We Told You NOT To Check The Box, So Why Did You Check The Box?

[Dips]

In a previous version of our software we had a message in the Activation Wizard telling users who were activating a multi-user license that they had additional seats available and giving them the option to activate multiple seats on that computer if it was going to be a network server with multiple clients.

Of course many of our dumber users figured the *HAD* to activate all the remaining seats and ended up eating all their organizations remaining seats.

Which resulted in the next person not being able to activate and having to hunt down the idiot to re-activate that computer for just one user so that other people could use the license

We took our share of blame for this because we obviously made it too easy for idiots to do this. On the next release I got to help design the interface for that screen. After some collaboration we came up with this:

The ability to change the number of users from the default (1) would be disabled unless you check a box with the label "This computer will manage a multiuser shared activation."

The check box and the label are at the bottom of the screen. Most people in beta tests decided (correctly) that, if they did not understand the label, that they shouldn't check the box. But some did anyway.

So we added a warning above the check box and the label:

"Select the option below if the installation on this computer will be used by other users through a network. (CAUTION: Please select this option only if you've read [Software's] Network Administrator's Guide.)"

That seemed to do it and, for the most part we've had little trouble with this since that version was released. Everyone wins, right?

Enter today's idiot. Not only did she ignore that message and check the box, I also saw in our notes that she was one of the people who did this with the previous version.

Which means:

1. We explained it to her when she made that mistake with the previous version.

2. She gets the next version and plows ahead despite what happened last time AND the warnings not to check the bloody box unless you know what you're doing.

The thing that make me is that people who manage to defeat our safeguards through their own stupid bullheaded persistence are always ALWAYS the most difficult people to provide tech support to. So talking her though fixing it was lots of hair-ripping fun.

[SteeleDragon78]

just once i would love to be the person to tell someone like this "ok, since you cant follow directions pack up the software and send it back." then charge a stupid tax. if only to see the reaction. ahhh what a world that would be

[technical.angel]

When you make something idiot proof, along comes a better idiot.

[ThreatLevelMidnight]

Wow. You guys took major steps to improve your software, but the world did indeed provide a better idiot.

My company has the opposite problem. On our license reg screen we somehow developed a button that is either a) invisible to 90% of people or b)is so scary they are afraid to click it

This is the button that gives you access to the free trial.

Being honest, it is a confusing design. (I wasn't here when it was written). However, if people would READ about 30% of our phone calls would dry up immediately.

[draggar]

When you make something idiot proof, along comes a better idiot.

Darwinism at work!

[earl colby pottinger]

Idiot Proof

Nothing can be 100% idiot proof but one of the best method is the 'Double Confirmation Invert Logic Selection'.

Basic design is the the user forced to make the choice twice in a row but the second choice has the inverted meaning of the first choice. Additionally the default choice always exits with no change so if the user does not read the instructions hitting 'RETURN' or clicking on the obvious button always does NOTHING.

Example:

Are you sure don't want to install the option? ((YES)) (no)

Are you sure you want to Install option now? (yes) ((NO))

I hope that is clear?

[Crosshair]

Darwinism at work!

No, Darwinism would allow Dips to zap that user remotely over the telephone. I think the courts would rule it as justifiable homicide.

[wolfie]

Since users are only supposed to check that option if they've read the Network Administrator's Guide, why not add a password (found in the NAG) that needs to be entered in order to enable the option, with the behaviour for a wrong password being to treat it as a single-user install? At the appropriate page in the guide, you can give the reason for the password (people doing what should be single-user installs have been selecting multi-user installs and "eating" all the remaining seats in their licenses).

Another option (could be done on its own, or combined with the above) - make the warning stronger. "Selecting this option when not necessary will cost your employer a lot of money, and could result in you getting fired".

[AriRashkae]

I kinda like that second warning.

I actually have a pattern for a knit top that must be unlocked with a word/phrase from the author's book. The pattern was too big and complex to fit in the book, so it's a free download, but you have to have the book to unlock it. (eg. "5th word from end of page 67" or something like that.) Unfortunately, people keep posting the passkey, so she changes it every few months.

[Naaman]

Another option (could be done on its own, or combined with the above) - make the warning stronger. "Selecting this option when not necessary will cost your employer a lot of money, and could result in you getting fired".

Pfft!!

you could have the warning "Checking this box will start Global Thermonuclear War. Continue Y/N" and they'd still do it...

[MannersMakethMan]

Pfft!!

you could have the warning "Checking this box will start Global Thermonuclear War. Continue Y/N" and they'd still do it...

Dem words too big. I's clickin' big y... *BANG*

[gerund]

Years ago I took over support of some software that had an archive function. It was written when disk space was small (15 Mb or 20 Mb) and processors were slow. It allowed you to get previous years transactions off the main database into an archive, but left a summary so you could run summary reports on previous years, but only a detail report on the current year after you had archived.

The archiving process was rather primitive, and the user had to specify the dates of the records to archive. This was written into the users manual (of course) with warnings about the dire consequences if the dates were not specified.

Of course the first year we got a panic call that all of his detail had disappeared. Current year, previous years ETC. What was wrong with our program? How could it lose his data like this? Come down NOW and fix it.

So his name was John Smith* and on the Unix system this ran on, his user ID was jsmith. All of his records were in the archive database and all had been copied there by user jsmith.

We showed him the manual where it was written in bold and underlined and repeated, and after some discussion he decided that he had not specified any dates when he archived. I offered to change the program for him, but he told me it was not necessary as he underlined the warning in triple pencil marks and put arrows with a big N.B.!!!

Rinse, repeat the next year. Same raving phone call. Same problem. Same offer by me. Same refusal by him. More writing in the manual's margins.

And again the next year.

And again the next year. My offers became more insistent. His refusals the same. He claimed he could remember it. I said, "That's what you said last year..." Cat butt face from him, "... and the year before" from me.

And again the next year.

Somewhere in there I skipped a few years as I was busy with other jobs. But when I went back to look at the restore process I had written, I noticed comments from some of the other programmers in my group where they had made small changes.

Regular as clockwork he ran the archiving process every year and regular as clockwork he ignored the written manual and his handwritten notes in the manual, and in his own notes of things he had to do and how he had to do them.

Finally after about 10 years he sold his business to a nationwide competitor who had a different computer system and he retired to another country.

You have to make it so the customer cannot get it wrong. I had a plan to rewrite his program so it said "Archive last year's records (y/N)?" This is the only way to stop them.

[Yfandes]

Hehe - was the guy ever apologetic? Did he loose all the details yearly? What if the program had been written so that no date specified meant no time? (ie nothing in the archive?)

We use a password on a part of our program that keeps people from turning OFF a really important part. A part that will make the program not be useful at all if its not running while a run is going on, and the only reason to turn it off is to change its settings. And if you know enough to want to change the settings, you should know this password. Its an easy password, plus it is included in the HTML help manual that installs along with the software.

It seems to help, but occasionally I get frantic satellite emails or phone calls

In a case like the OP's - where the network install option doesn't really allow people to steal the software (that I can see and I can be dense), it seems a good idea. Doesn't matter if it leaks. It takes effort - thats the point!

[earl colby pottinger]

Notes

regular as clockwork he ignored the written manual and his handwritten notes in the manual, and in his own notes of things he had to do and how he had to do them.

This is why I have such a low opinion of people in general. It is bad enough that they don't listen to us but I can understand to a limited extent why pride makes that hard for them to do.

But they don't even listen to themselves! If you can't follow your own personal notes, notes that you have repeatly updated yourself - what hope is there for you?

[Mango]

If you can't follow your own personal notes, notes that you have repeatly updated yourself - what hope is there for you?

I teach graphic design applications, mainly ones produced by Adobe. I quit letting people make notes when I'm teaching simple stuff long ago. If the procedure we're doing is complex and not intended to be memorized, then sure, a few notes are helpful. But for the easy stuff, I find most people learn better if they do it a few times themselves.

I have one user who actually stores her notes in an organized way and refers to them. Nobody else does, and they can never find them when they need them. But if I make them concentrate on memorizing whatever it is, and repeating it a few times, they can often do it themselves next time.

Unfortunately, my job is actually to teach, not to troubleshoot and do technical support. I can only imagine what would happen if a tech told a customer, "Ok, let's break this again and you fix it all by yourself this time. In fact, let's do it three times to be sure you've got it."