When I first got online, the World Wide Web was still in its infancy - so CompuServe was my gateway to the Internet. I loved their well organised chat room. A couple of clicks and I could be discussing Babylon 5 with people in another country, downloading wallpapers, and uploading my poor attempts at fan-fiction. Magical.

At some point, I discovered Usenet and its decentralised collection of newsgroups. This required downloading, installing, and configuring an NNTP client. Quite the world away from CompuServe's shiny software delivered on a free CD. But I persevered and, by the time I went to university, understood all the intricacies of PLONK, ROFL, and Godwin's Law.

My university experience was dominated by Usenet. It was where nerds went to socialise. I bought and sold computer equipment, published terrible poetry, and learned about LGBT matters. I lurked in the comp.lang.* hierarchy until I was confident enough to ask my Prolog questions without making it look like I was asking for help with my university assignments.

And then, one day, I just stopped.

There are three main reasons that I remember.

First was moderation. Sites like Slashdot were - at the time - pretty good at moderating out crap comments. Usenet was a stream of consciousness and, short of blocking individuals, there was no way to separate the interesting topics from the dull. Without upvoting and downvoting, it became tedious to read. And there was very little feedback on whether people found your posts useful.

Secondly was reputation. Sites like AVForums and eBay allowed you to see who was a reliable buyer and seller. Every transaction on Usenet was a risk. You might send money or goods to a scammer. Look, eBay wasn't perfect - but it made it easy to see how many successful transactions an account had made.

Thirdly was the user interface. Usenet looked dull. In a world of animated GIFs and MySpace colour schemes, Usenet didn't even have avatar images! Sure, the spartan nature meant that you could focus on a conversation - but it didn't feel as modern and exciting as the web did. NNTP software was fragile.

And so, slowly but surely, I drifted away from newsgroups into the tender embrace of web forums, Reddit, and Slack. All of them centralised (booo!) and privately owned (boooo!) but all having a nicer UI and UX (yay!)

I should briefly mention Google buying the Deja News archive, promising to revitalise Usenet, and then promptly abandoning it. Cheers Google. Choogle.

While Reddit goes through its "are we the baddies?" moment of banning all 3rd party clients and fucking over its unpaid labour force, I thought I'd return to see if Usenet was still a viable option. There was only one modern newsreader listed by my Linux distro - Pan which hasn't been updated in a year and has a GUI which gave me instant nostalgia. That's not a good thing by the way.

I couldn't find any Open Source Android apps for reading newsgroups.

And, as it happens, my ISP killed off their Usenet server a couple of years ago.

As I've said before - Slack is just IRC with a better UI. Dropbox is FTP with a better UX. WhatsApp groups are just ListServes for people who don't know how to configure a server.

Reddit was Usenet with a sparkly front-end.

User Experience matters. That's why Usenet lost. It was hard to set up, there was a ton of terminology to learn, sticky posts with group etiquette didn't exist, trolls and grieffers couldn't be moderated away, and the whole thing looked like a 1990s shareware accountancy package.

I'm a little sad that Reddit is further enclosing the commons. And I doubt this will lead to a resurgence in Usenet. But I hope it will give open source and open standards developers a little jolt towards designing user experiences which are fun and easy to use.

Some web-browsers use "Stop Loading" icons that were represented with USA stop signs. To anyone else in the world, that's just a red octagon.

Similarly the spell-check button in MS products is a tick over an "ABC". I don't know what the spell check button is like in countries with a different lexicography.

Also, in countries which read right to left, are the back and forward buttons reversed?

If you are only writing software for citizens of your own country, you can probably get away with icons. However, if you have a wider userbase, why not use just text (or place text with the icons)?

To my mind I prefer plain text - here's why.

1. Depending on the size of the icon, there can be more screen real-estate. Usually this is the opposite, but this is outweighed by...
2. Never having to wait for a tool-tip or read the help file.
3. Very easy to internationalise without worrying about cultural differences.

I was doing a usability study the other day and I asked "What do you think would happen if you pressed this button?" The answer surprised me, "I wouldn't. I know which buttons I need to use. If I press anything else I might break it [the machine]."

Most of us here (I imagine) would either press a button to find out what it did, or read the help file. It turns out that people who have been trained in one aspect of a program usually wouldn't dream of expanding their horizons. This is slightly reduced when text is used rather than icons.

However, a short description can be as unhelpful as a long one. Does "Attach" mean "Attach this to something else" or "Attach something else to this"?

The other problem is that it can be hard to differentiate between a textbutton bar and a menu bar. The subtle underlining of menu bars is probably not enough (and is turned off in WinXP!)

So, in conclusion (to a rather rambling post!) it's impossible to get an icon to work as effectively as a description, but text brings with it the problems of space and mental-model clashing.

One of the problems I've encountered is that most people (users and, to an extend, designers) are socially conditioned to believe that tasks should be difficult. They expect a learning curve that isn't always logical. It stems from childhood when we don't understand something and are told "that's just the way it is".

Users have become conditioned into accepting a hundred page manual for toaster ovens because, often, underlying tasks are complex and so they expect the method to accomplish such tasks require complexity.

Take writing a letter. The actual business which counts (the thinking of what you want to say, ordering it into sentences etc) is fairly difficult for most people. The business of learning to write takes a few years to master. So, why should using a radically different paradigm (Word Processor) be any different?

As for designers, ignoring the fact that we are usually designing for people unlike ourselves, we have to work within the existing framework of usability/acceptability.

Take the usability difference between Windows, Mac and Linux - the uproar if someone develops an application based on the usability of a different system is immense. Now imagine if you develop an entirely new way of working that is radically different but, technically, easier to use? Transition scares people.

At the moment I'm working on a research project looking into ubiquitous computing. One of the things I've found is that people:

• Can't focus on the task rather than the tools - they've been conditioned that the tool is the task.
• Find change, even for the better, scary - The tool is the task

I think what needs to happen is a gradual progression. Even if every developer in the world suddenly got turned on to the idea of HCI - the shock to the system would be incredible! Two examples

1. Windows - I find it gets easier to use each version. But it also retains an (annoying) amount of legacy usability to help wean people into a new way of working.
2. Palm Pilot. A fairly different approach to computing which symbioses nicely with existing technology.

Most schools separate students into either Code Monkeys or Grad Students. One day, everyone's first lesson in CompSci will be "Usability 101"... one day!

Every software module has a UI, how else could you code to use it? eg. Poor UI - Foo.doThingthatDoesstuff(); Good UI - Foo.CalculateMedian().

It's the classic case of code readability and commenting, I look back on some of my earlier non-trivial programs and it gives me a headache to try and read them, mostly because my understanding of how I work was incomplete.

HCI doesn't just cover "end-users" it also covers other users of your code. If you can teach people about mental models, it should drip through into their coding. If you look at undergrad group projects at University, much of the cause of failure is different people having different models of how they perceive the problem, convincing people to write usable code is the first step to having them write usable programs :-)

On the other hand, Tim Curry as Lockhart... (pictures Harry dashing into Lockhart's office, and seeing him wearing a Merry Widow bustier and high heels. Begins giggling hysterically.)

(To the tune of "Sweet Transvestite" by Richard O'Brian)

(Gilderoy Lockhart) Don't get strung out by the way that I look Don't judge a Wizard by his cloak, I'm no good with a wand, by the light of day But by night I'm one hell of a bloke!

I'm just a no good wizard (no good wizard) From Hogwarts, Birmingham.

Let me show you my wand and maybe, play around, I can tell that you're all pretty spooky! Or if you want something tragic That isn't too magic We could take in an old Nancy Stroufller book!

(Harry Potter) I'm glad you're not foul, Could we use your owl? We're both in a bit of a hurry. We'll sign the release form, Then go back to our dorm, We don't want to be any worry.

(Gilderoy Lockhart) Well you got caught with a imp, Don't be such a wimp, Well kiddies, I will wake up, By the light of my smile Which shines for a mile, I'll help when I've put on my make-up!

I'm just a no good wizard (no good wizard) From Hogwarts, Birmingham.