I'd add that I've noticed older people struggling with hidden UI elements. (E.g. not knowing that button X will appear if they do Y (and then not remembering if told...)).
That's why UI elements should almost never appear and disappear. There's a reason that GREYING OUT disabled controls has always been a fundamental concept of GUI design. It shows users that the function exists, where it exists, and that it's conditional.
Peek-a-boo UI is incompetent. It's even dumber when you consider that, in most cases, the space for the disappearing controls has already been reserved; so nothing is gained by hiding them.
And almost as bad as peek-a-boo UI is "flat" UI, where most controls aren't demarcated as such. So you're reduced to clicking on plain text labels and other inert-looking components to see if there are hidden goodies associated with them. Absurd.
This is age-related only in that that it's about visual cues, which are the entire point of GUIs to begin with. Physical buttons on a device are inherently discoverable, as were the controls in GUIs for decades. Younger people are used to the incompetence of newer designs, and more tolerant of having to click every pixel on the screen to find things. It's unfortunate.
The bright spot is that there has been some backlash against the "flat" laziness and a return to some visual cues.
There must be a whole branch of design geared towards older generations. I have been trying to work in this area and have noticed older people are very persistent and will read instructions carefully, but are very hesitant to click and explore things. Meanwhile young people immediately click and interact with everything without any fear but will completely ignore any kind of written instruction.
I was testing a web app out on my dad and he dragged the cursor to the bottom of the screen, which brought up the Mac Dock which immediately confused him and he asked my why I did that. I am not sure how to code around just general inability to use a computer, maybe avoid elements at the edges of the viewport haha.
I've noticed this as well. Ironically, I believe it's because product design was generally worse "back in the day." Normal items you'd buy from a store or catalog could be legitimately dangerous if you operated them incorrectly (electrically powered appliances like lamps and toasters that were not polarized/grounded, for example). So, rather than risk the very real likelihood of breaking your new gadget or injuring yourself, you were better off reading the instructions and only using the device as you were instructed to.
These days, things are pretty much "stupid proof." No matter how many times I insist on it, people my parents' age simply refuse to believe that there is nothing they could reasonably type or click while using their computer that will irreparably harm it. (Yes, of course they could somehow format their hard drive, etc, but there's zero chance you'd be able to do that on accident.)
"I believe it's because product design was generally worse 'back in the day.'"
I don't agree with this generalization. Here's an example: A stereo receiver, even today's A/V receiver, has a certain number of physical inputs. Back in the day, you had buttons on the front to select the input you wanted, clearly labeled. One press gets you the source you want, every time.
Many receivers today force you to press an Input button or turn a wheel to iterate through a list of inputs, a list of unknown size and unknown beginning and end. This is because the display idiotically doesn't show a complete LIST of the inputs at once, or even a moving dot to show you where you are in the list. So you could be one input below the one you're trying to select in the list, but if you happen to turn the dial the other way you'll go through 10 inputs to get back to it. Granted, this is much less commonly encountered now because nobody is going over to his receiver to put a disc in the player, but it was a problem for many years when people were still doing so.
In some cases, older designs were also better for safety. When safety is on the line, the best design (or at least universally-understood standards) often percolate to the top and stay there.
But I also acknowledge that there have been major safety improvements. The other day I rented a chain saw for the first time and was comforted to see the safety brake on it.
Point taken, and I agree. "Design" in general has not improved monotonically in time or across all types of products. I still think that it's like the stock market in that it has, overall, gone "up" over time.
> people my parents' age simply refuse to believe that there is nothing they could reasonably type or click while using their computer that will irreparably harm it
Do you not tell them not to click on links in email messages? That doing so could infect them with malware?
Fair point. I wasn't thinking about that angle. I'm mostly talking about them exploring menus and options in applications. But, you're right that you can cause some damage (mostly to your meat-space self) by clicking naughty links and/or running untrusted code.
The latest example of this I've seen is that after the latest cable box update - full screen ads will show for shows when it turns on and my mom doesn't know how to close them and I have to come help. She only knows how to change the channels, not interact with GUIs. She's never used a mouse before or used "arrow" keys to move an interface. She only knows "this button does this".
Another example is that our last TV had a "Source" Button. But it doesn't change the source, it brings up a list so you can choose a source. Nearly every week she would accidentally hit Channel Up or Down on the TV remote and then not know how to switch it back to the Cable Box. She'd hit Source and it wouldn't change the source and then call me.
I think that beyond a relatively obvious menu, non-obvious UI elements are an anti-pattern. And I'm someone that largely came up in text-based UI interfaces (BBSes, terminal apps, etc). Things should be largely discoverable in practice for graphical user interfaces, even if there's a shortcut.
ESPECIALLY "buttons" that are basically text links without the underline. If you're lucky, you might have a "pill" border or drop shadow, but that hasn't helped my dad in my experience observing him.
I’m generally not a fan of this design pattern. If an action is required before the button is applicable, consider disabling it instead of hiding it, or—even better—allow clicking it and simply guide the user to the required action (e.g. focus the required element and show and error message under it; maybe shake it a little if you‘re up to it).
