It is interesting that you assume I have been supporting PCs for 20 years. I haven’t. Nor Macs, nor Linux. It is a universal problem but indeed most prevalent on Windows.

The camera manufacturer is “making it simple” for them to take photos from the camera, but as with all such systems it only works as far as the developers thought it out. She wanted to put the photos on a USB stick afterwards – but she had no idea where the photos were and the software gave no obvious option to do this.

Then consider that if they buy a new camera of a different brand they will have to relearn everything it does. This is NOT simplification. It’s obfuscation of simple tasks.

I’ve worked in IT for over 20 years and I know what ‘helpful’ software does to users. It dumbs them down. Liam is absolutely right in that. And because most users are actually smart, if you arm them with some basic knowledge they can often help themselves and save everybody some time. I know this because I have done it. My bonus for a couple of years hinged on exactly this – reduce the amount of time we spent supporting users. Guess what – it worked!

Consider my parents’ constant battle to get photos off their digital camera in order to store them. Should the camera manufacturer’s software be improved and simplified? Or should I teach them how to use a file system? I believe this scenario goes directly to the point the author is making. there is a level of knowledge lacking that should be considered basic.

By your argument, car makers have a duty to stop us crashing cars by making them drive themselves.

No, the world does not need to be computer literate. I am, and I once shared your view – shaking my head at the unwashed masses, rolling my eyes at their naiveté.

But really, as technological literate people it is our duty to progress technology to a level of transparency so that such literacy should not be needed. Things do not NEED to be complex, and in fact they shouldn’t. I suggest you study some UX and HCI and take a long hard look at what Apple is championing here before you continue your arrogance to a point where you are the one being laughed at.

1. There is no doubt that an excellent and intuitive human-machine interface does support democratisation and so drives market growth. This trend is outlined in this article, bit we can also point towards the Tom Tom in-car navigator that has opened a mass market for GPS.

2. Getting the HMI right means lower support costs for the manufacturer, for a third-party service provider (eg the IT department) and the user.

3. Getting the HMI right also means that end users spend more time benefiting from using the technology and less becoming frustrated trying to work out how to use it.

4. RTFM is a cost in buying the manual (paper is still generally easier to read) and reading it.

5. All this means that a great HMI is good for business.

I’m all for Apple making sure apps don’t trivially crash, and visually fit in with iPhone UI guidelines, but their ‘duplicate functionality’ testing is basically slapping all their end-users in the face with a “YOU ARE STUPID” paddle.