1.A major problem with Web interfaces is that many designers believe they know what their users or customers (the second persona, or implied audience) ought to want. Bruce Tognazzini points out that [d]evelopers often fixate on the method of use they personally prefer. [...] Developers tend, by and large, to prefer abstractions. Many Web designers pack in features and options as "value added" content or function. What they fail to recognize or acknowledge is that their users

• do not realize the features even exist
• did not ask for these features in the first place
• do not visit the site for the purpose of performing the tasks that these features "facilitate"
• may perform these tasks in other applications or interfaces geared specifically for a single purpose or a type of task.

2.This problem is especially prevalent in "office suites" (like Microsoft Office) and Internet suites (like Opera, Netscape Communicator and Mozilla, etc.). Microsoft has wisely kept the major components of its Office collection separate (i.e. Word, Excel, PowerPoint), and Mozilla has begun developing and releasing beta or pre-release versions of separate clients for Web browsing (Firebird/Firefox) and email (Thunderbird).

3.Sometimes these features may be useful, such as the inclusion of tabbed browsing in nearly all current graphical Web browsers (with the notable exception of Microsoft Internet Explorer). Often, though, these features are seen as annoying or overbearing, such as the URL auto-complete feature (also nearly ubiquitous) or several of the default auto-complete and selection options within Microsoft Word. As Jaron Lanier says,

This crazy artificial intelligence philosophy which I used to think of as a quirky eccentricity has taken over the way people can use English[....] We've lost something (qtd. in Cave section 2).

4.In the Control model, the user is the least important component in the design. The designer often includes features or works toward the goal of increasing traffic or use, and not toward the goal of serving the users' needs. As Jaron Lanier has further commented,

[Programmers] are sacrificing the user in order to have this fantasy that the computers are turning into creatures [...] These features found their way in not because developers think people want them, but because this idea of making autonomous computers has gotten into their heads. (qtd. in Cave section 2)

5.While I do not mean to suggest that Web designers think that they are building intelligent computers when they add superfluous functions or features to a site, I do think that a similar premise holds. Coders do think that they know what people need or want or (more often) ought to want. Hubris does not make for good usability. Bradley Dilger points out that the drive to make computers easy to use has made it possible to use a computer without knowing how to manipulate the files located on it. Control not only assumes an ignorant or dependent user-base. Control also maintains that dependence and fosters development of further software in the mode of the designerçs choosing. As Tognazzini says,

The problem with this kind of imbalance is that, eventually, the approach receiving the most attention indeed becomes superior, fulfilling the wisdom of the developers. What becomes lost in the analysis is that, had the developers put the same effort into the other approach, it might have borne more fruit at an earlier time with less effort. What also becomes lost is that the now more productive approach may be very uncomfortable for the people using it.