Computers are complex tools; designers and developers are always trying to strike a balance between usability and usefulness. I have a theory that over time a computers configuration grows to resemble the mental state of its primary user. Each machine is a unique mix of file and folder organization methods, naming schemes¹, and application choices. Those choices can reflect the level of technical knowledge and values of the user, but only if the user has made a conscious choice in what apps to use.

My brief experiment with mutt ended mostly how I expected it would. With me turning on my email in Mail.app again and carrying on as normal. I try to understand the draw to using such an archaic tool as mutt, but there’s simply nothing about it that appeals to me. Not at this stage of my life anyway.

After reading through Matt Gemmell’s latest post on mutt and the good doctor’s response, I fired up my old mutt config and gave it another run through. Well, after being a bit snarky on Twitter, of course.

I’ve been using different forms of computer “chat” for over ten years now, starting with operator-to-operator communications over a 9600baud satcom circuit in the Navy. Over time, I’ve become used to using certain forms of “emoticons” to convey subtle nuances in the conversation that are unnecessary in face to face communications. I even have friends with whom I communicate with entirely over chat.

Last night I did my civic duty by casting my vote at the local community center. I walked down since it was not far from my house, and enjoyed the crisp night air. Once I arrived at the community center I noticed that the voting process was being run by a group of elderly women, two of whom had Lenovo laptops, which were curiously tied together by an ethernet cable. Each of the laptops had a label printer attached to it via USB, with the other USB port occupied by a mouse. As I approached one lady noticed me and asked me to fill out a form, which I did, and then asked if I had voted there before, which I had not. That turned out to be a bit of a problem, one that was easily resolved, and one that was caused entirely by the laptops.

I like to keep both my desk and my computer desktop clean and clutter free. I’ve found that when there is less visual noise, I’m able to better concentrate and focus. In the article “The Proximity Compatibility Principle: Its Psychological Foundation and Relevance to Display Design”, Wickens and Carswell outline scientific principle’s that back up my personal preference.

I’ve been unlucky enough to be working with quite a few pieces of so called “enterprise” software, the worst of which I’ve been working with lately is called the Tivoli Workload Scheduler. TWS is, at its core, a glorified cron. It is a scheduler, you can create jobs, or scripts, and have them executed at given times. You are supposed to be able to cascade jobs, and create dependencies between jobs. This is all well and good, but there are some serious problems with this software.

The first problem is the price. List price for TWS is $33/value unit. IBM bases its pricing scheme on how many CPU cores are in the server that you install their software on, 100 value units per single core CPU, and 50 value units per core for dual or quad core CPUs. So, if you have four servers, and each server has four quad-core cpu’s in them, that comes out to around $26,400. I think we just went ahead and bought 1000 value units up front. That’s a fairly good sized amount, and that does not include the cost of the consultant its going to take to install, configure, and actually use the software.

Why tie the cost of the software to the number of cores in the system? TWS doesn’t use CPU resources to actually do any work, it passes off the work to other applications, TWS simply schedules them to be run. The price would almost be bearable, if the software actually worked. For $26,000 I’d think that it ought to make me coffee and pancakes in the morning. The reality is that after several months of enduring the software, it still doesn’t work properly.

The end user of the system has been trying to add event rules that fire off an email if a job doesn’t end correctly. Wow, that’s like, what… one line of shell script? But, since this is the TWS, we have to put in a call to IBM. IBM will call back, and ask for a ton of information. They’ll ask for directories that don’t exist, ask you to run commands that may or may not work, and generally take up a lot of time. Meanwhile, I’m starting to think that we are actually beta testing this software for IBM, and they just didn’t bother to tell us.

And then there’s the user interface. The UI, like many IBM applications, is quite obviously built on Java, evidenced by the length of time it takes to launch. Once it is launched, there are cascading left to right areas of a single window that allow you to perform separate tasks. At $work, I’ve got a 22” monitor, and this is the only application that I expand to full screen. It needs it. The application, called the “Job Scheduling Console” provides it’s own tabbed MDI interface. It is extremely confusing. Part of the confusion is that evidently the developers decided that there were too many options in the man application window, and chose to add a second interface to TWS through it’s integrated WebSphere application server. The second interface, also Java, is accessed through a web browser. Unfortunately, not just any web browser, it seems to only support Internet Explorer. I tried to access it first through Chrome, which did not work at all, and then through Firefox, which almost worked, but there were pieces of the application missing. IE worked well. The web interface is just as jumbled as the fat client on the desktop. Buttons seemingly randomly placed, some options hidden in drop down menus and others placed either above or below the data.

There is no clear, obvious method to accomplish anything with this user interface.

And that is not all my friends, oh no, that is not all. You must also have access to the command line on the server where TWS is installed. Even on the command line TWS is not a good citizen. There is no man page or online help shipped with the application, you have to load a ton of special environmental variables, and they provide scripts that launch a faux-shell that only accepts certain commands. One such command, conman, offers the ability to view the logs in real time (why, for the love of God, do you not log everything to syslog?), but only if you enter the command “con se” at the conman prompt. Also, you should enter “lev=4” to make sure you get all the logs. Proper logging in an application can be a lifesaver, and it could have been an area where TWS could redeem itself somewhat. That is not what has happened. The “con se” command only works sometimes. Other times it simply says that it submitted that command to be processed and returns you to your prompt. Great, thanks… so where’s my logs?

Having multiple interfaces to the application is fine, if you could accomplish everything needed in any one interface. However, that is also not the case. You need all three, and the end user must switch between the web interface and the fat client, and I as the administrator must switch between the web client, the fat client, and the command line to try to coax this monster into doing what it is supposed to do. Which is… schedule jobs. That’s really all this is supposed to do, schedule jobs to run. I don’t think it should be this hard.

Take these points into consideration in the light of the cost of the application. Now, let your jaw slowly close and realize that IBM can charge this much because it has found a market that no one else is tapping. TWS is only one example of horrible “enterprise” software, there’s a lot more of it out there. Personally, I see an opportunity here. An opportunity for well thought out, beautifully crafted software that works well, is easy to use, and gets the job done.

The ability to visualize a complex system is key to a real understanding of it. To me, this applies to computers and technology. To Daniel Tammet, this applies to numbers and letters, on a far, far more vast scale. Daniel is a savant, an extraordinary person who pushes the boundaries of what we believe we know about human capability and learning. What he has to say rings a bell, because how he views his numbers and letters is similar to how I understand the inner workings of a computer. I can visualize what is going on, or what I want to happen. I can do this because I’ve worked and studied the computer field for years, and because I enjoy the work. What I’ve found is that there is a distinct difference between understanding the technology and memorizing what happens when you click a button.

If you work in the tech industry, memorizing technology is a bad idea. Technology changes, it evolves and grows. It is better to understand the attitudes and purpose of the technology. Networking is a great example. I started out learning about wave propagation theory in the Navy, and about how we could get data from the size, shape, or velocity of the wave. Later, when I went on to learn TCP/IP networking, I found that the data was still transmitted the same way, as 0 or 1, but how it was decoded was different. Then the stack, then the applications, then scripting, and now, I’m learning a high level programming language, and its finally starting to click.

The thing is, I couldn’t have learned these skills if I didn’t have a visual image in my mind about how it worked under the gloss of the computer screen. I can’t imagine trying to use a computer, much less program one, without at least a passing knowledge of what happens when you click that mouse.

Then again, to 99.999% of people, it doesn’t matter, and really shouldn’t. Computers should be so easy to use that you don’t have to learn a new skill to use one effectively. They should be as self explanatory as toasters. Unfortunately, they are not. Windows 7 is coming out this year some time, and it will sport a new user interface which its users will have to learn all over again. Many, many of them will simply try to re-memorize what button does what, and what order to click things in. You shouldn’t have to learn why the computer works the way it does, but it certainly doesn’t hurt. In the end, it makes things much easier too.