Slashdot Mirror
XPde: Cloning the XP Interface
An anonymous reader writes "Over at XPde.com, a clone of the Windows XP interface is progressing. They aim to copy the XP interface down to every last detail- with exceptions for text that specifically mentions Windows XP or Microsoft. Their project seems to be coming along well, and assuming they meet their goal, nobody can complain about Linux not being enough like XP. Here is the screenshots page." Depends what you like, I suppose ;)
I'll be honest I love Windows XP. I use it at work, I use it at home...I consider it a great operating system. But I'll admit that I also have zero concern for the other little "features" that some would call spywear that Microsoft has added to XP. I just don't care about those things, I have nothing to hide from microsoft, the government or anyone.
I know nothing about Linux. The idea of an XP interface that would help me get to know it at first sounds appealing. But the more I think about it. I don't want an XP clone that works different. The point of Linux for me would be to learn something new, not use something else I'm used too. I think they should remain different from one another. Linux should revel in it's distinction, not attempt to clone XP.
That's an interesting point.
Maybe they don't care because, in a way, it sort of helps Microsoft maintain it's desktop market. People can buy computers more cheaply now than ever before, and if they buy a Lindows machine (or have something like this put on an already installed system), then the Linux community is (to stretch things just a bit) training people to do things the Windows Way(tm) for free.
It's a wierd sort of PR for Microsoft. The linux community continues to try and bring people over, but they only way they seem to know how to do that is by emulating Microsoft interfaces. This effectively puts Microsoft in the 'Innovator' category and labels the Linux community as the 'Try and keep up' crowd. Obviously, this doesn't help anyone but Microsoft; and it leaves a large amount of people saying to themselves 'Well, this LOOKS like Windows- but I can't run my favorite software. So why bother.'
To them, since it looks like Windows, it IS windows. This means that if something doesn't work as expected or as soon as they find out that they can't run their newest [insert software here], then Linux is crap because it doesn't just 'work' like Windows does.
To them, their box is a broken Windows machine. They don't care why it doesn't work- they just know that since it looks like Windows, it should run like Windows. This kills the reputation of Linux among average users and boosts the perception of Microsoft as makers of quality software.
That's ok, Jesus likes me anyway.
What matters is whether applications are logically designed, easy to understand, and kept simple. Windows XP is not the system to emulate: its user interface is way too messy and too complex, it has too many unnecessary and confusing options, and its interaction is illogical.
While it is far from perfect, the Macintosh OS X desktop is a better model to copy. Apple has done a much better job streamlining system configuration and built-in applications. But, again, it's the logic behind the UI, not the graphical elements themselves that need to be copied. In fact, some misfeatures of the OS X UI that are present for backwards compatibility with previous versions of Mac OS should probably not be copied.
Well, I think you're half-right. Yes, Microsoft doesn't consider their interface important enough for them to sue people who rip it off. That doesn't mean they "have their priorities straight" -- that just means that they don't consider interface design a priority. Which is one reason why their interfaces suck, and Linux developers are doing exactly the wrong thing in attempting to imitate them.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: if Linux interface developers are going to rip anyone off, it should be Apple. Not in the areas of colors and fonts, because a) although I like Aqua overall, it's a little cartoonish for my taste, and b) that's just begging for a look-and-feel lawsuit. Instead, they should be looking at the underlying reasons Mac interfaces (Classic and OS X) work so well. OS X / Aqua proves that it's possible to have a Unix desktop that Just Works. KDE and GNOME are both considerably better than they used to be, but they're Not There Yet in comparison to OS X -- and they never will be until the Linux world stops chasing a goal that's not worth reaching in the first place, the shitty Microsoft interface.
This doesn't just apply to window managers, BTW. I'm really deeply annoyed that just about all the open-source productivity software I've seen tries its damndest to look like Microsoft Office stuff -- all the word processors want to look like Word, all the spreadsheets want to look like Excel, etc. People, there are much better interfaces for this kind of software out there.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
First off, the guy's page says he's doing this to learn and for fun. Good for him.
However, I'm a little afraid that somebody might latch onto this idea and say, "Gee, we should use this to help people migrate to Linux from Microsoft!" That would be a terrible idea.
It would be a terrible idea because it would give new users a false sense of familiarity. When somebody sits down at a new program or OS, they notice immediately that it's different, and they start learning. The contrast between old and new creates a kind of mental traction, something for the brain to hold on to: "Okay, in Windows I did this and then this, but this is Linux so I have to do that and that instead."
In a situation of false familiarity, though, everything is a little slippery. Because everything looks like something the user is already familiar with, the user naturally expects everything to work like the thing it resembles. When it doesn't, frustration sets in. "Okay, now I want to do this. Hey, it didn't work. But that's how I do it in Windows, and this is just like Windows. Why didn't it work? This is broken!"
Some folks seem to be under the mistaken impression that if the windows have the same chrome on them and the desktop has the same background and the fonts resemble each other, then the system will be easy to learn. In fact, just the opposite is true. The more you make X look like Y, the harder it will be for users who know Y to learn X.
I write in my journal
HOWEVER, don't begrudge those of us who do use the power of UNIX operating systems.
Oh please! Come off it dude. No one has EVER said "Oh man, dang those Unix gurus! They've got all the knowledge and it's just not fair! We need to dumb down the UI for every one to level the playing field so those braniacs are just as ill equiped as we are - because we are too lazy to learn the shell."
But quite the opposite can be read in each and EVERY slashdot post regarding interfaces. Where *many* (granted, not all) of these so called Unix gurus go off on a high horse about how the world would be a better place if everyone learned the command line.
I know the command line quite well but I don't think my mom or grandma should be required to learn it so they can see a picture of my dog that I sent them via e-mail. Nor do I want to learn how to rebuild my car engine so I can drive my car down the road.
It is often worse for an interface to look the same and act different than it is for the interface to look different *and* act different.
If the environment looks the same, the user will be coming with a whole set of expectations about how the environment will act in a given situation, and will get utterly frustrated when those expectations aren't met.In some cases, the user might actually lose valuable work because the thing that looks the same on the emulating environment does something destructive that is benign on emulated environment. At least when something looks totally alien you know it will act totally alien.
While some people praise RedHat for making GNOME and KDE consistent, they didn't do this at all. GNOME and KDE might now look the same under BlueCurve, but they still act completely differently. Some poor user will do some work in a GNOME app, and then when the go to do work in a KDE app, stuff will act completely differently. The same looking button in the two environments will act differently.
A specific example: In a KDE Save File dialog, Ok is on the left and cancel is on the right. In GNOME, it's reversed. Imagine the shock the end user has when they go to save a file in a KDE app and they find that the button on the right that they clicked in the previous app (which looked exactly the same) to save their file actually prevents them from saving their file in the app they're currently using. Or even worse, they don't notice the difference and they lose the changes their made to their data.
I actually talked to the guy who created BlueCurve when RedHat did a road tour at my school. And while he acknowledged the differences, I was disappointed that he didn't understand how much trouble this could cause.
The same thing goes for the "Let's just copy Windows UI so it will be familiar for those transitioning to linux" people. No matter how hard the linux developers try, things will be different from Windows. It won't be like windows no matter what they do. I could think of no better way to turn people off of using linux than to tell them it's just like windows and for them to believe that and for them to then lose a month's worth of financial records due to some small inconsistency between windows and the windows-clone linux distro they're using.
A better solution is to not worry about familiarity and just make sure that things are well designed in general, and that nothing is ambiguous or confusing and that the users data is protected at all costs.
Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!