Related
I want to make a program for a very catered, specific purpose, to aid me in making a large set of quest mods to the videogame Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind. I’m attempting to do this through either excel or Visual Basic, and here I’ve provided a little summary of how dialogue works in the game’s normal creation program and then what I want to create outside of it and improve on.
How Morrowind Dialogue works?
For those of you who may be familiar with the game, you’ll remember that the talking to NPC’s will bring up a set of text, and this text is their dialogue. There are different “topics” that if an NPC has dialogue set for, the player can see the topic and click on it, bringing up a new wall of text, and this is generally how dialogue works in the entire game on the player’s end.
In creating a Morrowind Mod, the way dialogue really works in the “Construction Set” (the program used to create and edit the game) is that a database contains every entry of text, and this these entries have conditions set to them which limit which NPCs can say a given entry of dialogue. So for instance, a topic like “latest rumors”, will have lots of entries in it with lots of different NPCs having something to say about it. The topic itself is a condition of sorts with potentially dozens of entries attached to it, and conditions set to specific entries can also be applied. Conditions can include checking to see if the NPC is in a given city, if the in-game time is night or day, if the player is at a certain numbered stage/index of a given quest line and much, much more. This system is what makes all quests possible and the game dynamic.
What I want to create:
I am beginning a rather large mod project that includes many entries of dialogue, many new and old topics, and many quest and quest stages. I could list all the reasons here but essentially my problem is that the Construction Set has many limitations in terms of organization that make it difficult to make a large mod’s dialogue in. I would be better off to design, set the topics for, and edit all of my dialogue entries outside of the Construction Set program and implement them when I’m confident that the writing and quests are finished.
Essentially if this is too complicated I could just write all the quests and dialogue in Microsoft Word, but optimistically I'd like to do something more dynamic and helpful to me, as a writer, and be able to use real variables to store and set Journal/Quest Indexes, filter dialogue by Quest or by NPC, and easily edit dialogue and quests without getting lost in the normal game’s thousands of lines of other dialogue.
*I can't post more than two links here, but I posted on reddit and there I have a gallery showing how the Construction Set works and what I have made in Visual Studio so far:
https://www.reddit.com/r/learnprogramming/comments/4oap6w/making_an_application_in_visual_basic_to_handle/
So, my intention is to make a program in Visual Studio using Visual Basic or Python that leaves me with a program that lets me write, organize, and set the text for dialogue and filter based on conditions.
This likely requires creating a database file for the program in Visual Studio and being able to create variables in runtime, for the program. That is because I want the user of the program to be able to add new dialogue topics, new journal/quests, and all of these things will have conditions with values associated with them.
Any help, advice, and direction is appreciated. I am relearning Visual Studio (I took two courses in it) and I am unfortunately very new to excel and databases in general.
You are correct in that a database of some kind would be needed. However, you could approach this several different ways depending upon your comfort level, money, portability requirements, etc...
One way to do it would be to use XML to store your data. It has the advantage of being extremely portable and transformable. Since this is likely a program where only one person would be directly accessing the data at any given time, it might be your best bet.
Another option is to use MS Access if you have office. This gives you a workable, albeit fairly basic, relational database. This would probably be a better choice if you have 2 or 3 people that could possibly be working in it.
A third option would be a full DBMS. MySQL is free and you could install that to your local machine, or to a remote server. Installed to a remote server would give you the option of allowing many people to connect to it and modify data transactionally. However, this would be overkill if it is only a one or two person system.
Circling back around to XML... That will most likely be your best bet. It is simple and integrates perfectly with .Net applications. It can be imported/transformed to any data-store later once you are finished (or multiple times as you progress). Interfacing with XML via .Net allows you to work with it like a database within your code, so if you design your data layer properly up front, you could even migrate to a full database later if the project expands drastically. The biggest downside to XML would be that it isn't relational in the way that a regular DBMS is, and it is not inherently transactional. You do not have atomic updates, so if you have several people modifying things at once you could lose data if it is overwritten.
You could get around that to an extent by writing a more advanced data layer to interface with the XML files, but if only one person is making changes locally, and then the data file is, say, uploaded to a remote datastore later, the only thing to keep in mind would be coordinating when and who can modify that file. Mostly logistics stuff at that point.
I am currently implementing a web app with the goal of keeping track of the location of all the packages in a company I am working for. Our plan is to have a barcode for each package and scan that barcode at the different sectors of the company, indicating where they are. The problem is that I have no idea where to start. I've done some research on Google but haven't found much. My main questions are:
How do barcodes work in the first place?
How do you program with barcodes? Is there a specific language I should use? Do I have to buy anything?
How do you read barcodes and enter them in your program and how do you generate them in the first place?
Any hints on how I should proceed with my implementation?
I look forward to hearing back from you as I need to implement this as soon as possible.
This is a pretty broad question, but I'll do my best to answer:
How do barcodes work in the first place?
Essentially, for this type of project, you can think of the barcodes you're going to be implementing as merely serial numbers. If you really want to know how barcodes work, Wikipedia has a pretty good write up - but essentially, at this level, just think of them as a serial number, encoded in such a way that a machine can read it.
In your web app, you'd be taking a number (say, 42) that has no meaning on its own, and associating with a package and a location.
How do you program with barcodes? Is there a specific language I should use? Do I have to buy anything?
You don't really "program" with barcodes per se... Again, it's just a machine readable implementation of some kind of information. In terms of "specific language", just build your web app as you already are, and add, say, an extra integer field. The integer doesn't mean anything on it's own - it's just going to be what's printed in the barcode. In this use case, you don't even have to have a barcode per se - you could just write it on the box! The usefulness of barcodes comes in speed and accuracy of data entry - you'd be having a computer device scan the barcode and type it in instead of a human.
How do you read barcodes and enter them in your program and how do you generate them in the first place?
It doesn't sound like you're at the point where you're doing any kind of machine vision or anything, so the most common entry method would be to buy a basic USB barcode scanner, like a Symbol LS2208. Use the manual that comes with it (or you can download the manual) to configure it as a keyboard emulation device - that way, your user would just select a field in the web app, scan, and the scanner would type out whatever was stored in the barcode (in the example above, the number 42).
As far as generating, depending on your volume, you have lots of options. For low volumes, you can find a generator online and print them out onto Avery label-type sheets using an inkjet or laser printer. You could also find a barcode font and print right from, say, Word, onto a label sheet. For higher volumes, you could purchase specialized software and use a label printer, or you can even write this yourself. Personally, I have a Zebra LP2844 with a network interface, and I wrote some custom PHP to send commands in the printer's native language (EPL2) over a socket to print onto roll labels.
EDIT: You'd probably want to use either Code128 or Code39. These are two different "symbologies" (types of barcode) that are appropriate for what it sounds like you're doing. They're 1-dimensional (like UPC codes and not like QR codes), so a cheap reader can decode them, and they're pretty flexible and VERY common.
Any hints on how I should proceed with my implementation?
Just think of barcodes, the way that it sounds like you want to use them, as arbitrary serial numbers that don't mean anything on their own. For example, doing this sort of box tracking in a previous warehouse environment, we printed THOUSANDS of unique serial numbered barcode labels. Those labels didn't have ANY value until they were attached to a box and a picker started to put stuff into that box. They were just numbers. Just remember to keep them unique.
I am looking for some ideas on enhancing a trial-user's user experience when he uses a product for the first time. The product is aimed at a particular domain and has various features/workflows. Experienced users of the product naturally find interesting ways to combine features to get the results they want (somewhat like using an IDE from a programmer's perspective).Trial users get to use all features of the product in a limited fashion (For ex: If there is a search functionality, the trial-user might see only the top 20 results, or he may be allowed to search only a 100 times). My question is: What are the best ways to help a trial-user explore/understand the possibilities of the product in the trial period, especially in the first 20 - 60 mins before the user gives up on the product?
Edit 1: The product is a desktop app (served via JNLP, so no install required) and as pointed out in the comments, the expectations can be different in this case. That said, many webapps do take a virtual desktop form and so, all suggestions are welcome.
Check out how blinksale.com handles this. It's an invoicing app, but to prevent it from looking too empty for a new account, they show static images in places where you'd actually have content if you used the app. Makes it look less barren at first until you get your own data in.
if you can, avoid feature limiting a trial. it stops the user from experiencing what the product is ACTUALLY like. It also prevents a user from finding out if a feature actually works like they want/expect/need it to.
if you have a trial version, and you can, optimise it for first time use. focus on / highlight the features that allow the user to quickly and easily get benefits for useful output from the system.
allow users to export any data they enter into a trial system - and indicate that this is possible/easy. you don't want them to be put off from trying something because of a potential for wasted effort.
avoid users being required to do lots of configuration before using a trial. prepopulate settings based on typical/common/popular settings. you may also want to consider having default settings for different types of usage. e.g. "If you want to see what the system is like for scenario X, use configuration J. If you want to see what the system is like for use case Y, use configuration K." where J & K are collections of settings best suited to a particular type of usage.
I'll speak from personal experience while evaluating trial applications.
The most annoying trial applications are those which keep popping up nag screens or constantly reminding me that I'm using a trial. Trials which act exactly like the real product from the beginning till the end of the trial period are just awesome. Limited features are annoying, the only exception I can think of when you could use it is where you have rarely used feature which would allow people to exploit the trial (by using this "once-in-lifetime" needed feature and uninstalling). If you have for example video editing software trial which puts "trial" watermark on output, I'd uninstall it as soon as I'd notice it. In my opinion trial should seamlessly integrate into user work-flow so that once the trial ends they would think "Hey, I have been using this awesome program almost each day since I got the trial, I absolutely have to buy it." Sure some people will exploit it, but at the end you should target the group which will use your product in daily work-flow instead of one time users. Even if user "trials" it 2 times per year, he will keep coming back to your product and might even buy it after 2nd or 3rd "one-time use".
(Sorry for the wall of the text and rant)
As for how to improve the first session. I usually find my way around programs easily, but one time only pop-up/screen (or with check-box to never show it again) with videos showing off best features and intended work-flow are quite helpful. Also links to sample documents might be helpful. If your application can self-present itself (for example slide-show about the your slide-show program) you could include such document. People don't like to read long and boring help files, but if you have designer in your team, you could ask him to make a short colourful intro pdf. Also don't throw all the features at the user at the same time. Split information into simple categories and if user is interested into one specific category keep feeding him more specific information. That's why videos are so good, with 3-6 x ~3-5 minute videos you can tell a lot. Also depending how complex your program is you could include picture with information where specific things are located on the screen.
Just my personal opinion, I have never made a trial myself. Hope it helps.
An interactive walk through/lab exercise that really highlights the major and exciting offerings of your application.
Example: Yahoo mail does the same when the users opt to use new mail interface
There are so many ways you can go with this. I still can't claim to have found the best approach.
However, my plan from the beginning with my online (Silverlight) software was to give away something thousands of people will find useful and can use for free. The free version is pretty well representative of the professional product, with only a few features missing that enhance productivity (I'm working on those professional features now). And then I do have a nag popup that comes up every 5 minutes suggesting that you should buy it. That popup can be dismissed as many times as you want. I know that popup will annoy some people but I suppose that's the trade off. There is no perfect plan. But I don't think the occasional nag popup scares that many people away, especially when it can be dismissed with a single click.
I was inspired by Balsamiq Mockups, which has been hugely successful over the past couple years. My trial/nag popup way of doing things was copied almost exactly from Balsamiq. I honestly don't know if this is the ideal plan, but it has obviously worked for them. By the way, I think another reason for Balsamiq's success is that the demo doesn't have to be downloaded & installed. Since the demo is in Flash, there's a very high conversion rate of users actually trying it and becoming addicted to it.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
The community reviewed whether to reopen this question 4 months ago and left it closed:
Original close reason(s) were not resolved
Improve this question
I've always been interested in the data structures involved in an RPG (Role-Playing Game). In particular, I'm curious about dialogue and events based actions.
For example: If I approach an NPC at point x in the game, with items y and quests z, how would I work out what the NPC needs to say? Branching dialogue and responding to player input seems as trivial as having a defined script, and user input causes the script reader to jump to a particular line in the script, which has a corresponding set of response lines (much like a choose your own adventure)
However, tying in logic to work out if the player has certain items, and completed certain quests seems to really ruin this script based model.
I'm looking for ideas (not necessarily programming language examples) of how to approach all of this dialogue and logic, and separate it out so that it's very easy to add new branching content, without delving into too much code.
This is really an open question. I don't believe there's a single solution, but it'd be good to get the ball rolling with some ideas. As more of a designer than a programmer, I'm always interested in ways to separate content and code.
For example: If I approach an NPC at
point x in the game, with items y and
quests z, how would I work out what
the NPC needs to say? Branching
dialogue and responding to player
input seems as trivial as having a
defined script, and user input causes
the script reader to jump to a
particular line in the script, which
has a corresponding set of response
lines (much like a choose your own
adventure)
However, tying in logic to work out if
the player has certain items, and
completed certain quests seems to
really ruin this script based model.
Not at all. You simply factor the conditionals into the data.
Let's say you have your list of dialogues, numbered 1 to 400 or whatever like the Choose Your Own Adventure book examples. I assume each dialogue may consist of the text spoken by the NPC, followed by a list of responses available to the player.
So the next step is to add the conditionals in there, by simply attaching conditions to each response. The easiest way is to do this with a scripting language, so you have a short and simple piece of code that returns True if this response is available to the player and False if it is not.
eg. (XML format, but could be anything)
<dialogue id='1'>
<text>
Couldst thou venture forth and kill me 10 rats, perchance?
</text>
<response condition="True" nextDialogue='2'>
Verily! Naught could be better than slaying thy verminous foes. Ten ratty
carcasses shall I bring unto thee.
</text>
<response condition="rats_left_in_world() < 10" nextDialogue='3'>
Nay, brother! Had thou but ten rats remaining, my sword would be thine,
but tis not to be.
</response>
</dialogue>
In your scripting language, you'd need a 'rats_left_in_world' function that you can call to retrieve the value in question.
What if you have no scripting language? Well, you could have the programmer code an individual condition for each situation in your dialogue - a bit tedious, not all that difficult if your dialogue is written up-front. Then just refer to a condition by name in the conversation script.
A more advanced scheme, still not requiring a scripting language, might use a tag for each condition, like so:
<response>
<condition type='min_level' value='50'/>
Sadly squire, my time is too valuable for the likes of thee. Get thyself a
farm hand or stable boy to do thy bidding!
</response>
You can add as many conditions in there as you need, as long as they can be easily specified with one or two values. If all conditions are met, the response is available.
It's interesting, there's seems to be a core idea being missed here. We're having a discussion that relates to a programmer performing the task. Indeed, the code examples above are coupled to code, not content.
In game development, it's the content developers that we programmers want to empower. They will not (this is very important) look at code. Period. Now and again you get a technical artist or technical designer, and they're wonderful and don't mind it; but, the majority of content authors are not technically inclined.
I understand the question is for your own edification; but, it should be pointed out that, in industry, when we solve these types of problems our end users (the people utilizing the technology we're developing) are not engineers.
A system like this (branching dialogue) requires a representation in a tool that is relatively intuitive to use. For example, Unreal's Kismet visual scripting system could be utilized.
Essentially, the data structures (more than likely a branching tree as it's easy to represent/debug/etc.) would be crafted by a programmer, as would the nodes that represent the object in script. The system with its ability to link to world objects (more than likely also represented by nodes in visual scripting), etc. would then be crafted and the whole kitten caboodle linked together in some glorious bit of elegant code.
After all of that, a designer would actually be able to build a visual representation of the dialogue branching in the visual scripting language. This would be map-encounter specific, more than likely. Of course, you could procedurally generate these; but, that's more of a programmer desire than a designer's.
Just thought I'd add that bit of knowledge and insight.
EDIT: Noticed there's an XML example. I'm not sure what other designers/artists/etc. feel about it; but, the ones I've worked with cringe at the idea of touching a text file.
I'd venture to say that most modern games (be they RPGs, action games, anything above basic card/board games) generally consist of several components: The display engine, the core data structures, and typically a secondary scripting engine. One example which was popular for a time (and may still be; I haven't even spoken to a game developer in years) was Lua.
The decision-making you're talking about (events, conversation branches, etc) is typically handled by the secondary scripting engine, as the scripting languages are more flexible and typically easier to use for the game's designers. Again, most of the real story-driven or game-driving logic will actually happen here, where it can be swapped out and changed relatively easily. (At least, compared to running a full build of all the code!)
The primary game engine combines the data structures related to the world (geometry, etc), the data structures related to the player(s) and other actor(s) needed, and the scripts to drive the encounters, and uses all of that to display the final, integrated environment.
You can certainly use a scripting language to handle dialogue. Basically a script might look like this:
ShowMessage("Hello " + hero.name + ", how can I help you?")
choices = { "Open the door for me", "Tell me about yourself", "Nevermind" }
chosen = ShowChoices(choices)
if chosen == 0
if hero.inventory["gold key"] > 0
ShowMessage("You have the key! I'll open the door for you!")
isGateOpen = true
else
ShowMessage("I'm sorry, but you need the gold key")
end if
else if chosen == 1
if isGateOpen
ShowMessage("I'm the gate keeper, and the gate is open")
else
ShowMessage("I'm the gate keeper and you need gold key to pass")
end if
else
ShowMessage("Okay, tell me if you need anything")
end if
This is fine for most games. The scripting language can be simple and you can write more complicated logical branches. Your engine will have some representation of the world that is exposed to the scripting language. In this example, this means the name of the hero and the items in the inventory, but you could expose anything you like. You also define functions that could be called by scripts to do things like show a message or play some sound effect. You need to keep track of some global data that is shared between scripts, such as whether a door is open or a quest is done (perhaps as part of the map and quest classes).
In some games however, scripting could get tedious, especially if the dialogue is more dynamic and depends on many conditions (say, character mood and stats, npc knowledge, weather, items, etc.) Here it is possible to store your dialogue tree in some format that allows easily specifying preconditions and outcomes. I don't know if this is the way to do it, but I've once asked a question about storing game logic in XML files. I've found this approach to be effective for my game (in which dialogue is heavily dependent on many factors). In particular, in the future I could easily make a simple dialogue editor that doesn't require much scripting and allow you to simply define dialogue and branches with a graphical user interface.
I recently had to develop something for this, and opted for a very basic text file structure. You can see the resulting code and text format at:
https://github.com/scottbw/dialoguejs
There is a tradeoff between sophistication of scripting and ease of editing for non-programmers.
I've opted for a very simple solution for the dialogue, and handle triggering of related game events separately in a secondary scripting language.
Eventually I might add some way of adding "stage directions" to the text dialogue format that are used to trigger events in the secondary scripting engine, but again without needing to put anything that looks like code in the dialogue file itself.
That's an excellent questions. I had to solve that a few times for clients. We started with an XML structure quite similar to yours, and now we use JSON. You can see an example here: http://www.branchtrack.com/projects/on029pq6.json or https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/11433463/branchtrack/on029pq6.json (prettify it for readability).
Full disclosure: the link above is generated in BranchTrack, an online editor for branching dialogues, and I am the CEO. Feel free to ask anything.
I recently tackled a problem like this while making Chat Mapper. What I do is graphically plot out the dialogues as nodes in a tree and then each node has a condition and a script associated with them. As you traverse through the tree and hit a node, you check the condition to see whether or not that node is valid, and if it is, you execute the script associated with that node. It's a fairly simple idea but seems to work well from our testing. We are using a .NET Lua interpreter for the scripts.
For my solution I developed a custom text file format consisting of seven lines of text per node. Each line can be a strided list or just a text line. Each node has a position number. The last digit of the number is a type, so there are 10 different types of nodes, such as fresh questions, confirmations, repeating actions based on prior results, etc.
Each dialog activation begins with a select query to the data store whose results can be compared against members of a strided list, to match up with the appropriate node. This is more brutal than an if/then but it makes the text config file smaller since you don't need any syntax besides the stride separator. I use a system of wildcards to allow for select query results to be able to be inserted into the speech of the NPC.
Lastly there are API hooks to allow custom scripts to interface in, in case the easy config file is not enough. I plan to make a web app gui in nodejs to allow people to visually script the config files :D
I'm a software developer who has a background in usability engineering. When I studied usability engineering in grad school, one of the professors had a mantra: "You are not the user". The idea was that we need to base UI design on actual user research rather than our own ideas as to how the UI should work.
Since then I've seen some good examples that seem to prove that I'm not the user.
User trying to use an e-mail template authoring tool, and gets stuck trying to enter the pipe (|) character. Problem turns out to be that the pipe on the keyboard has a space in the middle.
In a web app, user doesn't see content below the fold. Not unusual. We tell her to scroll down. She has no idea what we're talking about and is not familiar with the scroll thumb.
I'm listening in on a tech support call. Rep tells the user to close the browser. In the background I hear the Windows shutdown jingle.
What are some other good examples of this?
EDIT: To clarify, I'm looking for examples where developers make assumptions that turn out to be horribly false about what users will know, understand, etc.
I think one of the biggest examples is that expert users tend to play with an application.
They say, "Okay, I have this tool, what can I do with it?"
Your average user sees the ecosystem of an operating system, filesystem, or application as a big scary place where they are likely to get lost and never return.
For them, everything they want to do on a computer is task-based.
"How do I burn a DVD?"
"How do I upload a photo from my camera to this website."
"How do I send my mom a song?"
They want a starting point, a reproducible work flow, and they want to do that every time they have to perform the task. They don't care about streamlining the process or finding the best way to do it, they just want one reproducible way to do it.
In building web applications, I long since learned to make the start page of my application something separate from the menus with task-based links to the main things the application did in a really big font. For the average user, this increased usability hugely.
So remember this: users don't want to "use your application", they want to get something specific done.
In my mind, the most visible example of "developers are not the user" is the common Confirmation Dialog.
In most any document based application, from the most complex (MS Word, Excel, Visual Studio) through the simplest (Notepad, Crimson Editor, UltraEdit), when you close the appliction with unsaved changes you get a dialog like this:
The text in the Untitled file has changed.
Do you want to save the changes?
[Yes] [No] [Cancel]
Assumption: Users will read the dialog
Reality: With an average reading speed of 2 words per second, this would take 9 seconds. Many users won't read the dialog at all.
Observation: Many developers read much much faster than typical users
Assumption: The available options are all equally likely.
Reality: Most (>99%) of the time users will want their changes saved.
Assumption: Users will consider the consequences before clicking a choice
Reality: The true impact of the choice will occur to users a split second after pressing the button.
Assumption: Users will care about the message being displayed.
Reality: Users are focussed on the next task they need to complete, not on the "care and feeding" of their computer.
Assumption: Users will understand that the dialog contains critical information they need to know.
Reality: Users see the dialog as a speedbump in their way and just want to get rid of it in the fastest way possible.
I definitely agree with the bolded comments in Daniel's response--most real users frequently have a goal they want to get to, and just want to reach that goal as easily and quickly as possible. Speaking from experience, this goes not only for computer novices or non-techie people but also for fairly tech-savvy users who just might not be well-versed in your particular domain or technology stack.
Too frequently I've seen customers faced with a rich set of technologies, tools, utilities, APIs, etc. but no obvious way to accomplish their high-level tasks. Sometimes this could be addressed simply with better documentation (think comprehensive walk-throughs), sometimes with some high-level wizards built on top of command-line scripts/tools, and sometimes only with a fundamental re-prioritization of the software project.
With that said... to throw another concrete example on the pile, there's the Windows start menu (excerpt from an article on The Old New Thing blog):
Back in the early days, the taskbar
didn't have a Start button.
...
But one thing kept getting kicked up
by usability tests: People booted up
the computer and just sat there,
unsure what to do next.
That's when we decided to label the
System button "Start".
It says, "You dummy. Click here." And
it sent our usability numbers through
the roof, because all of a sudden,
people knew what to click when they
wanted to do something.
As mentioned by others here, we techie folks are used to playing around with an environment, clicking on everything that can be clicked on, poking around in all available menus, etc. Family members of mine who are afraid of their computers, however, are even more afraid that they'll click on something that will "erase" their data, so they'd prefer to be given clear directions on where to click.
Many years ago, in a CMS, I stupidly assumed that no one would ever try to create a directory with a leading space in the name .... someone did, and made many other parts of the system very very sad.
On another note, trying to explain to my mother to click the Start button to turn the computer off is just a world of pain.
How about the apocryphal tech support call about the user with the broken "cup holder" (CD/ROM)?
Actually, one that bit me was cut/paste -- I always trim my text inputs now since some of my users cut/paste text from emails, etc. and end up selecting extra whitespace. My tests never considered that people would "type" in extra characters.
Today's GUIs do a pretty good job of hiding the underlying OS. But the idosyncracies still show through.
Why won't the Mac let me create a folder called "Photos: Christmas 08"?
Why do I have to "eject" a mounted disk image?
Can't I convert a JPEG to TIFF just by changing the file extension?
(The last one actually happened to me some years ago. It took forever to figure out why the TIFF wasn't loading correctly! It was at that moment that I understood why Apple used to use embedded file types (as metadata) and to this day I do not understand why they foolishly went back to file extensions. Oh, right; it's because Unix is a superior OS.)
I've seen this plenty of times, it seems to be something that always comes up. I seem to be the kind of person who can pick up on these kind of assumptions (in some circumstances), but I've been blown away by what the user was doing other many times.
As I said, it's something I'm quite familiar with. Some of the software I've worked on is used by the general public (as opposed to specially trained people) so we had to be ready for this kind of thing. Yet I've seen it not be taken into account.
A good example is a web form that needs to be completed. We need this form completed, it's important to the process. The user is no good to us if they don't complete the form, but the more information we get out of them the better. Obviously these are two conflicting demands. If just present the user a screen of 150 fields (random large number) they'll run away scared.
These forms had been revised many times in order to improve things, but users weren't asked what they wanted. Decisions were made based on the assumptions or feelings of various people, but how close those feelings were to actual customers wasn't taken into account.
I'm also going to mention the corollary to Bevan's "The users will read the dialog" assumption. Operating off the "the users don't read anything" assumption makes much more sense. Yet people who argue that the user's don't read anything will often suggest putting bits of long dry explanatory text to help users who are confused by some random poor design decision (like using checkboxes for something that should be radio buttons because you can only select one).
Working any kind of tech support can be very informative on how users do (or do not) think.
pretty much anything at the O/S level in Linux is a good example, from the choice of names ("grep" obviously means "search" to the user!) to the choice of syntax ("rm *" is good for you!)
[i'm not hatin' on linux, it's just chock full of unix-legacy un-usability examples]
How about the desktop and wallpaper metaphors? It's getting better, but 5-10 years ago was the bane of a lot of remote tech support calls.
There's also the backslash vs. slash issue, the myriad names for the various keyboard symbols, and the antiquated print screen button.
Modern operating systems are great because they all support multiple user profiles, so everyone that uses my application on the same workstation can have their own settings and user data. Only, a good portion of the support requests I get are asking how to have multiple data files under the same user account.
Back in my college days, I used to train people on how to use a computer and the internet. I'd go to their house, setup their internet service show them email and everything. Well there was this old couple (late 60's). I spent about three hours showing them how to use their computer, made sure they could connect to the internet and everything. I leave feeling very happy.
That weekend I get a frantic call, about them not being able to check their email. Now I'm in the middle of enjoying my weekend but decide to help them out, and walk through all the things, 30 minutes latter, I ask them if they have two phone lines..."of course we only have one" Needless to say they forgot that they need to connect to the internet first (Yes this was back in the day of modems).
I supposed I should have setup shortcuts like DUN - > Check Email Step 1, Eduora - Check Email Step 2....
What users don't know, they will make up. They often work with an incorrect theory of how an application works.
Especially for data entry, users tend to type much faster than developers which can cause a problem if the program is slow to react.
Story: Once upon a time, before the personal computer, there was timesharing. A timesharing company's customer rep told me that once when he was giving a "how to" class to two or three nice older women, he told them how to stop a program that was running (in case it was started in error or taking to long.) He had one of the students type ^K, and the timesharing terminal responded "Killed!". The lady nearly had a heart attack.
One problem that we have at our company is employees who don't trust the computer. If you computerize a function that they do on paper, they will continue to do it on paper, while entering the results in the computer.