Home
Today I went on a scavenger hunt. Specifically I was trying to find the "reply" button on my Gmail interface. The damn thing keeps moving, depending on the length of the message. And it's pretty well hidden in a forest of 40-some buttons sprinkled around the page that do all sorts of things I rarely or never want to do. Three of those buttons are different ways to get you back to the inbox.

To be fair, Gmail is lightning fast, and free. But did anyone with training in interface design even look at Gmail before it launched?

The Reply button has a left arrow next too it. The forward button has a right arrow. Would it kill Google to let me use the left and right arrow keys on my keyboard to do those functions, given that they already teased me about it?

I won't say the interface design is bad, because that would imply that someone in the relevant field actually tried to make it user friendly. It looks to me as if that step got skipped.

I mentioned in this blog the other day that my new elevator for my house needed repair. It's actually a terrific product, and the repair person was there the next day making a very minor repair (some sort of door sensing magnet came loose) and I was all set. It was all covered under warranty. Best yet, they tried to talk me through a fix on the phone, just to see if it was a case of user error or a simple reboot situation. That part was all good.

Then I got a call from the elevator's service and warranty department, I presume. The representative asked if I had seen information on their service contract. I said I had, and I would consider it when my two year warranty expired. That's when things started to go bad.

The rep explained that the warranty is void unless I get the elevator serviced twice a year, even if the problem I experience has nothing to do with maintenance upkeep.

What?

So my option was to call them to do regular service twice a year, which would cost about $800 per year, depending on what minor things they needed to lube or poke or whatnot. And I would have to remember to schedule the visits. They wouldn't remind me, out of spite I presume. If I forget to have it serviced, my warranty is void.

Or, the rep explained, I could get a $1,700 service contract for two years and they will do all the regular service and repairs for me. In other words, if I pay $1,700 they will honor their two year warranty.

It gets better. The rep explained that if I pay for a service contract during my warranty period, they will give me a discounted service contract after the warranty is over, an offer that I can't get if I wait. In other words, I will pay MORE per year for service during my warranty period than after.

This is another example of Not Even Trying. I would have looked favorably on the service contract if it had been packaged in less of a f*^$#-you way. Now I actually prefer to pay more, if needed, just so I don't feel like I got jail raped.

 

 
Rank Up Rank Down Votes:  +47
  • Print
  • Share
  • Share:

Comments

Sort By:
Jul 15, 2010
protip: get a phone on that elevator

http://jacksonville.com/news/georgia/2010-07-14/story/st-simons-island-couple-die-while-trapped-elevator
 
 
+2 Rank Up Rank Down
Mar 1, 2010
@WATYF

You just hit the proverbial nail on the head.

Scott's complaint is legitimate. He finds the Gmail utility confusing relative to other email utilities. And it is confusing (to first time or occasional users) because the UI people had to cope with one of the design features that sets Gmail apart from many others, and that is that it was built around the premise that organizing conversations is important to most email utility users.

So that's all there is to this controversy. That's all "Kevin Fox" needed to say in defence of Scott's criticism.

Mr. Fox could have said, "You are absolutely correct, Scott, Gmail can be confusing to new users or occasional users because the user interface design had to cope with a new design parameter -- the conversation thread. But please let me assure you that every effort was expended to ensure that the user interface was as intuitive as possible under the the !$%*!$%*!$%*! We did everything possible to ensure that "simple was easy" within the design parameter. You will get used to it after a few weeks -- assuming you see value in the conversation organization capability."

Unfortunately, Mr. Fox did not say that. He took Scott's criticism personally, thereby failing to explain the very thing thing that Scott was questioning -- the apparent lack of reasoning behind a frustrating user interface design.

 
 
+2 Rank Up Rank Down
Mar 1, 2010
Frogstein said: "I just counted four (yes, four) ways to reply to a message in gmail:
1) Large reply button at upper right of message
2) Smaller reply button at lower left of message
3) Text box below lower reply button, into which you can simply click your mouse and start typing
4) Press 'r' (as others have mentioned) while reading the message"


Yes... that's the problem. There are FOUR, none of which are in the same freaking place that every other email app in the universe puts it in.
 
 
-1 Rank Up Rank Down
Mar 1, 2010
I 100% agree about Gmail's awful interface. Functions are scattered all freaking over the place and some are links while others are actually buttons. It's ridiculous.

ALL of the relevant functionality for email composition and what not should be in a single line right in the same place (above the email to/cc/subject/body on the left). just like they are in 90% of email applications and 90% of online email services.
 
 
+2 Rank Up Rank Down
Mar 1, 2010
@RandomThinker

You are so right the power of language. For instance, if I called you a diphthong or a dangling participle, you would know what I mean. But I would never do that, because it simply isn't right to use parts of speech and faults of grammar suckily. ;-)

And you are also correct when you say that someone named Kevin Fox exists in the real world and that he worked for Google once upon a time. However, we don't know that Kevin Fox is the name of the person who posted as 'Kevin Fox". Any more than we know that you are truly a RandomThought.

But we do know this. Gmail was not "designed" by Kevin Fox. I won't mention the name of the actual designer because that would spoil the fun of having you more "googling" to locate the name of the actual designer of Gmail. HINT: He was one of Google's pioneers.
 
 
Mar 1, 2010
On the concerns about Kevin Fox being real, I googled up a bit and found this

http://fury.com/2004/4/gmail-is-real/

This guy seems very real and the fact that he quoted Scott Adams on his blog post confirming gmail, validates his response. Small world, thanks to Google.
 
 
Mar 1, 2010
On the concerns about Kevin Fox being real, I googled up a bit and found this

http://fury.com/2004/4/gmail-is-real/

This guy seems very real and the fact that he quoted Scott Adams on his blog post confirming gmail, validates his response. Small world, thanks to Google.
 
 
Mar 1, 2010
@Webster
There is this interesting relationship between humans and language. We can make out what is being said based on many things like context, the way it is said and of course the words that are used. Sometime the words need not be arranged in grammatically correct order or even exist, but we can still understand. For example for the sake of passing insane sanity checks performed by this blog software and to prove my point, if I say this to you, readers of this blog will understand what I mean.

"Suck off".
 
 
Mar 1, 2010
One of the few good things of the EU, companies are required by law to provide minimum levels of warranty service...
A clause making warranty dependent on a paid service contract would never be allowed here, if they consider their product so flaky it requires regular servicing they'd better provide that for free.
Of course they may provide conditions that all servicing be done by qualified staff, under the assumption that others may not do a proper job, but they can't require such servicing, parts should be expected to last for a reasonable amount of time without breaking given normal wear and it's up to the manufacturer to prove abuse if they wish to get out from under a warranty claim.
 
 
0 Rank Up Rank Down
Mar 1, 2010

Did nobody stop to think that maybe the elevator business got Scott very ticked off before he logged in to his G-Mail account? Clearly that was what was upsetting him the most from this post.

That being said, the last person qualified to judge the usability of the software is the person who writes it. I'm saying this as a computer programmer myself. We cannot comprehend how wrong something we wrote can go because it seems simple to use to use because we wrote it. We can only guess (and pray, I suppose) that it will go well.

Personally, I do not use G-Mail, but I will say that Google's search engine is perhaps the best example out there of good user interface design, it's simple, it's uncluttered, and effective. Unlike some engines *cough* Yahoo *cough* which load the page with thousands of features/ads/buttons that most people will only use a few of and not care about the rest.

I did hear someone say that G-Mail has a conversation feature. While such features may be useful to some it will always decrease the simplicity of the program and the UI, making more difficult to navigate. This is something that everyone must live with, user and programmer.

Personally, I spent a good 45 minutes screaming (and I mean that literally) at my computer screen because I logged into Facebook and couldn't find the logout button. I knew perfectly well that the little arrow beside the "Account" button must make a drop-down menu that would let me log out, sadly though the boxes that dictate where to click are ill defined and kept taking me back to my account page. I was very close to ripping my expensive 22-inch monitor in half at that point. Why? Because it was one of many things that was bothering me at the time.

We can all relate to something not behaving how we expect when we're already ticked off, but it seems that everyone thinks that someone like Scott is immune to this or not allowed to vent because he's famous? Cut the man some slack.

Sorry about the elevartor business, Scott. I hope you get it worked out.
 
 
0 Rank Up Rank Down
Mar 1, 2010

Did nobody stop to think that maybe the elevator business got Scott very ticked off before he logged in to his G-Mail account? Clearly that was what was upsetting him the most from this post.

That being said, the last person qualified to judge the usability of the software is the person who writes it. We cannot comprehend how wrong something we wrote can go because it seems simple to use to use because we wrote it. We can only guess (and pray, I suppose) that it will go well.

Personally, I do not use G-Mail, but I will say that Google's search engine is perhaps the best example out there of good user interface design, it's simple, it's uncluttered, and effective. Unlike some engines *cough* Yahoo *cough* which load the page with thousands of features/ads/buttons that most people will only use a few of and not care about the rest.

I did hear someone say that G-Mail has a conversation feature. While such features may be useful to some it will always decrease the simplicity of the program and the UI, making more difficult to navigate. This is something that everyone must live with, user and programmer.

Personally, I spent a good 45 minutes screaming (and I mean that literally) at my computer screen because I logged into Facebook and couldn't find the logout button. I knew perfectly well that the little arrow beside the "Account" button must make a drop-down menu that would let me log out, sadly though the boxes that dictate where to click are ill defined and kept taking me back to my account page. I was very close to ripping my expensive 22-inch monitor in half at that point. Why? Because it was one of many things that was bothering me at the time.

We can all relate to something not behaving how we expect when we're already ticked off, but it seems that everyone thinks that someone like Scott is immune to this or not allowed to vent because he's famous? Cut the man some slack.

Sorry about the elevartor business, Scott. I hope you get it worked out.
 
 
+1 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 28, 2010
Um, the reply button is always at the top right of the message in g-mail. (It is also at the bottom beside the forward button.)
 
 
Feb 28, 2010
Just a question Scott this elevator I hope you don't live in a ranch style house otherwise I wish to meet that salesman.
 
 
Feb 28, 2010
"It could also do with a few threatening references to Belgium"

Well said, Uncollated. I am fed up to here with the quiet !$%*!$%*! of Belgium and their smug supremacy in the chocolate arena.
 
 
Feb 28, 2010
My earlier rant notwithstanding, I do kind of wish I could edit the first paragraph of my comment to include the suggestion that "Thunderbird," like "Firefox" only more so, is a highly dramatic name that the product can hardly live up to. It could also do with a few threatening references to Belgium.
 
 
+7 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 27, 2010
Well folks, whatever you might think of Gmail, you have to give Google a big "thumbs up" for taking prompt action. This just in ...

........................................

Google Corporation

Technical Information Bulletin (URGENT)

February 27, 2010

Subject: Gmail Reply Button Issues

Product Release(s): All

Condition: Google Corporation has determined that a software design defect, which relates to the safe and predictable use of the Gmail "reply button", exists in all releases of Gmail software. Symptoms include mysterious disappearance of the reply button, random movement of the reply button, as well as unexpected, uncontrolled acceleration of replies.

Correction: Consumers are urged to remove the 1-3-5 ignition wire channel from their motherboard and replace it with new retainers.

.............................
 
 
Feb 27, 2010
Are you sure you meant to say GMail, Scott? There are surely issues with it (user interface-related and otherwise) but the reply button doesn't move.
 
 
Feb 27, 2010
It once took me weeks to figure out that the opposite-facing MEGAPHONE ICONS on dilbert.com/fast were actually supposed to be forward/backward arrows
 
 
Feb 27, 2010
I've just checked, and Gmail allows IMAP and SMTP access. Have you considered using a program such as Thunderbird or Opera to access your mail? I've never actually used Thunderbird, but I can tell you that in Opera, the buttons stay where you put them. I imagine this is the case in Thunderbird as well. The Gmail interface, therefore, is an example of a really crappy product that you don't really have to use. You should get rid of it, and consider it a small victory over really crappy products. Remember it the next time you're fixing your excessively complicated coffee maker.

And the next time that happens, consider the fact that I grind my coffee beans by hand, use a kettle to boil the water, and pour it through a filter of coffee into a mug. This probably sounds like a lot of work at the moment. But next time your coffeemaker does something really stupid -- and I guarantee that will occur if you use it long enough -- think about it again.

And, speaking of web interfaces, I am still of the opinion that the swear filter on this blog is a waste of processor time. Since it is easy to get around if you want to swear, its only purpose is to block out innocuous words as a kind of stupid surprise. You should get rid of the fuc king thing. Of course, I would be against it even if it was super-intelligent and functioned perfectly, because I think the basic concept of a swear filter is an insult to the intelligence of everyone who reads your website.

Also, on the post from Wednesday, which I have just now read, reader Zowie complains about not being able to edit his own comments after posting them. Zowie, you should probably be proofreading your comments before posting them. That is what I am doing with my post. In fact, I just went back and rewrote a sentence in the last paragraph that I am glad you will not see in its original form. Most good browsers have spelling checkers for textboxes to help with this. Mine marks both "textboxes" and "Zowie" as incorrectly spelled, but the former can be fixed and the latter is undoubtedly correct. But my point is that you seem to be incapable of properly proofreading your writing and are blaming other people for this. I'm aware that a statement about your inferiority may be somewhat less than convincing coming from a guy who has just spent 10 minutes writing a rambling comment about excessively complicated coffeemakers, the idiocy of swear filters and IMAP -- which is also apparently spelled incorrectly -- and who deliberately "corrects" his phrasing to sound slightly irrational, but I stand by it.
 
 
+1 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 27, 2010
Re: Two comments up. Is this Kevin for real? He started out believable then veered into not.
 
 
 
Get the new Dilbert app!
Old Dilbert Blog