Slashdot Mirror
GNOME Usability Study Report
pdiaz writes: "Here is a report made by Sun Microsystems people about GNOME usability. They collected a bunch of professionals (lawyers, engineers, Graphic Designers, etc..) and put them in front of a Gnome desktop. They were asked to perform some tasks and tell what some icons, menus, etc., do. Some quotes are really funny, like when they asked what does the terminal emulator icon launch." Very interesting stuff, and this approach is necessary because once you've gotten accustomed to the system it's no longer possible for you to evaluate how it appears to an inexperienced user.
Some quotes are really funny, like when they asked what does the terminal emulator icon launch."
It is exactly that attitude that makes Gnome unusable to the average PC user. Until that changes, Linux won't make inroads. Taco has already addressed this though. MS spends lots of money doing this kind of thing. The best we have done so far is a cheap rip off of that. We constantly rip on MS for bad software, yet when push comes to shove, we're just trying to give away free versions that look like theirs. It isn't working. This is an important first step in usability testing for Gnome. KDE would be wise to do the same, though they are probably about a decade (maybe a little less) ahead of Gnome in usability. Gnome could/can catch up by doing things like this. KDE can't remain idle, and MS won't remain idle.
All interfaces take, well, getting used to in the beginning, this isn't exclusive to computer interfaces. I know that every time I get into one of my friend's vehicles I have to ask, "Hey, how do I turn on the lights? Where is x y or z?".
That being said interfaces which are reasonable can be adjusted to within a reasonable amount of time. Gnome is certainly something that those of average intelligence with the right amount of time should be able to get down... If they are interested in it and there is some reason to adjust to it.
So find a reason for people to use Gnome, and they will. (I am not saying Gnome doesn't have a use...)
prosebeforehos.com
In designing systems and user interfaces, it is
fundamentally important to not confuse two distinct concepts: usability and transparency.
Usability is directly related to the efficiency of
performing tasks and the ability to anticipate the
user interface for new tasks.
Transparency is the "intuitiveness" of the interface or system. It is primarily a measure of
how easy it is for a naive user to come into the
system and get a something done.
Transparency is intimately related to the experience of the users being examined. In a certain respect, it is a measure of familiarity.
Unfortunately, you will get high transparency
scores nowadays if you simply look and act like
MS Windows.
Usability is a whole other bag of onions. Some of
the features of a transparent interface are relevant in assessing usability, but only to a point. While transparency is something critical for new or casual users, it can be almost completely irrelevant to an experienced user. Once a certain level of familiarity is acheived, usable systems are those that make the most common tasks the most efficient to access and provide easy means of aggregating and controlling common
sequences of tasks. Emacs is an immensely usable
system that has a very low transparency score.
It is interesting to note that the Usability Principles in this study seem to be correctly labelled: they *are* related to interface usability. However, the assessment methodology seems to be primarily measuring *transparency*.
I'd say that this is a basic flaw in the study and
colors the recommendations highly.
It would be nice to see someone do a similar study
but concentrate on the power users and address the
issues around high performance usability.
Unless you've sat down and observed your interface getting tested with a usability professional or two who work with regular folks to see how the application works *in the real folks non-geek world* then you don't know what you're talking about.
Really, how can you argue with behavior-based experimental data that "this isn't how people behave"? Oh right - with unfounded 3l337 opinion.
Sure, there are other things we could do to better test usability - like have them spend a week or two with Gnome after this test, then test again to see how much they picked up.
but until you're doing testing with your own projects, until you appreciate that these are real people in the real world (that same world you think should use Linux as a desktop OS) then you're really missing the point.
cz
see www.usability.gov
IBM Ease of Use
The perennial Jakob Nielsen
Usability Professionals Association
Webword Usability Blog
There are going to be a lot of posts like, "What lusers! They need to RTFM so that they know that 'terminal emulator' actually means command line prompt!"
This is not what you should take away from a user interface study. This *is* what the users see when first presented with the program. It really doesn't matter what the programmers/designers of GNOME think. If the user doesn't like it, then he doesn't like it! If he can't understand, then he can't understand.
A long time tenet of communication is that if there is miscommunication, then it is usually the fault of the communicator who hasn't adequately taken into account the audience. If we as programmers/designers aren't using the interface to *communicate* then it is *we* who are failing to communucate, not the audience who is failing to understand.
Why do you think that MS has slowly moved to simpler and simpler language? People don't need techo-speak to understand what is going on with the computer. Understanding phrases like "illegal operation" requires a bit of underlying knowledge about why such an analogy is being used. So why use it. Just say, "your computer just crashed, but it's okay. Just press that little button on the front of the computer so it can restart. Have a nice day!".
Mad Software: Rantings on Developing So
I can't wait for all the idiots to start posting, "But they're going to make it just like Windows!!!"
While the reality is is that not only are 'regular' users familiar with windows, but MS has spent significant resources studying exactly these issues and they are common even to those who are not familiar with windows. Many of these concepts (which the Linux community has shunned for years trying to avoid being like Windows) are going to have to be embraced (and extended) by the Linux community if they are going to gain any mindshare in the population.
-Adam
This sig 80% recycled bits, 20% post user.
Take this ball and run with it, someone! Don't just bitch about how "Microsoft has conditioned everyone to look for a Control Panel!" Who gives a shit? If your intent is to write software for use by the masses, you'd better be damn sure and write it so that the masses will like it and want to use it!
--SC
You read fiction? I write it! Lemme know what you th
Reading it, the comments seemed to be a lot of things like:
"This is ridiculous! The start button is a foot? What does a foot have to do with a start button?"
Read a little further. They gave the participants the very important hint that the foot is the GNOME logo and then:
Their guesses were all dead on. If you didn't know that the footprint was the GNOME logo, you'd be confused, too. Think of all the associations you can make with a footprint. Traveling, history...exactly what they guessed.
"Whoa? How come the settings are under something called "Settings"?? Where is the control panel?"
Your paraphrase lost the meaning of the original. Try this instead:
They were not confused that the settings were in something called "Settings"; they were confused that the settings were in "Programs". Sounds like a pretty valid complaint to me.
Microsoft has succeeded in making their own screwed up naming conventions the "standard" of computers everywhere.
No. The users' expectations you've quoted were reasonable and not centric to a Microsoft desktop. You found what you expected to. You completely ignored all the information contrary to it.