In fact this question is about cautions to be taken to enhance quality user experience and reduce avoidable support calls.
closed as too broad by durron597, Dan Pichelman, GlenH7, MichaelT, Yannis♦ Jun 2 '15 at 8:00
There are either too many possible answers, or good answers would be too long for this format. Please add details to narrow the answer set or to isolate an issue that can be answered in a few paragraphs.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
A lack of proper input validation is one of those things which tends to lead quite quickly to users doing "bad" things with your application, when it should really be handled by the programmer.
I've seen legacy apps where users have been trained to:
All of the above issues are ones which should be handled by an application developer. When your input validation is essentially "make sure the user knows what format this field should be in and trust what they've entered is right", then unexpected things are bound to find their way in to the app. Aside from the obvious security implications, users make mistakes. As programmers we often produce our best products by bending over backwards to make sure that the user can't get it wrong, no matter how hard they try!
User don't make mistakes. The mistakes lie with the programmer who failed to create a usable interface.
So do usability tests with each release!
Almost every program that I write is invoked strictly from the command line. I've also written some fancier things that started out as CLI interfaces and rapidly grew into something more shell like than anything.
So, I can speak only for what I know. Here's some common issues with command line programs:
Way too many options
Unless you are writing a compiler or a line editor, try to keep options limited to one screen full on an 80x25 frame buffer when
No long options
It is much easier to remember
No input validation
Almost every platform has multiple libraries that are tried, tested and true when it comes to parsing and validating arguments. Almost every platform has a tried, tested and true lexer that validates input from a CLI. Use one, the other or both. If your program segfaults or divides by zero due to something a user provided, that's just embarrassing.
You might not need something as complex as a lexer, perhaps you can just tokenize the string if you are expecting stuff in a certain order with certain things in certain places.
I actually got a bug report once where an integer was expected and someone typed
No 'verbocity' knob
Allow experienced users to easily discover how to get way more noise out of your program than most people would tolerate, but default to printing serious and critical stuff only. I can't tell you how many times I had to fire up
You can also wrap assertions so that turning them off via NDEBUG or other means still results in something printed or logged for the user to find.
Speaking of log files, try to make sure anything you place in them makes (at least a little) sense to someone other than you. If the start of every entry is a UNIX epoch date, you're going to compound frustration in someone who really wants to help you reproduce the bug.
No 'bug buddy' in debug mode
A lot of programs offer some sort of 'debug' switch that offers extra chatter regarding what is going on with the program, but very few offer the following:
Or, perhaps you like hearing people read the following over the phone:
Overly complex configuration files
Don't justify the need to parse a config as an excuse to get a buzz on lots of syntactic sugar. Try to use a format that people actually know, even if it means extra work when parsing. I try to use the INI style format whenever possible. You'd be amazed what you can pull off with a simple key->value dictionary.
No configuration files
Don't make people write shell scripts or batch files just to use your program, unless it was intended to be a tool for either task. Give me a means to point at a file containing my usual options and provide just a few additional arguments.
No 'wet floor' signs
If some feature could get the user into trouble (perhaps it is there for advanced users), clearly mark it as such. Additionally, if someone fat fingers input or forgets something, have you program print a very friendly link to on-line documentation. You might be dealing with someone who is using your program via KVM and can't cut and paste.
When possible, (this coincides with input validation) use the Google apporach:
Offer a way out of destructive instructions
The goal is to tell the user why it didn't work and have them try a few more times, while ensuring that you do nothing potentially destructive unless it appears that the user really wants you to do that. Allow a switch that turns off 'nagging' , for instance
I'm probably forgetting a few pointers. I deal with this frequently as it is very, very difficult to make the 'low level' interface for something intuitive enough for most people to avoid making mistakes.
Having a good user interface and providing an adequate learning experience goes a long way towards preventing users from doing bad things.
Here is one I heard this week. A user asks for a feature "send me a notification when an event occurs". Simple enough and the developer goes ahead and implements it. Sure, the first question should have been "what are trying to address by this notification?". I won't go into that. Few days later the user stops by the developer and asks "I got this notification. What am I supposed to do with it?".
I remembered this Dilbert comic and suggested to the developer "write an app to figure out what the user should do with that notification".
Like mpeterson said, the user is very competitive in their area of expertise. They just don't think like a software developer or designer.
I don't feel like getting specific break/fix examples is as important as realizing this:
If through that exploration they break something, as a programmer it is your job to either warn them of the danger or prevent it from happening in the first place. I can't remember where I saw it now, but in the back of my mind I always try to "make doing the right thing easy" for the user of my software.
If you insist on examples:
See where this is going? :)
I once got a customer support call because my app just disappeared. Turned out they opened another app on top of it.
... I decided not to ensure that didn't happen again, since it was the users computer illiteracy that caused the problem, not the app. Anything I could have done to fix it would have lead to a poor user experience for others.
I don't think users are stupid. They don't want to use your or any program at all. All they want is to get their things done. Help them and prevent harm from happening to them along the way.
"Are you sure you want to delete this file/record? Yes/No". Clicked yes and then got a call that it "mistakenly" clicked the red delete button and it needs that data back:)