Level: Introductory Peter Seebach (crankyuser@seebs.plethora.net), Writer, Freelance
02 Mar 2005 What if something neither looks nor quacks like a duck, but users think it is a duck? The cranky user comments on baby duck syndrome and how it can trap users with systems and interfaces that don't really meet their needs.
The phenomenon of baby duck syndrome is well known -- it's what happens when users judge new and upcoming systems by comparing them with the first system they learned. This means that users generally prefer systems similar to those they learned on and dislike unfamiliar systems.
The name comes from the observation, made in the 1950s, that baby ducks imprint on the first entity they are exposed to for any length of time, treating it as their mother ... even if it's not a duck.
This syndrome has substantial impact on user interface design. Developers must take into account previous user experiences to make users comfortable if they want these users to move or upgrade to their system.
Baby duck syndrome can also make usability studies difficult as users familiar with a given system almost invariably describe deviations from it as confusing or problematic. This is not just limited to perceptions; all else being equal, users are more efficient on systems they are more comfortable with and a great deal of comfort can overshadow even a fairly significant actual improvement in usability.
Get along with the duck
Users making a transition from one system to another may well find the old system's interface more familiar. As a result, maintaining support for an old interface is a common occurrence. As an example, I have my Windows XP gaming system configured to use the old Windows 95/98 window decorations. Of course, I think this is because they're dramatically superior (but this may well be a question of habituation). If I chose between them without prior experience, I don't know which one I would prefer.
On the other hand, I am quite sure I like the classic Start Menu better than the new one introduced in XP.
Similarly, WordPerfect has options to adopt a menu structure and command set similar to Microsoft Word and Microsoft Word has help for WordPerfect users that lists WordPerfect commands and the corresponding names used for them in Word. In both cases, the programs try to draw in people who use the competition and make them feel more at home.
A user who tries out a new word processor and finds it confusing starts out with a certain amount of resistance to the migration and might revert to using the old one. As you reduce barriers, you improve the chances that a user will stay with the new product, leading to a continuing revenue stream as the user is induced to jog along the update treadmill for a while.
Apple learned about this when early releases of MacOS X removed the Apple Menu familiar to users. Even though many of the historical reasons for its existence no longer apply (for instance, MacOS X multitasks so the user no longer needs special desk accessories to get access to a calculator!), users find it familiar and comforting. I'm one of them. Apple has done a good job of providing a menu that provides the essential character of the old Apple Menu while being an entirely new menu with options that didn't even exist in the old operating system.
Quack the box open and look inside
Years and years ago, I got used to typing on a keyboard where the control key was just to the left of the letter A. To this day, I cannot stand typing on a keyboard that isn't laid out this way so I remap keys with fierce abandon. In fact, one company has built a reputation on a keyboard, the "Happy Hacking keyboard," which offers the traditional UNIX layout instead of the layouts adopted by many PCs. No more key remapping -- just the keys you want, where you want them. Also of interest is their unusual approach to the number of keys. In a world full of keyboards that competes on number of keys (as though one could use 120 distinct keys to any real effect), they proudly announce that their flagship keyboard has only 60 keys.
Familiar hardware matters a lot. Much study and discussion compares the QWERTY and Dvorak layouts, with claims and counterclaims, studies and more studies, but the essential issue seems to be this: Once you've learned to type, the marginal benefit of learning to type on a new layout is fairly small.
You might adapt for reasons other than speed, though. For instance, some people claim that the Dvorak layout reduces strain on their hands. I've been personally unable to use some split keyboards simply because the place they split between the panels doesn't match with my (admittedly bad) typing habits.
Keyboard feel is a particularly rich area for strong opinions based on what people are familiar with, but it's not all baby duck syndrome. People sometimes try a new keyboard unlike the keyboards they're used to and decide they like it a great deal better. One company recently introduced a keyboard designed to recreate the feel of an old Apple keyboard, obviously partially marketed at users who liked that keyboard when it was available; but it's also seeing a lot of interest from users who are more used to modern Apple keyboards but don't like them.
Duck, duck, goose?
Applications come and go, but major changes in an operating system can be traumatic, especially for fairly inexperienced users. More experienced users, while they have a greater investment in a given system, are also more likely to have developed an understanding of what's really happening. It's the novices who are completely stumped when the recipes they've learned stop working.
This leaves vendors with a serious problem. If you preserve interface compatibility for a long time, users are comfortable, but you end up stuck with an interface which may not be quite as eye-catching as you'd like. (The question of actual usability, it seems, has been completely ignored by the major players in the field for some years.) On the other hand, if you change it significantly, you give all your users a chance to stop and think whether, now that they have to learn how to use the computer all over again, they'd rather learn to use yours or someone else's.
Furthermore, operating systems present you with the developer version of baby duck syndrome. The API you're used to developing for is likely to be the standard by which you judge other APIs. It's endless fun watching experienced UNIX developers and experienced Windows developers arguing over which system is worse.
In conclusion
Baby duck syndrome affects the way you learn to use computers and software. It can make it hard for you to make the most rational decisions about which software to use or when the learning curve of a given thing is worth the climb. In general, it makes the familiar seem more efficient and the unfamiliar less so. In the short run, this is probably true -- if you're late for a deadline, the best thing to do is not to switch to a new operating system in the hopes that your productivity will increase. In the long run, it's worth trying a few things knowing that they won't all work out, but hoping to find the tools that match your style best.
Developers can take baby duck syndrome into account by offering more compatibility options to users. These may seem like useless features to some, but when someone who's been using your competitor's product for five years is asked to try yours out to see whether his company should switch, you'll be glad he found it easy to learn.
Baby duck syndrome also has a crucial implication for Web developers: Please don't play clever games with link colors and styles. Visitors are accustomed to the their browser defaults; when you override them, you make it harder for people to use your page. Have mercy on all the poor little imprinted ducklings and leave the links alone.
This week's action item: Think of a program you use a lot. Now find a competing program and use it for a bit. Do you try to use the same work habits in the new program?
Resources
About the author  | | | Peter likes baby ducks; honest, he does. He just doesn't want to be one. Contact him with comments at crankyuser@seebs.plethora.net (but no imprinting on the author, please). |
Rate this page
| 
