a time, in a distant wondrous past known today as the 80’s and 90’s, computers were complicated and, often, difficult-to-use machines. It would take a special group of people, known then and today as the geek, to master and use them effectively. Computers weren’t for everybody. And not everybody could afford them and not everybody had the time to learn how to use them. And, to be fair, computers back then didn’t have nearly the functionality of the computers today, so there wasn’t much point in learning how to use a computer, if you were the average person. But, then, in the late 90’s spanning into the early 2000’s, computers became a very useful thing, even to the average person. However, the computer was still a complex thing that the average person still couldn’t understand with ease. Enter “user-friendly” machines and interfaces. Say good-bye to the command line interface and say hello to the shiny, new graphical user interfaces (GUIs). Complicated and complex is out and simple is in. But at what cost? I’ll get back to this later. First, a little history.

Needless to say, the new found usefulness of computers and the new, easy-to-use interfaces, made the computer accessible to just about anyone. Now, computers were for everybody because everybody had use for them and could use them. As time went on, into the 2000’s, computers were gaining functions and abilities that could have only been imagined by a few geeks in the 80’s and early 90’s. But as these new functions came into play, they necessarily made the computer more complicated, so even easier, user-friendly, interfaces needed to be developed. In the early 2000’s entire industries committed to the development of “user-friendly” interfaces sprang from the void. The term “user-friendly” became mainstream and a bedrock within the tech industry. Everything needed to be user-friendly and ergonomic: the operating system, the applications, websites, interfaces, the hardware/software/firmware, the plug-in-play hardware, even the computer chair. If a product was user-friendly and easy to understand, it gave the manufacturer a serious edge over the competition.

Of course, “user-friendliness” wasn’t invented by the tech industry, however, it can be argued that the tech industry took it to its fullest implementation. If a new product isn’t user-friendly, then it’s shelved or redeveloped until it is user-friendly.

Just how user-friendly can things get? How far does the user-friendly rabbit hole go? I’ll tell you how far it goes. One day, there won’t be a user-interface. One day, the user can just say “Do my taxes” and the taxes will be done. The user won’t even need to speak in coherent sentences. He could say, “OJFWOojfoewjofw ojwaf o”. And the computer would do its best to figure out just what the hell the user wants and then perform the action in record time. I feel for machines, I really do.

There is, of course, a serious problem with all this “user-friendly” emphasis. The technology has become too damn “friendly”! I think user-friendliness has its place. After all, in the end,  the end-user is a human, not a machine. And the average human doesn’t have the time, or doesn’t have the interest, to learn the ins-and-outs of a computer, on a basic level. But, as I mentioned, all of this user-friendliness has a cost.

This is where I explain the first image in this post. It looks familiar, doesn’t it? Doesn’t the text capitalization style seem to resemble the style used on a rather famous product line? Don’t worry if you don’t see it at first, I didn’t either. Here’s a picture to clear things up.

Yes, you guessed it. Apple is the prime culprit in making things too user-friendly. But what do I mean when I say something is too “user-friendly” and how could such a thing possibly have a downside? There are, in fact, trade-offs when it comes to making a product user-friendly. These trade-offs can be circumvented, however, but it would require far more effort and all that effort is already being thrown into making the product the most user-friendly thing on the planet. So, just what are these trade-offs? The trade-offs are low access to the backend of a product and the general dumbing down of the population.

Cut off from the Back End

There are few joys that are comparable to seeing the inner-workings of a technological miracle like the computer. But, what do I mean by “cut off from the back end”? I mean the gates to the inner-workings of the computer have been shut tight for fear that the user will, somehow, mess up the device (which is a possibility). Apple is a prime culprit of this crime (along with most smartphone manufacturers and Microsoft in their Windows Vista years). Seriously, in most smart phones, the user can’t even access the file system, let alone the deeper levels of the device. Does this seem like a strange complaint? I mean, why would anyone want to access the lower-levels of an operating system? That’s for those tech geeks and tech-support guys out there. Well, I like having the opportunity to augment certain functions of my computer that can’t be changed unless I have access to the computers registry files. There’s a psychological consequence to this, as well. When I can’t access the basic layers of my machine, it feels as though my machine isn’t really mine. I feel more like a simple user rather than the owner of the machine, an outsider rather than an insider. And I don’t like feeling like an outsider when using my beloved machines.

Dumbed Down Population

The famous philosopher/sociologist Herbert Spencer once said The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools. If this can be applied to this user-friendly trend, then it may be said that making everything so damn user-friendly has effectively dumbed-down the population. People don’t really have to think when it comes to technology. Just push a button and you’re off to the races. What incentive do people have to think about their technology when their technology can, effectively, think for them? The technology, sometimes, even goes so far as to treat the user as though the user is an idiot. And, in turn, the user kind of becomes an idiot or, more politely, an ignorant. Not a bad deal for the technocrats, though.

 

I’m pretty harsh on user-friendliness, but I’m keeping it within reason. I have admitted that user-friendliness does have its place since people are people, not machines. Additionally, keep in mind that user-friendliness depends on the user. The geeks may pine for the glory days of MS-DOS. But the MS-DOS command prompt was user-friendly. Though, I think we can all agree that things have become incredibly user-friendly, to a fault.

Perhaps we can strike a balance between user-friendliness and accessibility to the machine. It’s been noted that the reason businesses make computers so easy to use is so they can have that competitive edge in their respective market. And it’s been noted that most people desire the benefits offered by the computer, but can’t particularly be bothered to learn about the computer’s inner-workings. I’m not bashing those folks who just want the goods without understanding how a computer dishes out those goods. We can’t all be tech geeks and we don’t all have time to understand how to use the command line. I’m just going to leave them be. They have their lives and I have my geeky life. Sometimes, though, I just wish people would take the time to learn a little about the machine on which they depend so much. I’m not asking for the moon here.

Finally, there are alternative operating systems out there for those geeks looking for both accessibility and a challenge. I’m looking at you GNU. And that’s enough for me.