Slashdot Mirror
Whistler vs. KDE/Gnome
Goatbert writes "I just posted a comparison of Windows Whistler to KDE, Gnome and Mandrake Update on NewsForge. It tries to compare Whistler's User Interface/Update feature to KDE and Gnome."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Okay, this has been one of my pet peeves for a while now. Mainly, I hate start menus. This isn't specific to the "Windows" start button, it extends to the Gnome foot, the big ugly K and the Apple menu. The problem lies within the reliance on mouse positioning to keep the menu open. On desktop machines this isn't such a problem, you can generaly keep pretty good control over your mouse, provided you don't sneeze or are not attacked by a vagrant feline. But then there's laptops. It's a pain in the arse to keep the cursor on a start menu when you're using a touch pad. Maybe I just have fat fingers, but it's just no fun. A better solution is a more CDE like interface ala XFce. Click the menu, it's open, click the item in the menu and the menu closes, your selection executes. In between the first and the second click you could traverse your mouse cursor around the screen twice and do the lambada for all XFce cares.
So, will "Whistler's mother" be the default wallpaper?
--
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.
This "comparison" is a joke. The reviewer, clearly an experienced linux user, tries to guess what might be confusing to newer users. A true _usability_ comparison would focus on how easy a person can _use_ the interface. He completely skips over the atrocious design of the control-center, where a configuration box can disappear but not be saved. He doesn't talk at all about real-world use, like "it took the average user three seconds longer to find program X with GNOME than with KDE." How does Whistler's navigation of menu levels compare to GNOME or KDE? Are either of them as slick as the original Mac? Do whistler taskbar items respond to screen-edge clicks yet? How easy is it to do X Y Z with each file manager? It's a superficial "first-impression" piece, not a usability comparison.
Sung to the tune of (What a) Wonderful world:
(What a) Microsoft World
------------------------
Don't know much about my CPU,
Don't know what a DIMM's supposed to do,
Don't know what a hard disk is for,
Don't know how to overclock my core;
But I do know that Microsoft rules,
'cuz that's what they taught us all in school,
Oh, What a Microsoft world it must be.
Don't know why my screen is always blue,
Don't know what these damn exceptions do,
Don't know why my modem runs so slow,
What it's sending out I just don't know;
But I do know what the salesman said,
Once I save enough to finally upgrade,
What a wonderful world it will be.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Microsoft is one of the first (if not THE first) to do serious usability laboratory testing for microcomputer software. This is separate from unit testing, regression testing, stress testing and focus testing.
The labs are set up much as focus group rooms, or if you haven't seen those, tv cops' interrogation chambers. A simple but attractive office or homey room with a computer and a few knick-nacks, overseen by a VERY wired booth and a large one-way mirror wall.
The user is someone off the street, heavily pre-interviewed to fit various target demographics of experience or workstyles.
The instructions handed may go all the way from an unopened box in the chair (install and explore this), to a preconfigured setup and a few written instructions as if from a boss.
The people in the control booth record everything said by the user, and done with the computer. The controller can converse with the user through an intercom, and even move the mouse pointer or type remotely, but generally lets the user drive the show.
The user is asked to think out loud as much as possible, to say their goals as they conceive of them, and to say their reactions to what they see. "Okay, I didn't mean to do that. I think Undo would be here, and, yep, okay, undone. Oh, but that erased this other thing too, which I wasn't expecting."
Now, bring this to Open Source or Free Software. The lab doesn't need to be so fancy, but the REAL needs of REAL users must be REALLY observed and dissected and made into REAL usability gains.
If usability angst testimonies are filtered between the neophyte to the guru, how can the guru comprehend what the neophyte needs? Guesswork makes for crap software.
Conversely, in 1990 or so, Microsoft's LAN Manager group dismissed the feedback from Microsoft's own employees, as "not the typical user." A shame, because at the time, there were very few 30,000+ node LANs in the world. They could have clearly benefitted from the feedback of such users.
[
... and I'm not just talking about the mail program, either.
What the author previewing is a development version of whistler -- one that will be available to everyone in 2001 or later. In contrast, the versions of GNOME and KDE he's using are most likely the current, stable ones (1.2 and whatever the KDE stable is (2.0?) ). So currently, Whistler is ahead in the few points the reviewer touches on.
However:
By 2001, Nautilus will be out and have the preview feature the reviewer wanted, plus many others.
By 2001, HelixCode's Red Carpet will provide even easier updates than the current packagers.
By 2001, GNOME and KDE both will have radically improved interfaces.
I don't remember any other specific complaints the reviewer had, but this is clear: With whistler, we'll see that one interface in 2001 and then no improvements until the next version -- maybe '03 or '04. OTOH, GNOME and KDE both are progressing at a rapid rate. What they already have in devel will surely be out way before whistler, and the improvements will be a steady trickle of bugfixes and enhancements, instead of seasonal service packs and enhancements only every two years. So while Whistler may be ahead for now in what was reviewed, but this will be radically different by the time whistler is actually released.
--
Friends don't let friends misuse the subjunctive.
Gnome and KDE, on the other hand, have managed to put together very useable interfaces without millions of dollars behind them. All three interfaces need work to become as user friendly as possible, and all three can learn from each other.
Can we buy a clue here? For all the sniping people do on how "unoriginal" MS/Windows is, as near as I can tell the entire KDE and Gnome approach is to just copy MS. So of course they don't have to spend money to get the same results.
"All three" aren't learning from each other -- both are learning from Windows. There's only one UI that has any real R&D and UI testing dollars behind it, and it dowesn't have a footprint or K as an icon.
When Win95 came out, all people did was complain about how stupid the start button is, now we read comparisons that say "well, KDE and Gnome both have start buttons, so they're just as good as Windows, I don't know where MS is wasting all that money."
So we can bitch and moan about how imperfect and stupid MS interfaces are, but quite frankly there are only two companies that can claim any moral high ground for actually advancing the UI outside of ripping off MS: Apple and Palm. They are the only companies I see actually doing NEW things as opposed to "me-too"...
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
I believe the ideal is a combination of command line and GUI. Some things are a lot quicker to achieve graphically, other quites awkward or impossible, but very easily done on a command line. Two examples:
1. Opening a document. If you're in the proper directory in Windows Explorer, you see the document icon right there, in front of you. Just double-click on it, and it opens. You don't have to know which application opens it, what the exact name of that app is, etc. On a command line, even after a DIR or LS, you still have to type the name of the viewer app (and potentially its full path) as well as the name of the document, even though it's RIGHT THERE, in front of you, you want to point to it and grab it. While some die-hard CLS users would argue that the command line approach is easier anyway, many people wouldn't concur.
2. Selecting a bunch of files. Here the GUI can get quite awkward or useless. If the selection criterion is simple enough, it might be workable: select all files starting with project1*, for example. Sort by name, select the relevant files. But if the selection pattern is more complex, that might not work. You really have the urge to type something like SELECT *YAHOO* in the address bar, that would be so much easier.
> It is much harder to remember where something is than remember the name.
A lot of people would disagree with this statement, myself included. I can remember how to get to someone's house, but I rarely remember the street name. Many people think think very graphically, in terms of objects and actions. I often forget the syntax difference between regedit and regedt32, or regsvr32 or other such abominations (which abound especially in unix). It's a blessing to have the command history in the RUN command under the Start menu. On Linux after a few months of disuse, I have to run back to the manual for a lot of commands, even though I know exactly what I'm trying to achieve.
You guys may say I don't pay attention to details, but I can't see a difference between this so called "new" Whistler and the current Windows 98 interface.
:)
Sure, icons and bars all over got whiter and everything appears flatter, but overall we're talking about exactly the same thing.
Talking usability-wise, I can't see any advantage in comparison to Windows 98, and quite frankly, I don't expect to see any. I think Windows is decent as it is and couldn't think of a way to execute things faster and better without a CLI. (please respect my views here
Am I the only one that thinks the clean Window Maker interface can't be beaten? Most argue about "the average user" finding it more complicated, but come on!, the average user gets dumber each day. Let's consider for a change that Whistler isn't really something new (at all) and that maybe it's very good already.
As for KDE/Gnome [I've got to comment on them, otherwise this would risk being offtopic], they're far from being Whistler. Linux's power doesn't come from nowhere and to channel such versatility is a very hard task. Anyway, I'm not sure I even want them to be like Whistler.
Flavio
Well, I installed Red Hat 7.0 this weekend (after a year hiatus from Linux) and, I hate to say this but, I missed Windows! Perhaps I am just used to navigating Windows but I feel that some important gaps are left in the Linux "Desktop Experience:"
My NIC wasn't working. In Windows I'd go to the "System Properties," find a yellow question mark, and work on the driver. Under Linux I was lost. But I'm pretty sure I still have to work with vague 'mod' tools and configuration files. Same for the mouse. I can't remember the commands when I only need them once a year. This is nerve-wracking; and a great example of the importance of GUIs (recognition not recall).
Under Windows I get to start with a clean system and add tools I want. The start menu is relatively empty and ready for my bidding. Under Red Hat (and SUSE) I'm deluged with half-finished CD writers, and configuration tools. The start menu is filled with crap I've never heard of. Help, glub, glub.
In Windows, I go to a site like tucows or softseek, look at screenshots of little helper applications and install them separately. Again, Red Hat and SUSE filled my system with half-finished toys. Want KDE? Fine, use gnorpm and dig through weird menus of choices and find all sorts of little pesky individual packages. (In the end, I STILL can't load the KDE window manager.)
In Windows, I click on "Windows Update..." and get system patches for bugs, security holes, etc. I'm not aware of a simple method under Red Hat.
In short, a "Desktop Experience" to me means I don't read man pages and tinker with config files, then rc.d. I've read about all that, and tinkered with it. I'm glad it works. But I DON'T want to revel in it! While Unix systems get their power from scripting and small tools, the "Desktop Experience" is a different beast! I'm all for the Unix tools and use them religiously, but that's a different issue. (Linux the OS still works great!)
I'm really happy for Microsoft's really PRETTY interface, but what about an interface that lets you work more efficiently?
I want to see MORE data on the screen, not LESS... With the "new" start menu, not only do I have to click an extra time to get to anything, it also covers up 1/4 of the screen! The "explorer" now has nice big bars with spaces between them seperating your drives... Can't I see more than 8 drives on the screen at once? Or is that too confusing?
Anyways, thay's my $0.02 worth...
Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but copyright will always protect me.