Why do some people prefer Windows XP and Mac OS X over Windows Vista? After all, Vista is pretty and sleek, and much more advanced than XP, and, in many areas, Mac OS X. Why is there so much love for Xbox, but none for Windows Mobile? Why do BlackBerry users love their BlackBerrys, but the public is lukewarm about Palm devices? Why is the Amazon Kindle, which is a clunky, poorly designed gadget so popular with owners? Why do people love plain, ugly Gmail?

The answer to these questions is a mystery. The industry spends billions on usability testing and user interface(UI) design. Unfortunately, that money is mostly wasted. The problem is that there are too many technologists in technology. Technology is only half the equation. The other half is the human, that irrational, impulsive, impatient, power-hungry gratification machine.

When you ask someone what they really want, they won’t tell you the truth because they’re not aware of the truth.

Both users and product designers alike talk about user UI consistency, usability, and simplicity, and system attributes like performance and stability. What’s missing is that these attributes are means to an end. The real issue is always the user’s physiological feeling of being in control. And control comes in many ways:

Consistency: Designers focus on UI consistency, but why? It gives predictability that gives users a feeling that they know what will happen when they do something. It’s a feeling of mastery, of control.

Usability: One of the errors software and hardware designers make is to base their UI decisions on the assumption that the user is an idiot who needs to be protected from himself. Give this moron too much rope and he’ll hang himself, the reasoning goes. But instead of taking the Microsoft route — burying and hiding controls and features that protects newbies from their own mistakes but frustrates the hell out of experienced users — it’s better to offer a bullet-proof ‘undo’. Give the user control, let them make their own mistakes, then undo the damage.

Simplicity: Simplicity is complex. There are many ways to achieve it. One way is to insist on top-to-bottom, inside-and-outside simplicity. Extreme examples include the original Palm Pilot organizer, Gmail, and RSS feeds. Then there’s the illusion of simplicity, which is the Microsoft route. In trying to be the OS vendor for all people and all tasks, Microsoft Windows and Windows Mobile are extraordinarily complex pieces of software engineering. To ‘simplify’, the company hides features, buries controls, and groups features into categories to create the appearance of fewer options, without actually reducing options. Both extremes result in something you could call ‘simplicity’. But one version thrills users by putting them in control. The other frustrates them by taking away control.

Performance: Everyone hates slow PCs. It’s not the waiting. It’s the fact that the PC has wrenched control from the user during the time that the hourglass is displayed. That three seconds of staring at the hourglass is three seconds when you feel utterly powerless. Fast computers are good because they keep the user in control.

Stability: Designers focus on system ‘stability’, but it’s not because they worry about time wasted, though that’s how users tend to talk a lack of stability. Like the performance issue, instability is about the theft of system control from the user. People waste time on all kinds of things, and usually don’t mind doing it. What enrages people is when somebody else forces wasted time on you. Blue Screens of Death are more akin to running into unexpected traffic jams or having somebody take away the TV remote control. You’re forced into putting your objectives on hold, and left feeling powerless. One reason for the industry-wide pandemic of frustrating products is that the whole culture of usability testing doesn’t emphasize user feelings of control.

Give me control, and I will love your product. It’s as simple as that.