The Audio Fool : Usability

A Blissful Installation

RyanBemrose — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 01:12:18 GMT

I've experienced software installer bliss.

Here's the scenario: I went out and downloaded an application so I could test its compatibility for a dev. I ran the installer, which popped up a UAC dialog. I confirmed the install, and then got an incoming e-mail. I read the e-mail which directed me to a webpage where I filled out a survey. The survey reminded me of a website I needed to read and then write a blog post about. After the blog post I noticed that my build window had finished compiling, so I checked in the code I was working on and started in on some new edits. Not long into this I got another e-mail from the dev, which reminded me that I had never finished installing that application.

Suddenly, I started sifting through the myriad of windows on my desktop looking for the installer that I had neglected. Not there. The installer wasn't even running, says taskmgr. So what happened? On a whim, I checked the Start menu, and there it was. My app, fully installed, ready for me to run, and patiently waiting for me to launch it on my terms.

I was shocked, to say the least. Where was the installer wizard? Where were the six dialog boxes to click through? I got none of that. No intro page telling me that yes, I've launched the installer, and I need to click Next to continue. No pages and pages of EULA text that nobody reads, but rather just clicks Next to continue (The EULA was available at install time, but the installer didn't need to rub it in my face). No installation summary that indicates that it's going to install one component (The Software) and that I need to click Next to continue. No demands that I shut down other apps, or focus-stealing confirmation page after the install.

And finally, no messing with other parts of my system. Where do you want me to put my icons in the start menu? Can I dump icons onto your desktop? How about your quicklaunch bar? Your startup folder? How about your documents folder? Is it okay if I change your browser homepage? Mind if I also install a toolbar, an IM program, and a keylogger while I'm at it? This installer didn't do any of that, nor did it even ask me about it.

It was surreal. Sparse. Minimal. I didn't know how to react at first. All the installer did was install the software. And it didn't even make a big deal of it. The application was just there, ready to start when I needed it, and not before. I guess what surprised me was that it had never even occurred to me that an installer could run without my hand-holding. Years of conditioning by needy installers had desensitized me to all of these unnecessary clicks. Not since the days of XCOPY installs on Win95 have I been able to multi-task while installing software. It's refreshing.

This is what I mean when I talk about software that Just Works.

Tweaking Legacy Installers

RyanBemrose — Wed, 23 May 2007 22:33:00 GMT

Last time I talked about legacy applications, I hinted at a hole in the UAC model that could be exploited by a social engineering attack. The issue lies in the "installers" category. Because it's a legacy app and doesn't have a manifest, Windows doesn't have any way of knowing whether an installer actually needs elevation to perform the install.

For the sake of backward compatibility to make sure that legacy apps just work, Microsoft decided that Windows should just elevate legacy installers by default. In most cases, this is the correct thing to do; legacy apps were developed primarily in a culture where every user was an admin, and most installers take advantage of that. So, Vista runs all legacy installers as administrator. The problem with this is that, if you're a power user, you know that not everything needs to run as administrator. The power user is savvy to the intricacies of ACLs and permissions, and knows that while his antivirus might need administrative privileges to install, the latest downloaded java game probably does not. And while you might be willing to trust the makers of that java game enough to run their silly software, you don't trust them to administer your machine.

The meat of the problem is that if Windows determines that a program is a legacy installer, then by default you're limited to only two choices: Run elevated, or don't run at all. This can be a real pain if you have a legacy program that isn't really an installer, but the heuristic treats it as one (Some archive programs are like this).

Fortunately the third option, run as a standard user, is available if you know what you're doing. On a per-app basis, you can set the __COMPAT_LAYER environment variable to suppress the installer heuristics. Just open a (non-elevated) cmd window, and type "set __COMPAT_LAYER=RunAsInvoker", and any legacy app you launch from that cmd window will run as standard user. As standard user, you can install your game applet with much less worry that it will install a rootkit or overwrite your registry. This is the recommended way to run legacy installers with low privileges.

If the recommended way doesn't work for you, you can instead shut off the heuristic entirely at a loss of some backcompat functionality. There is a switch in the group policy for Windows that disables auto-elevation for legacy installers completely. The backcompat problem is that legacy installers which really do need elevation will now crash on install, often with few clues as to why they didn't work. You have to remember to right-click the executable and select "Run as Administrator". If you don't, then you can waste a lot of time frustrated because "Vista doesn't work with this software!"

Disclaimer: As with all advanced system tweaks, make sure you Really Know What You're Doing before trying this. I am not responsible for any damage you may do to your computer. To flip the switch, run gpedit.msc, and open the tree to Computer Configuration -> Windows Settings -> Security Settings -> Local Policies -> Security Options. Scroll down in the right pane to find "User Account Control: Detect application installations and prompt for elevation", and set it to 'Disabled'

So why didn't Microsoft just ship like this? Put yourself in the chair of my fictional Aunt Gertrude, as suddenly programs that worked fine on XP fail to install on Vista . How do you explain to Gertrude what it means when her program fails with strange and unhelpful errors messages? Even if you added a dialog saying to re-try as an admin, it wouldn't help much. We all know that users don't read dialogs. Vista broke Aunt Gertrude's program, and to the average user, that's all that matters.

My program is the most important thing on your system, same as all the others.

RyanBemrose — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 00:22:41 GMT

Raymond had a really good post yesterday about programs that grab your attention inappropriately. I recommend reading it. The comments have some good examples of programs, mostly updaters, that take too many liberties. Of course, I completely agree that popping something up in my face completely unrelated to the task I'm performing is among the most annoying things that a computer can do.

So I was reading Raymond's post and nodding to myself over the idea that programs shouldn't be so intrusive. About halfway through, an update dialog popped up on top of the paragraph I was reading. This dialog informed me that Firefox 1.5.0.9 is available to install, and asked me if I'd like to restart Firefox in order to install it. No thanks, I'm kinda busy reading about annoying software. So I click the 'Later' button (Note that updaters in general never give the 'No and stop bothering me' option anymore - I guess too many people clicked it), and am told that I can continue and the update will be applied the next time I restart Firefox. That seems reasonable. So reasonable, in fact, that I wonder why didn't the updater just do that, instead of interrupting my task?

Ah, some coincidences are just too ironic not to write about.

If it doesn't just work, then it doesn't work.

RyanBemrose — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 21:33:54 GMT

I'm passionate about usability, even to the point that my co-workers accuse me of whining. I can't really help it. I have to applaud products and features that streamline a task, are intuitive, and fit well into the workflow. And when a feature unnecessarily complicates the task, I have to call it out. Poor usability goes against what computing is supposed to be about. Way back in the early days of computing, BillG sold a dream to the world's people. That this newfangled invention called a 'computer' was supposed to make everybody's lives easier. It was supposed to boost productivity, make routine tasks effortless, and make complicated tasks easier (or possible). We've come a long way since then, and I'm happy to report that computers have, for the most part, done that. But as you already know if you work with a computer regularly, there is a lot more work that could be done.

There's a funny thing about most computer users that we software folks don't usually get. Most people don't get excited about technology for technology sake. My dad doesn't want to know that his data is on the C: drive, but his backups go to the D: drive. My aunt doesn't need to understand what it means to defrag a hard disk, or think about how big a buffer she need when burning a CD, and my mom doesn't want to have to care whether she has the right media codecs installed. As far as the average computer user is concerned, a computers should just work. Any time they have to think about how it works, it's not working properly.

Making computers just work is one of the design goals behind Vista. I won't say we've succeeded, but there are some pretty good examples, such as wireless networking. Want to connect? Click on the network icon and it'll show you a list of networks in range. Click the network you want to connect (and enter a security key if you haven't connected to this secured network before), and Vista does the rest. A few seconds later, you're surfing the 'net.

Closer to home (for me), we've completely changed the way that you interact with audio devices in Windows. In XP, you could open the control panel and set your sounds to your "Creative 123 audio chipset" or direct an application to record from your "SoundMax XYZ 987 codec". But most folks don't understand what a 'codec' is, or think about their 'audio chipset'. Most folks don't want to understand. When I look at my 'computer' on the floor next to my desk, I don't see an audio chipset. I see a small 3.5mm hole labeled 'Speaker' or 'Line out', and so that's how Vista presents them. Instead of picking from a list of internal audio devices, you just say you want your music to go to the front panel headphone jack, and Windows does the rest.

In the future, you'll probably read more about usability here, good and bad. Building good human interaction into a program is a Hard problem, and lots of smart people are working on it. It's a problem space that I'm personally very interested in because, though I'm a programmer of some software, I'm a user of far more. And if it's difficult for me, I can only guess how it's going to be for my mom and dad.

The Audio Fool : Usability

A Blissful Installation

Tweaking Legacy Installers

More posts eventually!

My program is the most important thing on your system, same as all the others.

If it doesn't just work, then it doesn't work.