Something I struggle with frequently is the value of "hidden" features in BitWise. My definition of a hidden feature is a feature that is not immediately obvious--you would have to either have it specifically told to you or you would have to accidentally discover it by clicking or typing something unusual.
Generally speaking, I do not add hidden features, because they tend to be useless (nobody knows about them, so nobody uses them), making them a waste of time to implement and test. I recently rejected a whiteboard feature suggestion whereby you could erase multiple objects at once by right-clicking and dragging a selection box. To me, it's not intuitive to have something behave that way, so it would only be useful to the person that requested it. People aren't likely to find such a feature on their own (not to mention, accidental discovery could be disastrous if many whiteboard objects mysteriously disappeared "randomly!").
Of course, I tend to make exceptions when the hidden feature is something I want and use all the time. :) My favorite hidden feature is that after adding a contact to your contact list, you can click the status bar of the add contact window (where it says "X has been successfully added to your list") and it will open a conversation with that user. It's definitely a convenient way to add someone to your list and then quickly open a conversation with them. Handy indeed. Alas, also "hidden." But I like it, and I know it's there, and I want it to be there.
Ego-maniac justifications aside, I often wonder about the merit of my so-called "hidden" features. Sometimes I wonder if hidden features add an element of fun to a program, although don't confuse easter eggs with hidden features (easter eggs are usually not directly related to the functionality of the program, such as one version of Excel that had a game as an easter egg).
Do other programs have "hidden" features that you find useful? Should I give hidden features more serious consideration, since it's possible more than one person may stumble upon them and find them useful? Is there a good way to demonstrate hidden features so that they can be useful to more people?
One more question for good measure: how many of you (if you're a BitWise user) knew about the hidden feature I described regarding open a conversation from the add contact window?
If hidden features are useful, I love them. Especially when I discover them myself! -=)
One of my favorite examples is in Photoshop. When I discovered that you could bring up the open file dialog by double-clicking in the workspace... it was never the same for me again. I've since found myself accidentally double-clicking in various other apps, thinking it will bring the same dialog up... alas, it's not the case with most programs. -=\
The feature in BitWise you're talking about is indeed nifty. Although I can't remember if I found that out myself, or if you told me about it. o_o
I think it's simply a matter of audience. "Normal" users will use what is obvious and easy to perform. For them, hidden features are basically worthless. For "Advanced" users, hidden features should be properly documented (whether that's via proper text docs or through the interface) They are the ones that will actually probe the application to reveal it's potential. Are the advanced users important to you? If so, the hidden features are invaluable, I should say.
The very nature of hidden features rather obscures them from the user. Usually, much of their functionality is found in their obscurity (such as the Photoshop feature ooklah pointed out) There isn't a button to click that says, "open a file here." Indeed, the feature is useful for the fact that it's not a button. Maybe there could be a status message that reads, "Double-click to open a new file." Maybe there could be a one-time dialog that asks if a user wants to enable the advanced options of a particular feature.
Personally, I believe hidden features definitely have their place and are much of the time invaluable when looking at how to please your audience as a whole.
I could make the argument that all features should be adequately obvious and that hidden features, are in fact, a defect of the UI design. Why is it necessary to split users into "normal" and "advanced" camps? Of course advanced users are important, but so are normal users--and there are far more of them than advanced ones (by definition). Isn't an obvious feature inherently more valuable than a hidden one?
In Photoshop, why not have a watermark "double-click to open a file" on the background rather than just a solid gray?
To Kenin's " why not have a watermark 'double-click to open a file' on the background rather than just a solid gray?" That just looks weird.
I think that in a lot of ways hidden features can be usefull. I see them as a way to allow you to do something without taking up space to say "click here to do this". I agree with EvaUnit02 that hidden features should be documented so it is not just a word of mouth. I also think that the feature should be usefull to more than one person. So ask before adding it.
No didn't know about that feature in bitwise, good though.
My hidden feature story. I use 2xExplorer for file browsing. When double-click (what I guess you would call the) titlebar for the folder, it moves up a directory. Most usefull feature.
Well, a watermark would fit my "documentation" requirement. Why is it necessary to split users into camps? Well, because they each are using an application toward different ends. A manual transmission offers more functionality than an automatic. Why do some people prefer one over the other? The automatic, to the majority, gives the driver everything they need. They don't feel the ease of use is worth losing to gain the extra functionality.
Any application features that act as a shortcut of some sort to a feature normally accessed via a menu, button, or some other step-by-step means would be classified as a 'hidden' feature, I think. It's whole purpose is to avoid holding your hand. It's there as a shortcut for users who are aware of it's presence and use. Surely, there are better ways to document and implement hidden features than others. However, I don't think you'll ever have a "normal" feature that can carry out the purpose of a hidden feature and vice-versa. They both have valid uses; however, they're mutually exclusive.
hidden features are handy, but i guess it wouldve been 23 times better if ALL the info was in the manual, because not everything is obvious to everybody.
dont worry, your feature is still well-hidden if you documented it, because very few people actually read the doc ;-)
the latest one i discovered is in a strategy game called Cosacks. when you build many units, you have to click as many times as many units you need. if you do ctrl+click - the increment is 5, not 1. it makes a big difference when you want to build 70 units :-) and if you shift+click - the process of unit-building will continue until you stop or [or you run out of resources]
this stuff is not documented, and there are no tool-tips that inform you of this thing.
It's true that not many people read the documentation. However, it seems that for the feature you mentioned about the game Cosacks, documenting that would be very handy. What good is such a time-saving mechanism if only 1% of the people accidentally stumble upon it? That feature truly is hidden, and wouldn't even be hard to disclose, I think a tooltip would be right on target.