The Power of Defaults

January 10, 2007

In Typing Trumps Pointing, I extolled the virtues of the full-text search included in Vista's new Start Menu. As many commenters pointed out, the feature itself is nothing new:

I love keyboard searching, but basically you say you are installing Vista, an entire operating system, just so you don't have to install Colibri, SlickRun, Launchy, or one of the many other similar and fully functional tools that give similar results for 10% cost and 1% hassle.

It's true. There are dozens of third-party solutions that deliver very similar interactive full-text search UI experiences. But there's one key difference between those solutions and the one in Vista: I have to install them. You may argue that, in the near term, I also have to install Vista. Fair enough. But over the next five years, millions of users will buy computers with Vista pre-installed. And they'll immediately benefit from the built-in, default full-text search UI that's accessible right out of the box with a single press of the Windows key.

There's nothing to install. There's nothing to configure. It just works.

That's the power of defaults.

Defaults are arguably the most important design decisions you'll ever make as a software developer. Choose good defaults, and users will sing the praises of your software and how easy it is to use. Choose poor defaults, and you'll face down user angst over configuration, and probably a host of tech support calls as well.

Furthermore, once a default becomes a well-accepted standard, it's an expectation. Other vendors will be peer pressured into at least matching that default. And to truly succeed, they'll have to come up with an even better default. Defaults are how the software industry evolves. It also highlights a problem with the Linux and Unix models; because they're infinitely configurable, it's impossible to tell what you're comparing the next version of the software with. There's no baseline, no standard, only the giant cop-out of endless user configuration.

Defaults aren't just important to software developers; they're incredibly important to UI designers, too. Jakob Nielsen elaborates:

Users rely on defaults in many other areas of user interface design. For example, they rarely utilize fancy customization features, making it important to optimize the default user experience, since that's what most users stick to.

In forms and applications, pre-populate fields with the most common value if you can determine it in advance. For example, on the registration form for my usability conference, if people register for an event in Boston, the country field will say "United States" by default, but if they register for London, it will say "United Kingdom." Obviously, many people come from other countries, and they'll have to change this entry to specify their own country -- but they'd have to specify it anyway if we'd left it blank. By choosing the most common country as the default, we save many users that bit of work.

Defaults make two essential contributions to usability:

  • By showing a representative value, they serve as just-in-time instructions to help users understand how to complete a field.
  • By showing a frequent value, they help users understand the commonly expected response, as opposed to more atypical ones. You can use this knowledge for sales purposes -- for example, by pre-selecting the one-year option in a subscription interface that also offers monthly payments. But, if you consistently pick the most expensive option as the default, you'll lose credibility, so don't overdo it.

By educating and guiding users, default values help reduce errors. It's therefore important to select helpful defaults, rather than those based on the first letter of the alphabet or whatever the first option on your original list happened to be.

Defaults can also affect your company's bottom line. That's why Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo are willing to pay millions of dollars to influence the defaults on a user's desktop.

For most users, the default value is the only value. Your choice of default values will have a profound impact on how your application is used. You should agonize over every default in your software. If you aren't, you're doing the user, and yourself, a disservice.

Posted by Jeff Atwood
29 Comments

Yes people like and use defaults, but in some cases people are also willing to throw it all away and replace it with something better, so long as there is some kind of continuity (e.g. import their old data with no problems etc.). Some people will hate Vista, some just won't care and will adapt to working with it and taking advantage of it. So don't let the power of defaults scare you away from creating something new and cool.

Reed on January 12, 2007 2:16 AM

Similarly, I still use notepad.exe for many simple text-editing tasks

The lack of any changes whatsoever to notepad is one of the saddest things about Vista. I'm sure 99.9% of users could care less; how often does the average user open a text file? But it still sucks.

And I agree with you on desktop customization. There's a limit to what you can manage:

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000382.html

Plus, we wouldn't *require* all those customizations if the baseline platform was evolving forward over time. And that's the best solution of all.

So don't let the power of defaults scare you away from creating something new and cool.

This is what I'm saying: make your *defaults* new and cool! If absolute backwards compatibility was an iron-clad guarantee, how could Apple have advanced from MacOS classic to the Unix-based OSX?

Jeff Atwood on January 12, 2007 2:33 AM

Actually the first thing many people will do is figure out how to turn off the Vista style start button and go back to the XP look and feel that they are familiar with. I installed Vista RC1 on my desktop at home and the first day my girlfriend touched it I had to figure out how to get the start menu and IE to work like the previous version.

Tim on January 12, 2007 2:47 AM

There's no way MS will ever improve things like Notepad. They'd get sued to death. Every god damned person who wrote something better than Notepad will complain.

I can't wait for the whining from the people who provide Start menu improvement apps. Maybe the US guvmint can give them some money for their efforts.

Thank the US guvmint, thank the EU, thank the IT pleebs that can't understand the consequences of industry lobbying.

foobar on January 12, 2007 4:01 AM

Interesting comments about defaults.

I once had a conversation with a network admin at my university where OS/2 was the standard OS. When Win95 came out, he boasted to me that he could get OS/2 to look and work just like Win95. When I asked him, "so why don't you do that?", he said "eh, it's too much work."

foobar on January 12, 2007 4:03 AM

Excellent response to the comments on the last post.

Power users will always delve into configuration settings and try to tweak everything to be just how they like it. For these users, tweaking everything is a hobby.

Most users, however, don't really find enjoyment in this process.

Taylor on January 12, 2007 5:46 AM

I couldn't agree more. This is the same reason I have mostly given up on Emacs: nothing seems to work by default which results in more tinkering than actual working.

Geoff Wozniak on January 12, 2007 5:51 AM

I agree with the commentary on defaults, for the most part (I do use the fancy customization options frequently, however, but I should point out that sometimes it's to roll the UI back to a previous version that I got used to/liked).

However, I think you slightly overestimate the value of the Smart Searching Start Button. It's great, really, I agree. But when I spend hundreds of dollars on a brand new operating system that's been in development for 6 years; I really want something more solid than a UI catchup. A UI catchup like MS did in Vista (perhaps not including Aero) could've been done with a Service Pack. And they didn't even do it well, as the revised Control Panel demonstrates. (And yes, I am aware there is more to Vista than the UI catchup, but my point still stands.)

Neil on January 12, 2007 7:13 AM

But when I spend hundreds of dollars on a brand new operating system that's been in development for 6 years; I really want something more solid than a UI catchup

At the risk of sounding like a Vista apologist, a few things.

See the full list of new features here and decide for yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vista

I completely agree that Vista is essentially a large set of small improvements. There's no radical overhaul in the box. However, they did plant some seeds that may bear fruit down the road, such as the default inclusion of .NET 3.0 and Windows Presentation Foundation.

And Vista is not all that expensive. You can buy a new OEM license of Windows MCE 2005 on newegg right now for $109, which converts into a license for Windows Vista Home Premium.

Jeff Atwood on January 12, 2007 7:45 AM

Good post Jeff,

I think the Apple comparison is important here. Desktop search has been around for years on XP, through external apps. On Apple it's there by default. FlyAKite OS makes Windows XP look really nice. Apple OSX looks good by default. eXpose clones exist for XP, on OSX it's there by default.

I have a friend who constantly slags Apple users saying "They're so impressed about $feature, I downloaded a program years ago that does that." Much as my Linux friends say "The Windows guys are obsessed with $feature, you can download the tarball of blah, and if/when it compiles it implements a command line version of it".

If it isn't shit hot by default, then it isn't shit hot. It's shit that you're asking the user to microwave for you.


Des

Des Traynor on January 12, 2007 8:09 AM

You know, you're absolutely right. The hardest thing in the world is picking the right defaults. There are always some who think you've picked the wrong ones. They'll vilify you. There are those who think you're trying to take over. And there are those that think you haven't done enough. You can't win.

But you can sure as hell give it a shot.

Jim Lang on January 12, 2007 12:02 PM

I think it's important to differentiate between the convenience (and blessing) of default settings/choices, and those things which are foisted upon us as de facto "standards" which shove us into a corner on how we do our job.

There are several that come to mind:

the File/Edit/View/ etc. menu structure that has been around too long
SQL as the query language, when in fact it is grossly inferior to others that existed in the '80s but for whatever reasons didn't make it to the mainstream
Powerpoint as a means of thinking
MS Project (and ilk) as a means of organizing and "achieving"

You get the idea. At what point does one of these become a limiting factor? When do these "default" applications become a millstone on the neck of creativity? When do we a "creative programmer types" sing the praises of something that is not what we are used to but is better, even if it is different, regardless of the OS?

Or have we been reduced to people whose best is coming up with 100+ posts regarding some feature in Vista, that while convenient it would seem that anger over why MS broke the search capability in XP, deliberately, would have yielded as much typing?

Steve on January 12, 2007 12:05 PM

I don't know how I could live without a default computer. Every time I buy or re-install everything (Not often, but happens a bit) I have to have certain programs, certain functions running, even certain wallpapers, otherwise everything is chaotic.

Paula Shuler on January 12, 2007 12:05 PM

"There's nothing to install. There's nothing to configure. It just works.

That's the power of defaults."

What a load of shit...

JMC on January 13, 2007 9:47 AM

"Actually the first thing many people will do is figure out how to turn off the Vista style start button and go back to the XP look and feel that they are familiar with. I installed Vista RC1 on my desktop at home and the first day my girlfriend touched it I had to figure out how to get the start menu and IE to work like the previous version."

This will go away. It always happens (even to us!) and always wilts as people either realize they have no choice, or accidentally realize the benefits. It's worse as you get older, I've found. . Hearing about neat stuff is one thing, using it another entirely.

Sometimes it takes a long time to get there though; I know one project manager who absolutely refuses to upgrade from VC6 and refuses to support anything else, and will only grudgingly do so in the next major version of his project after constant cajoling from everyone using VC8 now. (Now that VC8 has fixed a number of VC's standard C deficiencies.)

Same thing for some people I know on Win95/98, especially old gamers.

Foxyshadis on January 13, 2007 12:36 PM

Good post. Spotlight is still installed by default on OSX, though, isn't it? I don't have a Mac so I may be wrong, but that was the impression I got.

David House on January 14, 2007 6:15 AM

Many good points on defaults here, especially Taylor's. I personally have stopped tweaking my system so much so that it is difficult to function outside of my nice, cozy little environment. My computing reality includes my lovely OSX MacBook, two XP workstations and many servers that I must share with others. Plus...sorting through friend's and family's machines.

Being comfortable with OS defaults, and not dependent upon customizations, is really helpful.

@Des: What are you talking about? OS X defaults are notably more plentiful and powerful XP defaults. I have been stunned with how -little- software I have installed on my new MacBook. Gawds, the command-line tools alone make me drool. Pre-installed software? svn, java 5, powerful diagnostic tools, and a cornucopia of text editors.

stuinzuri on January 15, 2007 1:58 AM

I think one must differentiate between default values and default setting.

In some cases, I've found that default values can lead to erroneous data. When the user is presented with a relatively complex form, or set of forms, they will often be in a hurry and not change fields that should be changed. And since the field has a default value, there is no way to validate that the user "visited" the field.

As far as default settings, I absolutely agree with your assertions.

Mike on January 15, 2007 7:42 AM

I like Jakob's comment about the Country fields. I think too many managers get involved and don't want to step on anyones toes, so they tell the programmers not to have a default. Instead of annoying 5% of their audience, they annoy 95%.

Eric D. Burdo on January 15, 2007 10:33 AM

"Defaults are arguably the most important design decisions you'll ever make as a software developer."

You're on that slippery UI slope ... the better chosen a default is, the less often a user will have to change it. And the less often they'll have to change it, the less exposure it needs in the UI. And as UI exposure drops, the difficulty in finding it and using it increases, leading to the misconception by the masses that the option cannot be changed.

Therefore, the better the default value is, the worse the UI is.

Okay, okay, just kidding on that last part. But my point is really that there's flipside to this. Some designers/engineers add options or preference because they DON'T understand what the best default value is; while others feel that once you understand what the best value is, you don't NEED the option to change it any more, you just stick with that optimum value, and you've simplified the UI.

Hanford on January 18, 2007 1:11 AM

I like Jakob's comment about the Country fields.

And the country field is a perfect example of what Hanford is describing: why have a country drop-down in the first place if we can automatically detect where the user is coming from?

http://www.suckbusters.com/2006/12/web-site-that-just-works-and-one-that.html

Jeff Atwood on January 18, 2007 3:09 AM

I mostly agree with you but I don't get the comment about linux/unix. Surely the different distributions prove your point almost completely?

For instance, when it comes to the more server oriented distros one of my favourites is Debian. Why? Because it offers sane defaults. Once you install something, you'll know it'll work almost exactly like you expect it. When it comes to desktop systems, debian offers a bit too much choice I suppose, which brings me to the other distros.

If you look at the different distros out there, every time a new version comes out it is compared to a) the previous version, b) the current version of other distros. When making that comparison people most always look at how easy common tasks are compared with a and b. In other words, how good are the defaults in this distribution. In the desktop space, it is clear the defaults are what matter.

I don't see how you arrive at the "there is no baseline" conclusion, since distributions constantly take cues of each other, i.e. they all started introducing desktop search, integrated note taking, compositing, etc at the same time because others did. Distro's converge and diverge all the time, and interact just the same way as Mac OS X and windows do, and in mutual interaction with them of course. I think it is much better to view distributions separately (albeit part of the same software ecosystem), instead of trying to conflate them as one group of functionally slightly different software.

Sorry to go off on a diatribe about such a small point in your post, it's too good to comment on any of the major points. :)

wpp on January 22, 2008 2:13 AM

Right on. This is what killed Microsoft in Vista in the inexperienced users mine. They went from being one default (easy to use for the non-techy) to "secure by default" ("Yes, elevate me to admin so that I can install this already!!!!")

A lot of the backlash was changing too many defaults for the end user!

Brian on January 31, 2008 6:09 AM

That was supposed to be "end users mind."

Brian on January 31, 2008 6:10 AM

It is not a good idea to abolish the country field in favour of detecting via the IP address. There are proxy services that users might use that might give misleading IP addresses to your software, there are also IP addresses that aren't specifically assigned to a country, and your users might be using IPv6 addresses that might not yet be accounted for by your IP-to-country code.

everling on March 19, 2008 7:09 AM

I think the Apple comparison is important here. Desktop search has been around for years on XP, through external apps. On Apple it's there by default. FlyAKite OS makes Windows XP look really nice. Apple OSX looks good by default. eXpose clones exist for XP, on OSX it's there by default.
http://sanaris.ru

Zukro on May 17, 2009 11:21 AM

IT is a good idea, I’ve followed you! Keep us updated the best deals!

Sexy costumes on July 14, 2009 7:50 AM

Jeff, your point about the power of an app or feature being installed by default is a good one. A couple of related points:

I'm a heavy cmd.exe command prompt user, and when I first heard about Powershell, I was initially very excited about it as a cmd.exe replacement. However, my enthusiasm for learning PowerShell waned significantly after I read that PowerShell wouldn't be shipped with Vista -- this means that even after Vista becomes the prevalent business desktop OS a few years down the road, it still won't be installed on 99% of the machines that I sit down at other than my own, and I'll have to fall back on cmd.exe anyway when I want to work from a command prompt. Thus, the value of knowing PowerShell is diminished.

Similarly, I still use notepad.exe for many simple text-editing tasks. 3rd-party Notepad replacements like Notepad2 and Notepad++ are well and good, but they aren't going to be installed on machines other than my own that I sit down at, so does it make sense for me to rely on their features? (For non-lightweight text editing on my own machine, I generally just use Visual Studio, which at any given time I usually already have one or more instances of running. I find that notepad.exe itself works poorly, yet is still "good enough," for lightweight tasks.) The value of Notepad2 is diminished simply because it isn't on every machine that I sit down at.

Jon Schneider on February 6, 2010 9:30 PM

I've said it before: Windows blows some easy opportunities to impress by including better defaults.

http://weblogs.asp.net/jgalloway/archive/2006/01/14/435326.aspx

The argument that "they can't ship a better notepad" is rubbish. I addressed some of the arguments in my post, but here's a summary:
quote
Read the court's judgement (http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f200400/200457.htm). The restrictions on bundling are mostly on what Microsoft can require of OEM's, and if OEM's can add or remove bundled software. Fine, let them remove it. It'll sell as well as Windows N.

And an open source project like Paint.NET would completely sidestep the "secret API" issues, since the source is publicly available.

Look, the "we'll probably just get sued" way of thinking is out of hand. If we followed that line of thinking, Vista would have no new features. Windows XP has notepad and paint program, neither of which were mentioned during the anti-trust case. No one said they couldn't update these applications.
/quote

Jon Galloway on February 6, 2010 9:30 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.