You just have to ensure the user knows (perhaps via a small tour guide/tutorial when they first open the options screen)[/quote]
Users don't read manuals unless they are motivated and rewarded for it. See "Completed the tutorial achievement".

that he CAN change anything he wants to, he just has to describe what he wants to change. As long as people are aware (so they won't feel like they can't change anything), I think user satisfaction should be high. But this theory of mine is unverified as of now.[/quote]

I'm making dinner. Steak and... beans.
I use my steak knife, but also use it to open the can of beans.

Engineer would construct a set of handles and blades, along with optional can opening accessory. Then, I could just configure any set of knives or other utensils for any task needed. Customizable.

Yet simply doesn't work in practice. People want steak knife. So do I. The goal of the engineers is to study our cooking long enough to develop a cooking knife that is good for cutting, but will also cover all those unexpected edge cases. Because to us, slicing steak is just a tiny part of everyday tasks, even though steak knife engineer made a career out of it.

Fix my problem first and foremost. It's not about email, it's about giving my boss reports, arranging stuff with friends or family and subscribing to stuff. Email is about as interesting as paper - I don't want that to be customizable, it should always be precisely A4 or A5, so it fits into envelope.

And that is really hard.

People don't want, care, or need settings. The less they have to configure the better.

Choice is not always a good thing.

Yes, agreed. See Choice overload.

However, you are generalizing. Yes, while it's true that in general, people don't want, care or need settings, and the less they have to configure the better. However, some users might need to customize something, and if your software can't do it, they'll use someone else's that can. You have to address their needs.

Microsoft Office had this problem right up until ribbon. Lots of people rag on the ribbon UI, but it achieved its goal: It simplified the interface by eliminating the majority of things that people never touched.

Most people don't build documents that contain embedded forms. Most people don't digitally sign documents, and most people don't do collaborative editing on documents. Thus all those options have been moved out of the main UI. YOu can get them back, which is the important thing, but for most people they are things that they never used.

Precisely! While they're out of the way for most users, you can still find them if needed.

The fundamental problem here is that there are two opposing design goals that we seek to optimize, and a fixed list of checkboxes/etc. model cannot accommodate both. So the average is used, which is a compromise between the two.

Goal one is to make a simpler interface that doesn't have any options, doesn't need to be configured and is easy to use.

Goal two is to allow advanced users, or users with specific needs to change the things they need to change.

I think the solution is a flexible Extensions-like model that I'm trying to describe here, which can optimize both for goals at the same time.

The picture of the iPad email settings window is a good example of too much choice. Most people won't understand the 25 emails or 50 emails thing until they hit a scenario where they need to go back 51 emails. Then they'll wonder "where did my email go?" not "oh, yes, i need to change that setting."

The "ask before deleting" thing is understandable though, and probably should be there for one big reason: Email uses an archaic protocol that has no ability to distinguish between "deleting" and "move to recycle bin". SMTP doesn't support folders, or anything of the sort, so there's no "proper" way to mark an email as "pending delete, but don't delete" without confusing them on every other platform that gets that email as well (they click delete on the ipad, goes to recycle bin. They go to their desktop and read their email and...its right there in their inbox! WUT!?!?!?!).

Yeah, I blame SMTP here. It's an incredibly outdated protocol that needs to get replaced by something modern, more flexible and uniform across platforms. Look for inspiration from Wikipedia, Google Wave, iMessage.

The search feature is cool, and has been implemented by many as an addition to the ancient settings page. Like here.

Settings page is redundant. I think it should be eliminated completely, and instead, put the relevant settings along side the features. For examples:

1. For a web browser, providing an option to "Remember History" should be put next to the "Clear History" item. I don't want to go to a whole different page just to hunt down for that checkmark:
Clear History
[x] Remember History

2. The number of emails in each page should be customizable from the UI itself. The list should be expandable by dragging the bottom-right corner of the list.

3. Font size should always be part of the UI.

4. "Always Bcc Myself" should be provided on the Compose Mail window, not on a separate settings page.

Settings aren't just about cosmetic optional things, but also includes necessary information - e.g., for email things like name, servers and so on.

That said, Antheus is on the right track. While some subset of egotistical power users will always jailbreak their iPhone because they 'need so-and-so interface tweak', the rest of us are more than happy with the defaults - I've yet to change a cosmetic/behavioural setting on an iOS device.

...so as I say above, clearly there must be some settings on an Apple phone? A quick glance at my Nokia 5800 shows settings for date/time, or email as I say above.

Even for cosmetic changes though - you're telling me it's only a subset of egotistical power users who want to say, change their ring tone? (Though come to think of it, I have noticed how all Apple phones seem to have the same annoying jingle-jangle sounds - is it true then that this can only be changed if you jailbreak it??) Other cosmetic changes might include wallpaper, display brightness or time for blackout,

There are also areas that have sensible defaults, but also aren't cosmetic changes - e.g., turning off GPS network if you're roaming, camera settings, network settings.

There are many good and bad ways to present settings, but I disagree that nothing needs to be changed at all.

In response to the OP: the obvious problem with this solution is that I as a user have no idea what options may be available. And for non-cosmetic settings that are required, this would be a disaster.

It's also probably not fair to compare your new idea to Windows 3.11! Indeed, I note that Windows 7 does offer good search functionality - you can type at the search bar, and it throws up possibilities (but you can also still go through the standard way, to get the best of both ways).

Microsoft Office had this problem right up until ribbon. Lots of people rag on the ribbon UI, but it achieved its goal: It simplified the interface by eliminating the majority of things that people never touched.

Surely it did the complete opposite?

We already had a GUI solution for "show only the key useful stuff" - the toolbar. Meanwhile, leaving the menu bar to have everything.

But now the ribbon tries to stuff everything into a GUI, using multiple tabs to make room. (I don't know if it's true that MS managed to remove some unused options, but that's a separate issue altogether - they could have done that with the old toolbar/menu method. The good thing there was removing unused items, not introducing the ribbon. The new ribbon is more cluttered than the previous toolbars.)

Another problem with ribbon UIs is when you commonly need to access options on different tabs, when before they could have fitted on the same streamlined toolbar.


(Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the ribbon is totally bad either, but I disagree that this is a good thing about it. I think a particular problem is also that some companies have gone "Ooh let's use ribbons" but done an even worse job of it than MS, by having things cluttered or hard to find.)

The picture of the iPad email settings window is a good example of too much choice. Most people won't understand the 25 emails or 50 emails thing until they hit a scenario where they need to go back 51 emails. Then they'll wonder "where did my email go?" not "oh, yes, i need to change that setting."[/quote]I agree - I'm confused why it's a choice - why not simply allow users to scroll back for more (or otherwise present a "more" option when they reach the end)?

Yeah, I blame SMTP here. It's an incredibly outdated protocol that needs to get replaced by something modern, more flexible and uniform across platforms. Look for inspiration from Wikipedia, Google Wave, iMessage.

SMTP is for sending isn't it? Possibly you mean POP - but then IMAP already solves the problems being referred to above. It's also open and standard across platforms. Imessage (and Blackberry Messenger as the earlier example for phones) fail the open/standard across platforms test. For people who don't care about that, e.g., businesses using Windows, there's also the Microsoft Exchange system.


@[color=#284b72]alnite: This method is often good, and is practiced to some degree (e.g., Windows settings are split into many different areas, and settings tend to be per-application rather than global in most platforms). But can it always be done this way? Where are the network settings? Where does an email client put server settings? Do I have an annoying always visible "click here to change wallpaper" on the desktop?

Plus it leads to even more clutter.

In response to the OP: the obvious problem with this solution is that I as a user have no idea what options may be available. And for non-cosmetic settings that are required, this would be a disaster.

Ok, can someone please elaborate why this is not a problem when people search for things on Google Search?

Can it be just that we are used to seeing a semi-full list of settings that can be changed in a settings window? I say semi-full because in most applications there are tons of additional available options if you modify the .ini files manually.

I want to find out if there's some other fundamental problem here, or if it's just a matter of getting used to a new UI paradigm that seems scary to new users. I'm sure the concept of pressing using radio boxes was also alien to people until they've gotten accustomed to it.

Ok, can someone please elaborate why this is not a problem when people search for things on Google Search?

But it is! Having to ask for something reduces discoverability, and that applies just the same to all the interesting content on the web which I don't know exists. That's why, to use the buzzword, curation is such a big thing. If you know what you're looking for, it's great. But if you've at least got the option to explore, you can find things which you wouldn't otherwise have known the software was capable of. Or, alternatively, you may not be able to phrase what you're looking for, especially if these are settings for something audio-visual where you might be able to see or hear that something's wrong, but not have a clue how to fix it or even describe the problem.

Which brings us back to the starting dilemma: having a nice list of settings is good when you want it, but it's bad when you don't.

Still, it feels like there should be a better way of finding what you want other than looking through a fixed (and categorized) list of settings.

[quote name='mdwh' timestamp='1328196625' post='4908727']
In response to the OP: the obvious problem with this solution is that I as a user have no idea what options may be available. And for non-cosmetic settings that are required, this would be a disaster.

Ok, can someone please elaborate why this is not a problem when people search for things on Google Search?[/quote]
It does exist, but it's less of a problem because *everything* that exists in the world can be found via google search - you name it, google can find it. And humans have a pretty good idea of what exists in the world, so if we can imagine it, we can google it (rule 34, anyone?).

You want to provide arbitrary search of a finite set of options, and a fairly small one at that (how many options does the average program have, maybe 100 at most?). So when I start searching around for arbitrary options that *might* exist, chances are that most of the ones I try won't actually exist.

Take that '25 or 50 emails' option, from the iOS mail. How in hell would I even conceive of such an option, if I hadn't seen it before? Admittedly, that option is contrived enough to have no place, but you get the idea...

...so as I say above, clearly there must be some settings on an Apple phone? A quick glance at my Nokia 5800 shows settings for date/time, or email as I say above.

Consider the difference between initial setup, and configurable settings: I would classify email as a setup process, because my phone doesn't actually do much of anything before I take care of that task.

Obviously everyone has to perform setup tasks on their phone, but how often do you go poking around the settings on a daily basis?

Settings aren't just about cosmetic optional things, but also includes necessary information - e.g., for email things like name, servers and so on.

If they aren't optional, they aren't a setting, they are a required step.

...so as I say above, clearly there must be some settings on an Apple phone? A quick glance at my Nokia 5800 shows settings for date/time, or email as I say above.[/quote]

There is something that continues to boggle my mind to this day. Why do electronic devices with wireless and GPS capability need Time/Date setting?

It's just amazing that something like this needs to be set.

change their ring tone?[/quote]

Ringtones are incredibly complex. Look at customizations - per user/per number/per time/per mood, then there's fashionable changes....

Other cosmetic changes might include wallpaper, display brightness or time for blackout,[/quote]
There used to be screensavers, where people would tweak interval before it shows up.
Display brightness - the TV I have has sensors that adjusts brightness based on ambient light.
Wallpaper - why can't my wallpaper be interactive? Or animated? Or how do I split it across multiple screens? Yes, there is some entry which specifies that wallpaper.jpg will be used.

On wallpapers - they are used as forms of expression. People don't just set a wallpaper, they arrange icons around it. Wallpaper is just one tiny part of self expression.

Why can't I touch up the wallpaper, fade a part of it, emphasize it, why doesn't it follow me from computer to computer? It's not about wallpaper.jpg.

turning off GPS network if you're roaming[/quote]

Why? Why would I want to turn off something if I'm roaming? I never roam in my life. Ever. I don't even know what that is. But I do like a good dinner - how does "roam" help me with that?

Instead - roaming may incur costs. Hard problem to solve here (Apple did this from the start to greatest extent) is to take costs in original familiar form out of the equation. Want to improve user experience - provide a fixed cost plan.

By requiring someone to be aware of such technicality, you're reducing their experience.

And we need to go even further. People don't like unexpected surprises, yet they don't read. When someone buys a phone, they expect the bill at the end of the month to be "reasonable". Depending on demographic, reasonable may mean different things. For some, prepaid card is only way to go. For someone, company pays everything. For third, $50-ish per month is reasonable.

As long as they are able to do everything they set out to do.

Settings are workarounds around transient limitations. Remember BBS? (probably not). One had to choose ZModem vs. YModem vs. XModem. One was reliable but slower, other was fast but if phone fluked out would lose connection. So one would time choice of protocol based on time of day. Nights - use fast protocol, day, play it safe.

When was the last time you had to choose protocol on per-file basis?

Large parts of UX have been solved in same way. We simply know what works and what doesn't and we abstracted that away one a completely different level.


-----
Side notice on UX (not all that relevant) when submitting this:
Popup window: "The number of opening quote tags does not match the number of closing quote tags."

Why not show me which quotes are mismatched? Why not infer from submitted text which parts are quoted and fix it automatically? Why simply say: "You messed up. I'm not telling where, but boy did you mess up."

Not a big or important deal, but example of usability problem which isn't breaking, but has options for improvement.

The solution is not to add a settings box: "[ ]Show popup when quotes are mismatched" or even "[ ] Attempt to fix mismatched quotes".

I just want to post - don't block me at that.

It's an interesting problem - what kind of approach would work in real life to fix mismatched quotes. How often do users quote verbatim, how reliably would a diff-like algorithm be in auto fixing quotes? Are quotes sometimes changed so they no longer match? Could similarity algorithm be used? How often does this error even show up?

Tons of interesting directions to explore which require study of actual user behavior instead of merely implementing an O(n) find/match algorithm. if it is even a problem.

[quote name='mdwh' timestamp='1328196625' post='4908727']
In response to the OP: the obvious problem with this solution is that I as a user have no idea what options may be available. And for non-cosmetic settings that are required, this would be a disaster.

Ok, can someone please elaborate why this is not a problem when people search for things on Google Search?[/quote]In one case, the computer needs information from me (e.g., which email server, your name, etc). In the other case, I need information from Google.

So in both cases, the thing wanting information should be the thing that asks for it. People don't use Google to find out all possible things available on the web (which is a vast amount of things), but to search for things that they want. Don't get me wrong, there are cases where search in OSs/programs is useful (and already available, e.g., Windows 7), but you don't want to replace "settings" with search for the reason I give.

I want to find out if there's some other fundamental problem here, or if it's just a matter of getting used to a new UI paradigm that seems scary to new users. I'm sure the concept of pressing using radio boxes was also alien to people until they've gotten accustomed to it.[/quote]Is it a new paradigm? It used to be the case that computers had to be configured by typing commands, and it was a lot harder, as people had to know what commands were available. Or think of the old text adventures which boiled down to "guess the verb" - which were quickly replaced by adventure games that gave you a GUI of available options.