I think nearly all computer users can be divided into three broad categories based on way they think about computers.

The vast majority of computer users are application-oriented. They have training and experience exclusively with commercial software. They understand concepts peculiar to computers such as files, folders, saving, and deleting. They live in a WYSIWYG world; although they may be aware that what they see on the screen is not an entirely accurate representation of what the computer is actually doing, they are not interested in understanding hidden implementations. They have learned how to map their thinking onto the capabilities of the applications they regularly use, and they accept whatever limitations that thinking may impose. They are pragmatic, learning as much as they need to get their work done. A new problem requires a new piece of software. Spreadsheet “programmers” fall into this category, as may some programmers who work primarily with application scripting tools such as Microsoft Visual Basic for Applications. Nearly all commercial software is targeted at this group of users, who can be considered “computer-literate.”

The second largest group consists of goal-oriented users. These users focus exclusively on the goals they want to accomplish and neither understand nor care about the software they use to accomplish those goals. This could be called the “I just want to type a letter” group. They only see the final product. They do not care about, for example, the difference between a word processor document and a PDF image of that same document, so they do not understand why they can make textual edits to one and not the other. They could be described as “computer-illiterate,” even if they work with computers on a regular basis. Many very intelligent people, scientists and scholars, fall into this category. They are frustrated by the limitations of the software they use because they do not understand the reasons for those limitations. Though they may use common terms such as “files,” they typically map those concepts onto their real-world metaphorical analogues, resulting in confusion. (”Why can’t I keep this picture in my email file?”)

The third and smallest group of computer users — ironically, the original computer users — is comprised of hackers. Hackers are computer-oriented computer users. They have learned how to think like a computer, to understand the processes the computer goes through. They favor small tools (e.g. the command line, shell scripts) over large applications because they want to be in precise control of what the computer is doing at all times. They comfortably work with data in “raw” formats such as text files. This does not necessarily mean they are tied down with minutiae of implementation; often they can work at much higher levels of abstraction than other users. Hackers tend to seek out the abstract patterns inherent in whatever end result they are working towards, then implement those patterns in the computer. A new problem rarely requires new tools, merely a new application of existing tools. They will create whatever new tools are needed to bring the computer up to the level of the problem, rather than trying to adapt the problem to fit the computer. On the other hand, their solutions tend to be brittle, with a lot of exposed complexity that makes them unsuitable for non-hacker users.

Nearly all commercial software is application-oriented, while most open-source software is hacker-oriented. Very little software, in my experience, is truly goal-oriented.

The just-released Dabble DB is, to my mind, one of the most innovative pieces of software since the spreadsheet. It’s a relational database that can figure out your data relations for you. It’s a spreadsheet that can run structured queries on your data. It’s an on-line calendar with RSS feeds. It’s a web form processor that understands dates like “next Tuesday.” It’s a platform for JavaScript development. It’s so cool.

A desktop that actually behaves like a real desk. I don’t know if I’d want to use it all day, but it sure looks like fun.

Or, What I Have In Common With Craig Silverstein.

I’ve been enjoying John Battele’s The Search, a history of the search engine business from Archie to Google. He quotes Google’s first employee, Craig Silverstein, as saying, “I would like to see the search engines become like the computers in Star Trek. You talk to them and they understand what you’re asking.”

This is exactly what I’ve often said I want, except that I would extend the concept beyond search engines to computers in general. This leads me to a Grand Prediction On The Future Of Computing. I call it “Do Engines.” No, seriously, stay with me here. Google has gotten pretty close to the Star Trek computer when it comes to one specific task, namely, searching for information. The Google search box lets you tell the computer “find this” and it gets what you want.

The next stage must be the ability to say “do this” and have the computer know what you want, as in “email my résumé to Craig Silverstein.” Natural-language processing has so far had little success at this. (Battele cites GNP Development, a product that added natural-language spreadsheet formulas to to Lotus 1-2-3, but it didn’t catch on.) I believe that now, with the advent of web-based applications for desktop tasks such as word processing and spreadsheets, the “do engine” can become a reality. Instead of digging through menus and dialog boxes to find a command or setting to achieve the effect you want, you just type in what you want and click “do.”

This can leverage the vastness of the web much like open-source software. If I want to accomplish a specific task with my computer, I might search on Freshmeat, CPAN, or the Common Lisp Directory to find a piece of code that does what I want. If a web-based application has a programmable API with that kind of user community, the same advantages come to everyone who uses them. Therefore, the successful web-based applications will be the ones that make it possible for users to extend them beyond what the original desigers imagined. Google Maps mashups are a perfect example of this, but the trend at the moment seems to be simply porting traditional desktop applications to JavaScript, e.g. Google Spreadsheets. By leveraging the input of millions of users, a web application can “know” how to do common tasks the same way a search engine “knows” how to find things.

Microsoft Office 12 will feature a new interface called the ribbon. I’m not usually a fan of Microsoft interfaces, but this one shows some potential. Office’s hierarchical menus are definitely overloaded, and “Task Panes” are clunky. Moving controls that were formally buried in modal dialogs out into the ribbon should also make working with the interface faster. My only worry here is accessibility: plain menus and dialogs are very easy to access via the keyboard. Looking at screenshots of the ribbon makes me think using it with a keyboard would be awkward.