Slashdot Mirror
How Configurable Should a Desktop User Interface be?
The Original Yama writes "In the world of user interface design there are two main schools of thought. The former maintains that the environment must be flexible and configurable enough to adjust to a user's needs. The latter takes the opposite perspective, arguing that many of today's user interfaces have become bloated and overloaded with features, and consequently have become difficult to maintain and use. KDE developer Mosfet shows how the KDE Project has managed to bridge the gap between the 'highly configurable' and 'less is more' camps."
get the look right the first time
Sure it has a few flaws, but after trying different skins with OS X, i kept coming back to Aqua.
"I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
But seriously, a gui should be fast! does not need to be configurable at runtime just fast fast fast!
It is really what the user can handle. If a menu was extremely cluttered with useless items, then there would be an issue. If menus adapted to our usage pattents that would be an improvement, look at the menus in Office XP and how they show only the most common entries at default ...
http://www106.pair.com/rhp/free-software-ui.html
In fact, this news submission doesn't even include the rebuttal written by Mosfet two days ago, answering to Havoc Pennington's article, as linked above.
seems to me that it should be based on what kind of users you are expecting. Windows is not very changeable partly because the standard windows user will learn to use the interface given to him/her. with the more advanced user, with very specific needs and tastes, will want to be able to control everything. all that to say, its kinda hard to even imagine that such a bridge exists unless you want to cater to both parties. however, my hat is off to KDE, cause they do a pretty good job with both sides, though i imagine their standard user is a bit more advanced than many....
jsut a thought, at least
xao
xao
http://TheHillforum.hopto.org
The primary goal all OS vendors, should be to make a quick and responsive interface that is easy enough for anyone to get what they need done (No I do not need my desktop background to be an active web page).
There is no shortage of 3rd party utilities to modify a your desktop to your liking. Keep everything modular and people can add what they need when they need it.
"today's user interfaces have become bloated and overloaded with features"
Did the phrase "OS X" pop into anyone's head when they read that line? I sincerely hope that we've reached a turning point in UIs, and that people start thinking about efficiency and speed instead of bouncing transparent smoothed faded noisy two-toned etc. etc. junk.
(disclaimer: I'm not a Linux user at all, but neither am I a Windows fanboy, so this is totally an outsider's perspective)
I disagree. I think one of Linux' weak points is that it doesn't offer any real *alternative* when it comes to the GUI.
I think Linux needs some sort of wildly different GUI, perhaps not even based on the WIMP metaphore. Those people who are trying to make their GUIs exactly like Windows are missing the point: Why bother changing if you're getting exactly the same thing?
As for the question at hand: I think configuration options should really be limited to colours and fonts. Once you start doing things like rearranging buttons, or changing their glyphs, then the learning curve starts to get steeper for new users.
Mabster
When it comes to configuring the desktop, I personally believe that give as many options as you like so long as they can be locked by an admin. Nothing worse that having too many features on a public access machine. I find that most people use the defaults, except for changing the background.
If you use Windows and Stardock Windowblinds, you quickly realize that there are very few 'Skins' that allow you to use Windows as efficiently as the default appearance. The same is true of Windows XP themes, Winamp 2 Skins and Winamp 3/Wasabi skins. Even if they are beautiful, they have to have enough visual similarity to the original, or else the user ends up feeling that ha has to re-learn the interface.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
I'm all about functionality. That's part of the reason that I'm locking into W2K, and not moving to something "prettier" like XP. Besides, for those who are super anal about their desktops, there are always desktop replacements, even for explorer.exe
A user interface should contain only the level of configurability that can be fully tested, and made relatively bug-free. I don't want WinXP type stuff that actually crashes my system, but I'd like to be able to do things like reskin my interface, and put any start menu or equivalent (or CDE interface bar while we're at it) at any place I like on my screen.
Bonus points for integrating a command line with the desktop, either as the background or in some toolbarish thing.
-Amalcon
Take a typical install program for Windows: you have three options:
- minimal
- typical
- custom
Minimal and Typical can configure many features of the product with a simple click. If you want total control, choose Custom.
Or, have your installer let the user choose Minimal or Typical, then customize from there.
Why can't this same type of system be used to configure a desktop UI?
Your options could be:
- Simple, lightweight
- Middle of the road
- Lots of eye candy, bloated
- Masochist
i've always preffered Apple desktop to the point that I move all my icons on my non-apple machines to the right side.
n ti als/AquaHIGuidelines/
here's their Aqua Guidelines:
http://developer.apple.com/techpubs/macosx/Esse
-- ladies and gentlemen we are floating in space!
No one complains until you start taking away features.
.
For instance, I sure miss the edge-flipping I used so much in sawfish/gnome1.2
If the UI is completely configurable, eg, wrt mouse button function, how can I possibly document the functionality of my program? I can't say: Ctrl-Left-Click on this picture for foo-functionality, Right-Click for bar, Middle-Click for baz, because someone may have configured the UI so that the middle button closes the window, right simulates a double-left-click and ctrl-left might prompt them to save a copy of the picture in question.
Yeah, let's complain about the shortcomings of the Windows GUI and then proceed to completely emulate it when we have the unique opportunity to start from scratch and revolutionize before a deep-seated userbase has been established.
I disagree. I'm new to linux, and I love how much control the user has over the interface. Beats the heck out of two options (windows classic, windows xp, in two colors, green or pumpkin or whatever). I don't think that the GUI is what's keeping people away from linux. KDE looks and functions enough like windows to make almost anyone with a little experiece with windows PCs get the idea. What I do find that intimidates me about linux is that the operating system behaves so much differently that windows. not many people are used to a unix environment, or the way command line OSes work, and the steep learning curve keeps them from making the effort. I don't blame the GUI, so far it's one of the best advantages i have seen over windows.
A thought I've always entertained is: why not make the features of your window manager much like your kernel? In -theory-, you can modify source to optimize a window manager for your needs, but seriously - how many people are going to slag through that? Give your window manager a nifty utility that lets you see -everthing- that goes into the window manager (not a few weak options like Windows' Add/Remove Programs), and let the user play with it. I mean, let's say you want to build a box for your little brother, and he's like, 8 years old. He's not going to need, say, a graphing calculator, fractal generator, packet sniffer, etc. (maybe a -few- 8 year olds do!). Nor will he likely be playing with settings too much. If you can tailor his gui to be simple, unbloated, and quick, you've got the best possible gui for the user. That's likely to be the best answer. Few things work universally well for everyone. ::este::
[este]
Is it rams horn, or is it ramshorn?
there has to be a balance, i want a desktop to be highly customizable, mostly the menus & desktop icons, wallpaper either on or off, and the color of the background...
KDE2.1.1 is exellent (included with Redhat7.1 & Slackware8) (highly customizable) i noticed newer versions of KDE were slower more bloated and a bigger resource hog...
Gnome2.x is nice with Metacity, and as long as it don't get slower & more bloasted i will like it too... Gnome 1.4 would be fine if development was continued carefully to improove the fonts (anti-alaising) and make the menus customizable for a normal user and not just root...
ICEwm1.2.6 is nice, WindowMaker-0.80.2 is nice...
Blackbox0.65.x is nice for a barebones WM (better than twm)
Although some may find this a convenience I have found that most beginner to intermediate users find this a nuisance.
The problem is that when choosing a command like Tools - Options, the user expects the Options command to appear at the bottom of the Tools menu where it traditionally lies. It is the relative location of the menu entry that is significant, not the actual menu text.
The same applies for dialog boxes. After you have used an interface for a period of time, you eventually get to the point where you can place the mouse cursor at the position on the screen where the control you will click will be, even before the dialog appears.
Lots of irrelevent menu choices is a definitely a bad thing (*cough*kde*cough*) but randomly moving menu entries isn't necessarily a good thing.
If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
Kind of like what GNOME 2 did and why I find it so annoying to use. All of the really useful features (like the task list only showing iconified apps, to name one of many) were taken out.
It's starting to slowly get better, and some options can still be set with the gconf editor, but some are just completely missing...
There is no shortage of 3rd party utilities to modify a your desktop to your liking.
http://indiestep.sourceforge.net/
i recomend this...
xao
xao
http://TheHillforum.hopto.org
...and you don't care that the Windows GUI, as far as desktop-based OS GUIs go, is not very good at all?
BeOS I can understand. Classic Mac OS 7, Mac OS 8, Mac OS X, whatever. But Windows? Where wiping the screen with the mouse and waiting for a pop-up tooltip to appear is considered a perfectly fine way of differentiating between elements? Where palettes of puny, unlabeled buttons bunched together abound? Where modal dialog windows can pop up at any time to intercept typed input designated, say, for a text editor window?
Fuck that. Don't copy the middle of the road option just because it's popular. Either copy the best, or improve on what's available, then lock the interface down. Assume that the user will change nothing, provide a clear means to do anything the user wants (without "offering" to help), then stay out of his way.
I'm about to make the --final-- jump, killing off all non-free sware, and am an advanced user of dozens of legacy systems. Here's my 2bits:
I've had more luck "adjusting" Wdos to my personal (minimalist) taste than anything but the text-only lin UIs, and prefer the text-onlies. Icons are only usable within that context.
I don't want frills, I want clear, concise, well-grouped function(ality). And nothing else, and so do my clients. If an install gave me that at boot, I'd even buy it.
Too much is turn off.
as long ass our monitor is 2d we'll be stuck in the clasic wimp interface. current 3d gui's suck ass couse you spend more time just fighting the thing then useing it. when we come up with a holographic display then we will start to see some real inovations, im just waiting for they day when you can use your hands insted of the mouse
Oh ... desktop ... never mind.
"And this is my boy, Sherman. Speak, Sherman." "Hello." "Good boy."
the more advanced user, with very specific needs and tastes, will want to be able to control everything
I'm not a KDE user, so I'm not actually saying that KDE is doing it wrong. But GNOME 2 is doing it right.
First, you design things so that they just work the way most users expect. You run tests to make sure you have it right.
Next, you make preferences dialogs with the most common options in them. You do let users configure things, but you make sure you don't have ten million options to sort through to find the one you want.
Next, you make an "experts" configuration interface; it could be config files, but in GNOME 2 it is GConf. (GConf looks a lot like the Windows registry, but it isn't fragile and centralized, and at its heart it's actually config files.)
Last, you make the system modular so that the really dedicated can swap out a module if they want something really different. If you don't like Havoc Pennington's way of looking at things, you can run Sawfish instead of Metacity. If you don't like Nautilus, you can run Gnome Commander or many other file managers.
Back when I was running GNOME 1.x, I actually hated the excessive number of options. I could actually maximize a window just horizontally, just vertically, or maximize both! Now with GNOME 2, all I can do is maximize both... but that's all I ever wanted in the first place.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
That is the single truth that will decide what is the 'ultimate' GUI.
:p
The problem is, this absolute configurability must come with absolute ease of use.
I should be able to set up my GUI to look like whatever I want. I could have it look like, I don't know, CowboyNeal, while the guy next door, using the same GUI, can have it look like a carbon copy of Windows.
However, both of us should be able to do it *easily*. That is, clicking on buttons in a dialogue box.
Note: I don't speak of creating graphics and icons and such 'easily'. That's another ballgame.
What I speak of is being able to configure everything. What mouse buttons do what. Where the buttons on the tops of windows are. What those buttons do. How my scrollbar looks. The background. What window frames look like. How window focus works. Blah blah blah.
KDE is the closest thing I've found to this. It doesn't have all the customizing I'd like, but it's the easiest.
Enlightenment was approaching this back in the day - the problem there was you had to go diving through text files to configure things.
It should be stripped down to only those features that I like, arranged in a manner that helps me work the way I want to. Nothing more, nothing less.
How that effects *you* is *your* problem.
(Please note that the above is not the opinion of managment and is a piece written by the author with his tounge planted a bit in his cheek as an illustrative example of the essential problem in a reductio absurdum sort of way and vaguely following somewhat unclear tenets of the Scoratic Method. It has come to our attention that the Socratic Method may be prohibited by law in Athens, so we advise our Athenian compatriots to don their helms of wisdom and avoid reading the above lest they fall into coruption and dissolution. Hail Athena! Sparta must die! Oh, sorry, got carried away a bit there.)
KFG
I'm a long-time Gnome user and was quite dubious when I heard that Gnome 2.0 was going to simplify the configuration operations. Having used various 2.x versions for some size months I've realised that there is nothing I've missed. I've come to the conclusion that while there are a lot of useful configuration options you could put in there are also a lot that are useless or could be simplified (but seemed so cool at the time). I'm generally for configurability, but sometimes a good purge helps.
I can't take anything Mosfet says seriously after his inane rant against RedHat's "crippled" version of KDE. The article linked to does not improve my opinion of him. "I think KDE is better than GNOME." Thank you for your unbiased opinion, Mr. KDE Developer.
KDE has lots of configurability and hides some of it to not scare people. Is this really worthy of an article? Does he really think he's found some new principle of design that he needs to share with everyone?
I rate his article:
0, Stupidly Obvious
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
--sex
Very popular slashdot journal for adul
Too late for that. Linux uses X-Window, which is far from achieving the start-from-scratch goals.
BEOS had something with their database file system and object-based UI (at system level). But they chickened out and settled for a JFS. (I'll omit the rest of their story.)
Another novel idea to the whole UI thing was NeXTSTEP (there after, OpenStep, thereafter, Mac OS X). I'm not talking about Carbon API here but rather Cocoa.
If you want to start from scratch, THAT is it. And if you'd rather it be on top of Linux, GNUStep is IT (aka, Cocoa for Linux, if you will).
I had been avoiding KDE for years,
using gnome as my desktop.
Until gnome 2 came out.
Then I felt like the gnome team had somehow
managed to slap handcuffs on me!
Almost like a Windows gui...
Go mosfet!
KDE isn't so bad as I'd anticipated,
and while enlightenment is pretty,
and I wish I could *effectively* use enlightenment as my windowmanager in KDE (it hasn't quite worked for me) KDE is (nowadays) nowhere near as bad a slug as it used to be...
Except when I'm working diskless of course,
then its blackbox.
But notice the difference here, between Linux and certain proprietary OSs?
I have the choice. I can choose if I want gnomes less is more paradigm or kde.
In windows... I guess I could use windowblinds or desktopX or whatever its called, but they just change the way it *looks*...
KDE for Windows XP? Anytime soon?
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
What would be the point of designing anything for the average user? The average user uses the OS that comes with the box when they bought it, or at most an upgrade to a newer version of that OS. The average user never gets anywhere near a Linux box, or KDE, or Gnome.
Lets think about designing stuff for the people who are actually going to be using it.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
The problem on most open systems is inconsistency, because there are many different interfaces. For example, on my Linux system, I've noticed almost half a dozen different file open dialogs. Any one of them would be OK (sure...some are better than others, but I could get used to any of them), but having all of them is a problem.
This situation arises because the user interface decisions are made by the developers of each individual application (either directly, or indirectly by which X toolkit they choose to use).
Here's what I want. I want to decide which file dialog I like, which scroll bar behaviour I like, what dohickeys are on the titles bars of windows, etc., and I want every program on the system to obey that decision when I use it, unless I specifically ask or give permission for that program to do something else.
I think that ideally the level of "configurability" itself should be configurable.
:)
:-)]
This means that experienced users have more power over the looks, while novices can still play with some things without risking to mess things up ("where did Solitaire go?").
And I'm not only thinking an "admin/user" difference, there may be many levels... for example, one level allows only to change colors, another the desktop theme, and yet another level lets you change how the menus behave. And so on... It *should* be possible with a good integration of UIs, although coming up with something effective and not bloaty will be a real challenge. Not to mention that you need to set a standard... and that can be fight
But I think Apple machines are going there. Everytime I touch OS X I get the feeling that everybody sets it up to their own taste, while in XP things are much more standardized. [Linux is of course free-for-all as you can code your own whatever.
The ENIAC Demo Competition
Even though this is in the context of an OS' UI, I'll put this into terms with a single application's UI. I'm not a programmer, so what I'm saying is 100% from the end-user standpoint... There are a few main points I really evaluate when I look at a program for the first time: 1. Can I use it right off the bat? (not expert level) - does it make sense without having to read documentation. Obviously, when I would have trouble using some of the advanced features, or just want clarification of a feature, I'll go look at it. 2.Does the program serve its main intent? there are many programs which do serve their main purpose well, but for some reason, the devs get really excited and put in waaay too many features - this isn't bad if it doesn't slow down the use of the program and the program itself. It is bad if this clutters the UI to the point that its an eyesore - but on the other hand, if those extra 'buttons' to access the feature on default, it isn't intimidating for a first time user. What it comes down to for me is this: does the UI provide easy access to what I want to do, and is it easily customizable to get rid of/add what I want to do (power features) WITHOUT bloating the software, hence slowing it down... I have no idea if any of that made any sense, but I'm clicking Submit now.
Essentially the article is about, why KDE is sticking with pent-ultimate configurability as long as it's fun to continue designing that way. Specifically mentioning how Gnome does it a different way and implying it's going with a different train of thought...less is more. I didnt see any compromising in that article.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
The more versitile the better.
How about an OS that has an option to install bugs to send the user on a learning curve with the end result a strong base in basic coding.
Parents would/may love you for it. Dumb I know, but I use to think MS did it....
The ultimate configurability comes from having an extensible application (e.g. emacs, sawfish). That way the power user can do what they damn-well please. Of course you still have the argument of how much to configuration to reveal directly to the "normal" user.
(Yes, it's purely a coincidence that both my examples use lisp-like languages, why are you looking at me that way ?)
The "desktop" metaphor implies that the ui should be as configurable as a desktop. Stable drawers full of crap, movable inbox full of crap, etc.
The user should be able to do whatever it takes to work better. As for the applications, I think this holds true too, to a lesser extent.
Very many tools seem to duplicate the workspace idea (Macromedia's MX suite comes to mind) so they should be configurable (to me, at least), but applications which don't replicate the workspace (e.g. a file manager, a text editor) shouldn't be user-configurable any more than an ink pen should be.
Having everything configurable is bad (consult the people who are against configurability for reasons).
Having no configurability is bad (consult the people who for configurability for reasons).
Like most things in life the optimal solution is not at an extreme. I like the gnome2 idea of only presenting basic options in the menus and having gconf for the advanced options. Their implemention is not perfect because gconf-editor could use more documentation, some usability enhancements (why not use a dropdown when a text field can only have certain values, it is a pain to hunt down the available options), and more available options. Right now the advanced stuff I would be interested in does not exist. I would love the features of kde with the gui ideas from gnome2. Until then I will have to live with a control center where I use search more than the menu.
The big problem in Linux in this regard is hiding all the seams between the components. Yes, I know, Linux is really just the kernel, and all the other stuff like X and a window manager and a desktop are separate, but not to end users--they want something that looks and feels like a monolithic, consistent entity. Anything that forces them to dive down to a much more specific level of interaction, like using a command line, compiling a kernel, or hand-editing a configuration file is a huge roadblock for them.
Personally, I want to be able to hack the living daylights out of everything in my environment. I dropped Gnome 2 because it started to feel like Windows. It reminds me of the early days of the phone company: you can have any color phone you want, as long as its black.
One of the major reasons the Windows desktop sucks, is that the programmers are forced to pander to some mythical vision of what "users" want that is the direct product of marketing and usability studies. Linux software is created by programmers who actually intend to use the software themselves, and it's better stuff all around. I am mystified by the attempt to adopt a process that has resulted in a car crash of a UI in the name of "making Linux mainstream."
Who needs it.
Win2k menus do this too. One of the first things I turned off. Just because a menu item isn't one of the things I haven't looked at today doesn't mean I don't want to see it there today. Intelligent submenu-ing of items into categories accomplishes the same thing, while not 'hiding' choices. Now obviously there can be a problem with this too, but I'm fairly sure that I've had less questions saying "Which submenu is blah in?" (cause it's usually intuitive) and more questions saying "Where did all my menu items go?" (cause those down arrows are not immediately obvious).
So, once again, Windows is not the answer to GUI design. What a surprise.
----------
(define (.sig) (cons 'my (list 'other 'car 'is 'a 'cdr)))
http://4horsemen.net
This sounds like a simple but it's a very important point. Configurability can be powerful but it totally screws up documentation.
It also makes it so that users from one system to another don't know how to use the UI.
Now, you can have high configurability, but in most cases THE DEFAULT configuration should be solid and easily available.
Simple configuration (like desktop colors, fonts, etc) should be easily available, but more advanced features should be kept for power users. And there should always be a quick way to "use the defaults" (like login dialog with a use default window mgr settings option).
- sigs are for wimps.
The UI should be appropriate to the task. Some tasks will benefit greatly from flexibility, some will not.
AutoCAD, for example, provides a pretty busy interface that regularly overwhelms beginners. However, it is also a highly configurable combination of command line, toolbars, menus, and context menus, with both scripting and programming facilities built in. When a moderately advanced user starts tinkering with it, the interface can be customized to provide enormous productivity gains for that user. (On the other hand, woe to the drafter who sits down in front of someone else's custom set-up.) It's very complex, and when I was a drafter I learned to love it.
However, as a drafter I was doing very repetitive tasks... I had small tools that saved me a few keystrokes and big ones that saved me hours. If I hadn't been doing highly repetitive tasks which were subject to some optimization, all that interface customizability would have been for naught.
Does an MP3 player need much beyond simple controls and playlists? I don't think so. Much of the customization in a program that performs a simple task will amount to eye candy... useless, but fun.
Simple tasks generally call for simple interfaces, while complex (and especially repetitive) tasks call for major customizability.
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
I would like to see some 3d interfaces. Metaverse here we come!
Right now I am, (temporarily), on Gnome. (KDE3.1 really didn't like Mandrake 8.2 so I'm waiting for 9.1 to go back to KDE.) I feel like I'm working inside a box w/ no holes. I go to change something and I can't. I try to customize the way things work, I can't. I try to configure it so it feels like I have no resistance between me and my desktop, and, honestly, using gnome feels like I have to work against the desktop.
I agree, that people should have the option to configure everything configurable, that the options should not be out front and cluttering, but that they should be reachable and usable. The beauty of linux is that it's very easy to include other desktops. For me, I like using the gnome2 desktop manager launcher, KDE3 for my normal use, and Blackbox when I just want a small, simple desktop.
I do security
has it been so long already, that the Great X11 Window Manager Chaos is beginning to be forgotten?
say, here's a beginner's guide sort of site for you. for the really exotic, not-even-WIMP-based ideas you'd really need a completely redesigned and rewritten application suite, which would take some little time to create, but a few of the more... exotic... WM's already out there might be good starting points. TreeWM, maybe Ion, maybe PWM, perhaps 3Dwm. or just go googling for "window manager", see how long that'll keep you busy...
maybe it's a sign of getting old, when you can clearly remember the days of "unix has too many GUIs!" and seeing the good point that was therein made.
This is just about the biggest hot topic in the world isnt it? here is my bit...
A UI has *lots* to tweak. pointers, buttons, windows. color, highlights, and now with 3d shading and drop shadows and etc etc..
Thing is most people dont change these things. Those who do usually go with 'sets/skins' and many of them are horrid evil monsters of the abyss.
Thing is do you really want to be able to configure all that stuff? With x-windowsyou can get in there and tweak everything. Thats all well and good. but who is gonna put a generic 'grandma' front end on that? And even if you have a nice screen to fiddle all the bits, will grandma even know what half the things are? Then you have the flip side of having almost nothing user configurable out of the box (Aqua). You can go 3rd party to go in there and chage the stuff, but then we are back the horrible skinning thing (as has been said elsewhere in this thread.
So the big question is how much is enough? How much is too much? Should anyone really waste the time letting people tweak everything? Does a compay that tries to make a coherent look and feel let people go and throw off the UI elements when they chose a 96 pt font for their "ok" button?
Mind you this is going to just get more fuzzy when the UI starts using vector 2d and 3d, and even more animated objects in the UI. Just wait untilyour head explodes when you see the pink hello kitty desktop of doom.
OK guys. I just read through all of the replies to this stuff, here is my summary:
NOT A SINGLE PERSON has ever done an HCI course. What the hell gives you the right to reply to this in your "oh, i so know what's wrong with windows/linux/OSX way, when you don't even know yhe facts. OK, so the course i'm doing may only be a lowly MEng, however it does show me the basic cognitive skills of which basic GUI design is (and should be) based on.
You guys are like Bush Jr., all fart and no shit.
the latter generations of key punch machines.
True, you could set the drum with which columns to always punch, but just look at the price that we have paid for that little trade-off of convenience.
It's time we got back to basics.
Sam Nitzberg
In terms of business, consistency is one of the more important things. Training people is a lot easier if the tools are the same.
Rillopy
GUIs should be consistent and minimal. Configurability is "cool" but it spoils these goals.
UI designers should not try and please everyone. They should come up with a single "vision" and implement it from start to finish.
For instance, click-to-focus or focus-follows-mouse. These are both popular, but one needs to be chosen explicitly at the outset of an interface's design. For instance, focus-follows-mouse wouldn't work right on the Mac, because different windows have different menus. Should the menu bar change everytime you move your mouse? How about if you are dragging something from a background window to a foreground window?
If you chose one focus model, you could design the entire UI so it connected and complemented that model.
Yes, you could make two different UI's, one with click-to-focus and one with focus-follows-mouse, but you would have to make *two* *separate* interfaces. You can't have one interface that has a switch, because all the other aspects of the interface will be the same for each.
KDE and GNOME both need to focus more on fixing details and bugs. Examples I've seen on my Linux machine today:
* Different programs have different layouts. Some like the toolbar buttons across the top, but a few have them down the side. Why? You can move them into different positions, but why do they start out different? And has the programmer written his program to gracefully handle each possible position?
* When I open a Konquerer bookmark from the desktop menu, then try to open another one, the appearance of the first Konq window makes the bookmarks menu immediately close. Why? Is this because I have sloppy focus? Did the programmer who designed this test all the cases?
* Generally, when you open a window and then another window, it's not consistent which gets the focus. Why can't this be predictable? For instance on the Mac, when you open a new app, it's window is the "key" window, *unless* you click on another window. Then the one you clicked on becomes key, and *stays* key, even if the new window opens in the meantime. This is predictable, and maybe even logical. The KDE programmers have to consider every possible permutation of focus model and auto-raising, etc.
Basically my point is that programmers like flexibility, orthogonality, no special cases, etc., but *design* doesn't necessarily benefit from this. A design needs to have all of it's elements woven together to create a harmonious whole. You can't do that easily if the different parts swap in and out.
I think GNOME and KDE would be much more usable if the teams took a stand and made one interface the "recommended standard" and anything else is just an add-on or a hack that you use at your own risk.
And they definitely should not just choose the opposite of each other, arrogantly. They should each independently choose the most harmonious GUI they can agree on. A few knobs to turn here and there is okay, but some stuff isn't important.
I think an interesting idea would be to have each KDE or GNOME installation "phone home" with the user's config. Then the designers could see which options or sets of options are most popular, and design around those clusters of settings. Has anyone thought of this?
They wouldn't be "forcing" anyone to use their GUIs, since there would be others to choose from.
I really find the Mac and Windows GUIs to be more usable and *predictable*.
Have you ever tried to set ghome printing white over dark background? How much information become invisible, because the Gnome application decided to print white over white background?
;-)
I have usabiliy problems with Gnome since inception. It's at 2.2 version and yet nobody would be able to make a theme, which would have dark background in a listbox.
KDE on the other hand, has only problem with default checkbox background, and the checkbox design can be changed to one that always works.
Thwart the "Gnome" creeping Windows subversion!
I still find the enlightenment window manager suits my needs best. very fast and configurable, it allows for a wide variety of different methods of operation and interaction.
I'm looking forward to the eventual release(?!) of E17, although it seems like it's been an awful long time since the last version came out. E17 should prove 'interesting' in the least, as Rasterman has apparently decided to bring us a 'desktop shell' instead of sticking to 'just' a window manager.
--
Society has traditionally always tried to find scapegoats for its problems. Well, here I am.
Ok, so here's the deal. I'm using Slackware's latest stable version which has Gnome 1.4. The only thing I use it is for the nice panels/docks where I have a few utilties on the right side of my screen.
Then Gnome 2 comes out. What do I get? It's no Gnome 1.4! The memory monitor's radically changed, half the utilities aren't there, and it enforces a get-in-your-face, hide-all-the-options interface! DAMMIT! I don't want hide-all-the-options! I don't want get-in-your-face like RedHat does! I want simple! Clean! No clutter above or below, and NO STINKING FILE MANAGER INTEGRATED WITH THE BACKGROUND!!!!
So I try KDE for a while. I get less options (but they're all accessible), a screwed-up window manager (HEY! I'M USING OPENBOX HERE!!!!), a get-in-your-face UI, and the stinkin file manager integrated in the background.
ARGH!
So I'm back to using Gnome 1.4 for just the panels and Openbox for window managing.
Now, if I can get a panel like Gnome's that doesn't require Gnome or KDE, I'll be very happy to get rid of those libraries, install GTK+ 2.x, recompile everything, and be done with it.
--
# Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
How does this from the submitter:
"Mosfet shows how the KDE Project has managed to bridge the gap between the 'highly configurable' and 'less is more' camps." "
fit in with this comment by Mosfet:
"KDE has always taken the approach that users will have different preferences on how they like to work so the UI should be as flexible and configurable as possible."
Where is ALL the aforementioned GAP BRIDGING?
Hidden somewhere in the subtext?
While I applaud the pretty interfaces that X-windows managers allow, most of them really overly complicate the issue for most people. One of the reasons (perhaps a minor one, depending on your opinion) that Linux has not taken off on the desktop, is that people/sheeple want conformity. They don't want a million different ways to embed an MP3 player in their desktops.
http://jesus.everdense.com/
By what standards? Your own? If it is to your own standards, then by all means, be happy you have the choice of _not_ running KDE at all :)
I think Daniel is on to something. I've used both desktop environments, and yes, I loved Gnome 1.4, and I hate Gnome 2. Why? Because it gets in the way with how I want my desktop to work. KDE provides the mechanisms to tweak how you want your environment to work. It's the first thing I did when I started KDE for the first time. After that, I never touched the UI configuration because it was _just_ right_ for me.
Also, my family here uses KDE and they never complained how it worked. They are used to macs, so I set KPersonalizer to use the Mac-like defaults. No problem at all, they were right at home.
And as for confusing options, well, tend to go explore in Kcontrol and change colors/icons whatever themselves, and they never had to call me over _once_. So the whole point is moot, for me, and my direct environment (a.k.a. family that use my systems).
I like KDE's flexibility. You hate "complexity". It all boils down to preference.
While I'm typing anyway, I might share an anecdote. At an internetcafe where I do some freelance work I set up some KDE kiosk-mode terminals (KDE 3.1), as a test to see if people would use them instead of the defacto policied-shut winders box. I set some up, with some nice apps (Kopete, Konqueror, Moz, Phoenix, kvirc, java stuff, flash plugins etc etc.), planted some icons on the desktop to start them, slapped a nice style on it, put some nice looking icon sets in there, and just let it sit to be used. They've been sitting in the shop for a few days now, running happily.
To my surprise, the customers liked the KDE boxes. Actually, they fight over who gets to use them! And of course there's the added bones of less headaches. The winders machines tend to clutter up so much at the end of the day, I need to zap them all and put a ghost image back for the next day. Never once was that needed with KDE.
It's just so cool how you can take _out_ KDE's flexibility of you need it. Does GNOME have a Kiosk framework like KDE's?
Is how they changed the position of the yes vs no buttons.
I'm used to clicking left for yes and right for no with all of my other applications, then suddenly gnome switches it up.
Give Hoverdesk a shot, its great and super configurable if you've got the time.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
Personally I like the windows GUI, it's fast, easy to navigate around and everything has its place. :) I would be installing that before they had finished compiling the binarys. If Windows 95 was stable and fast forever then noone would have upgraded ever other than to use the new features.
The only problem is with the Windows GUi that it doesn't stay that way very long it becomes slow and unstable. So if someone made a Windows GUI, lets say Windows 95 sim
Two years ago, there were three tools to configure the task bar. You could right click and get some configuration options, or there were two other configuration utilities as part of Gnome Configurator.
The configuration tool let you change the colour of the task bar border. The second let you change the colour of the inside part. The third configuration tool was for if you wanted to use a bitmap instead of a colour.
Two of the three tools let you move the bar to a different side of the screen. One of the tools let you choose from five pre-set sizes for the task bar and the other let you scale it through a range of sizes. If I remember correctly the right click tool that let you decide whether you wanted to slide in and out.
Those were the good old days. Choices within choices. And everything came with a free surprise.
As mosfet writes:
Check this out to see a developers take on the whole "less-is-more" debate going on about Linux user interfaces
Now, I've no doubt he's a very gifted developer. But more often than not, a developers opinion on UI issues should be disregarded.
It's not because they couldn't potentially be good at it, it's because their brain is occupied with technical issues that have no relevance to an end-user.
Alan Cooper has written some pretty fine books about these issues, which I'm sure any developer related to UI design finds very informative. Some of the anecdotes are hilarious.
Unfortunately, it seems that Human Interaction Design is still not very high on the list when people design a product, resulting in there not being very many people that have specialized themselves in this field. It goes without saying that finding the right people for such a job for open source projects is tricky, to say the least.
As a dyed-in-the-wool Apple fan, even I had some reservations about Aqua.
In their latest revision of Mac OS X (10.2 aka Jaguar) the pulsating buttons and outrageous shadows have mecome more realistic and visually-pleasing.
I've seen KDE 3.1 and my lord does it look like Window$ XP and Mac OS X mixed in a leaky vat. There is no question about the longevity of these interfaces -- the generalized form of Apple Aqua or Micro$oft's "Luna" interface are here to stay.
$DEITY bless $NATION
It should be as little luser-configurable as possible. The idea is consistency and standards; when one supports many users, one doesn't want wonky menus (one of my lusers smarly puts his Word 2000 menu vertically on the left side of his screen - no her brain cannot grasp the concept of having several overlapping windows of different applications on the same screen) or even just wierd icons.
Let's see, I started with the Atari 400 in 1979...
I've seen a few interfaces.
Provide a slightly-more-than-minimalist set
of defaults. Make it look nice, and be functional,
for 90% of the users that will never change a thing.
Then give the other 10% of us enough configurability
to hang ourselves with our mice!
It's 2003, right? 2D interfaces are pretty well understood
by now (WIMP: Windows, Icons, Mouse, Pointer) I can't
see things getting truly interesting again until we
go to 3D.
(grumpy old man voice) - I remember when we had to
hand-code our ~/.Xdefaults files, and we liked it!
But stepping back a little, I don't like tweaking things *that* much. I only want to change so many of the settings on Windows because so many of the defaults are so mollycoddling & restrictive, but I don't actually want to replace major components like Explorer or the taskbar. Once you turn off all the hand-holding settings in the interface (and of course get Cygwin & Gvim installed :-) it's really not that bad.
Then you've ot OSX, which if you think about it is a *really* inflexible work environment, much less configurable than Windows by a long stretch. Don't like the menu bar? Tough noogies. Fink the Aqua esthetic boring after a while? Too bad. You have no control over these fundamental interface aspects. And yet, I like the way it's done, a lot. I've tried out things like haxies & Konfabulator, but I'm happy with the default interface setup. Even in areas where I find Aqua lacking (I miss OS9's windowshade trick, I miss X11's virtual desktops, I miss Window's tree/preview style file system browser), I don't miss them so much that I want to switch, or experiment with crude third party hacks. I'm willing to accept this straightjacket happily.
Compare that on the other hand to X11, Gnome, and KDE, where you have fine-grained control over *everything*. Modern setups are nice enough that you no longer have to spend a week trying to just get a working Xfree86 / $windowmanager setup up & running with your hardware, but you're still dumped into an endless maze of switches & knobs, all alike. You are likely to be eaten by a GNU :-)
As much as I appreciate the hard work into making the high quality KDE & Gnome suites, I think the Mac interface is a pretty strong example of how a single well thought out interface can trump an infinitely configurable one for a large fraction of users. If I'm anything like the typical user, then the typical user doesn't want to waste time coming up with just the right "mood" for the UI. Good enough will do -- I've got things I'd rather be thinking about, like the work I'm trying to get done with the computer.
The UI should be a mean, not an end, ya know? As far as I'm concerned, the more configurable / skinnable software is, the less likely that it was designed with this simple point in mind.
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
Now, if I can get a panel like Gnome's that doesn't require Gnome or KDE...
You might want to take a look at WindowMaker.
Al.The Daily ACK - Eclectic posts by yet another hacker
a very interesting subject. Coming to Windows (ah.. I can hear the groansss), s/w like Windows Blinds by Stardock really spruce up the desktop. But the price you pay is very high.. the system becomes sluggish, the boot-up time increases and well.. u end up drumming ure fingers on the table.. However, alternatives like Lightstep (which laymen users may not wanna play with), mess with the shell, and thus provide effecient alternatives to the default GUI, thus making them a prefered option. In case of Linux, s/w such as BlackBox, OpenBox and FluxBox do end up jazzing up the interface.... but is it really worth it ???? A few standard KDE manipulations, usually suffices.. but then again... its all upto each user's discretion.
|/________
|\A|ALYS|
How can it be that no one has brought up the Star Trek interface yet?
Now that would be the best of all worlds. It has the smooth lines and colors to make the art people happy. It has the confusing letters and numbers to make console people (like myself) happy. And it is intuitive enough that 5 year old (or the average end user, you choose) can work it.
Karma is like sex. I can't remember the last time I had either of them.
I have noticed one interesting trend in how desktop configuration patterns evolve with a person's involvment in desktop environments. I exhibit these trends as well.
First, people tend to not customize anything in their desktop, mostly because they are afraid they might break something. Then, when they become more comfortable, they learn that they can change thing and the floodgates open. They customize *everything* they can get their hands on. Then, either they get bored, or they become so involved in technology (most developers, admins, etc) that it becomes impractical to do any customization.
I use many different boxes throughout my typical day. In my lab, I have a bunch of SuSE boxes running KDE (all sharing home directories so I have the same environment on each) and an XP box for doing some MS only things. When I need cadence to do some hardware design, I do it on a Sun and my desktop environment there is CDE. My laptop, which I use in the coffee shop when I want to get away runs XP. And we'll ignore the IRIX box and HP-UX box for now. Crap, I forgot that our main cluster is AIX, but I only use that for Maple, Matlab, and a few other things. I find that if I were to tweak each and every machine to be *exactly* the way I want, it would take far too much of my time. I do the tweaks that directly effect my productivity (emacs colors, make bash default shell, and a few eye candy things like wallpaper, colors, or somesuch when I find something irritates me).
Of course, what we need is an open, cross platform way to define desktop properties and interface preferences like key bindings to common functions (God-damn that stupid ctrl-A select all thing), store it in some protable device. Perhaps store it in a mobile phone, email/SMS it to customize-me@machine after you log in, and off you go. Someone slap me and wake me up.
I play around with lots of replacement shells on windows, and different window managers for xfree. With using multiple guis on multiple platforms all day, I'll share my thoughts.
:)
The major problem with most guis, is speed. I want my data fast, I want to work fast. Heres some common problems I see.
1. Cut & Paste. I tend to use shift-insert/ctrl-insert more often than ctrl-x/c/v. Application tend to support which method the developer wants. Right mouse cut/paste/select all handy in windows, should be in more unix guis.
2. Taskbar, when having 20-30 applications open, i want quick access. Binding keys is ok for quick launch, but give me task bar, task list, or some other task type folder is really useful. Nice icons, animation is neat, but dont slow down my system, or get in the way.
3. Alt-tab. Pesky little windows key combo seems to be ingrained in my head. I love to alt-tab back to the last application. I know shift normally mean go backwards, but 3 key combos i tend to ignore.
4. Anti Aliased fonts. When you see them, its hard to go back to non-aliased fonts. Like seeing HDTV, its that much of a difference. BTW, terminal font is for terminals, I like the look of VGA font for my terms. Clear, easy to read, and a standard. Ansi VGA for terms only. (Linux console works, even use it on all my ssh programs.) Guess too much old school thinking ingrained in me, OS2 had the perfect font in its command shell.
5. Mouse, 5 buttons. For games or applications, having a button there makes a task quicker. (I know its not UI, but its input related..)
6. Pixel Snap. IceWM has it, and found a handy program for windows (allsnap) that does it. Make it easy to have multiple terminal windows open, and I dont have to align by hand.
7. Virtual Windows, neat idea, but I find myself wanting to see my apps on the screen. So I tile, and keep sections open that i need to see, most common, excel spreadsheets with datafill while i have open ssh working.
So having my little pics, it narrows my choices of which gui's I use. Mostly, Im sticking with WinXP with cygwin/putty for now. On the unix side, icewm or kde. Nice icewm is only 600K and does most of what I want. Blackbox can be configured with most of my choices also.
I think the biggest problem now is consistency, and these developers are working hard at adding options to fix that. And its only going to get Better.
For a long time, Gnome was frequently criticised for having too many confusing options, and cluttered interfaces, and KDE was the one that was admired for its simplicity (and criticised for its lack of options). Now the situation is reversed....
:)
Anyway, I don't really care, I've toyed with Gnome and KDE, and I keep going back to my old, solid, reliable, well-configured fvwm desktop. It works the way I want, has all the quirky features I've grown addicted to, and best of all, it has the configuration options where they belong: in the configuration files, not cluttering up the user interface!
This is just the kind of thinking that is preventing Linux from becoming mainstream. Programmers/hackers like to be able to configure every tiny little aspect of their software, but the average user doesn't care about this - he just wants to use the computer to do his work. Windows, despite all its technical problems, gives the user a simple, intuitive interface that is exactly the same on any Windows computer. Linux people may claim they want to win users away from Microsoft, but to do this, Linux must be as easy to use as Windows. This means having an interface that is well-organized, functional enough that a CLI is never needed (but not bloated), and most important, consistent across all Linux systems. As long as Linux programmers continue to design the system to meet only their own needs, average users will not be able to handle it.
yea kde might of bridged the gap but why not one step further and allowing the user to get software based on their level of comitment and their want for personalization I mean come on that would make me go penguin =)
Contrast that with systems like Squeak, in which every object that is displayed can be inspected, cloned, and modified by the user. While Squeak itself may not be the future (it's a messy research system), it shows that really the line between "configurability" and "programmability" can be blurred, and probably should be blurred.
At the heart of the limitations of systems like KDE and Gnome is the underlying choice of programming language and toolkit. By essentially aping Microsoft Windows and Motif, both systems have painted themselves into the same corner. This is software design for the past, not the future.
In fact, if anything, KDE and Gnome represent regression rather than progress compared to traditional X11 toolkits: X11 toolkits did have simple, general-purpose tools for opening up applications and changing properties, behaviors, and event-handling on the fly (e.g., editres). Traditional X11 toolkits also handled preferences better when applications ran on multiple hosts; these "new" X11 desktops basically just drop the ball on that, giving you the wrong preferences and generally having their inter-application communication fall apart.
In the long term, I expect that the lines between configurability and programming disappear, as GUIs will people give simple, natural capabilities of connecting and customizing applications. What the underlying software technology will be like remains to be seen, but I guarantee you that it won't be based on monster C++ libraries. More likely, it will be something like X11 with X11 properties and a mix of clear-text scripting and XML.
Enough to make it so the average user cant really tell the difference between Windows and Linux. Why is this scored so low? it is a very valid point! Make the gui simple so that normal windows users are able to see and understand what they see. My Documents = home and soforth. The advanced users know what they are doing and know how to set it up. Users who know better can set the gui up however they want.
Have a UI configurable is great unless you are working in a group. For example, our office uses emacs and visual slick edit as our editors. We use emacs because part of our development environment uses Common Lisp and our boss likes emacs. Some of our programmers have their emacs configured to as closely as possible emmulate slick edit, others don't. I use the standard (for our office) emacs configuration, because that is what I learned on. I find the emacs interface to be one of the worst ever designed. In fact I refer to it as the destroyer of hands, because of all of the crazy control sequences you have to type (thus destroying your pinky joints). Anyone who uses emacs will know what I mean. For example: in order to save your file in emacs you use the sequence ctrl-x, ctrl-s. In slick edit ctrl-s saves the file. The problem is when you either switch machines or switch editors, when you thought you were saving in emacs, you were actually cutting out a line and then saving in slick edit. You might ask, well why don't you just re-program your interface since both programs are very configurable? The problem is when you are using another persons machine to do something (ie. debuging). The simplest editing becomes painful as you try to figure out how they have their editor configured. And don't get me started on all of the weird keyboards people get. We have several different ones in use at our office. It's always an adventure trying to type on a keyboard you're not used to. Well that's why I believe in standardization, things become much more user friendly when they are consistant.
There's no gap bridging here.
The article falls squarely on one side of the issue.
Configuration should be minimized ... The user should have to make as /few/ decisions as possible. It's the developer's responsibility to figure out which options should be on, and which should be off -- they're the experts. To give users so much configuration choices is a sign of weakness on the developer's part, that they don't or can't make the tough decisions that must be made.
;-)
If there's a need for configuration, there's probably also a better way to design the system, so that it's not necessary to have prefs. Your job as a developer is to figure that out. Imagine forcing every single user to individually figure what the best configuration is!
Of course that's for normal people. For GNU/Linux users, everything should be configurable. They like to tweak. Also it's good to have an expert configuration tool, even if the normal UI is simple, like the user.js prefs in Mozilla or the Terminal in Mac OS X
simon
home page
Hi I'm **** and I'm a recovering theme. Originally I just wanted to make my desktop look cool, sometimes lean and mean styles like fluxbox with borderless transparent terminals and some spacey background images. Other times I'd try for an elegant desktop where I could have a panel, some sytstem monitors and icons without making the screen look cluttered.
That was fine, but there was always more to do. Redesign some buttons here, alter a gtk theme to match the gnome theme there. Pretty soon I was out of control.
My rock bottom came when I downloaded the CVS source for e17. I spent day and night with it. All I ever talked about was Evas and Imlib2. My girlfriend left, I was fired from my job, friends eventually stopped coming round.
Then I met this guy named Bill. He helped me install Windows 2000 on my laptop and showed me how it was pointless to change any of the appearence settings because they all looked the same anyway. Thanks to him and the friends I've made in here I've been able to stick to word processing and other stuff on my computer, one day at a time.
Thanks for asking me to share.
:wq
For printed documentation, it is clear that there is a tradeoff between the configurability and documentability of a program. But computer-based documentation need not in principle
We are in the free software community. It is clear that there is a need for a more sophisticated documentation system that will allow developers to
If you want, you can just run the gnome panel and use something else as the actual window manager.
Visit the
Why, in the old days all we had to do to change the interface was get out the soldering iron and reconfigure some bistable multivibrators around. Then just drill a few new holes in the panel, add some blinken lights, and Presto!
But can you get a drop in bolt on the kill switch that can only be removed with dynamite these days? Nooooooooooooo! Can't even get a bloody Molly Guard for the things. Any damned kid can just walk right up and reboot the thing over and over again to their sticky little heart's delight.
"Daddy, what are you working on?" Boot.
Arrrrgh!
It's unseemly. Kids don't know how good things used to be.
KFG
I thought that was Henry Ford. You can have a car in any color you want, as long as it's black.
Based on upvotes, Ageism is the only "-ism" Slashdotters care about and think isn't SJW
Seriously, if any of you griping about KDE's interface haven't tried KDE 3.1, you owe it to yourself to try it. Phenomenal...
Waiting for KDE 3.2. KMail will actually have a useful spell checker, which will apparently be available for use in everything KDE, including Konqueror forms (like what I'm using to write this).
The Linux kernel is ready. KDE is almost ready. Then, all we'll need will be apps developers to produce stuff which doesn't feel/look/act/work like bad Windows shareware. (Integration, developers, integration! I need OpenOffice Impress to seamlessly handle videos, and Calc to do a polynomial regression!) Then Linux will actually be ready for the desktop and I'll be able to take that damned page off my site.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
Why is it that every Windows release gets less tuned for computer people and more tuned for some mythical computer-phobe who feels better if there is a little dog wagging its tail while you search for things? They have to change everything around all the time (Network neighborhood -> Computers near me, etc) and come up with defaults that I don't like. I wish there was a way to tell stupid XP to use all the same terms and UI elements that Win2K used... On the other hand, linux was designed by and for hackers and is not so bad. I just wish somebody would put the right stuff in the right places in the Start menu and improve the current situation where there are too many menu items for stuff like system administration and none of them do what you want...
If you make a lot of configuration options, that doesn't releive you of the responsibility to create a good interface. Make sure that the default settings reflect a complete and refined philosophy of what a UI should be, and you should be OK. Too many times in the world of software development, this dialog occurs:
proud geek: Look, I made it so you can choose among 10 options!
confused user: But which option should I pick?
geek: Any one you want! Find what works for you!
user: But...I just want to check my email...
The lesson: make it configurable, but don't *sell* the configurability. Those looking for it will find it. Design a good default interface, and sell *that*.
Oh, and one point mentioned earlier that I must rebut...I HATE anti-aliased fonts. They look nice, until you try to *read* them. Want smoother fonts? Get a higher-res monitor.
To be pendantic Windows is the one who switched the order, on Apple. Apple has UI usability specs dictating the wording and placement of buttons, and Windows had to go and change it...
Not an MS bash as much as saying you wouldn't be complaining if you were a Mac user
The user does.
Please feel free to use defaults.
Don't even install configuration options, make the user go back to the cd's to get choices. But you have know idea what some config options can do for someone's experience of the interface.
Don't try to forgo others choices based on your experience. \
Partly this is a moot discussion, maybe even basically moot. "kde developers" will write code that fundamentally alters user experience, no matter what our discussion.
This article doesn't show anything of the sort. Having read the whole thing, it's just another article arguing that more configurability in KDE is better. There's nothing wrong with arguing this, but it certainly doesn't (successfully) explain how any gap is being bridged.
If anything, it again fails to solve the main problem that highly configurable interfaces have: That most people don't know what the best interface for them is.
If lots of configuration options are offered, people will choose what they think they like at the time. This doesn't mean they're right. It doesn't mean they'll get things done better or more efficiently. It doesn't mean they'll improve their reaction times with respect to Fitts law or Hicks law. It doesn't mean they'll have a better or more enjoyable experience using the interface. It doesn't mean they'll design a superior interface that'll prevent them from getting RSI or damaging their eyes. It certainly doesn't mean that someone else will be able to quickly and intuitively adapt to their interface, nor that they will be able to quickly and intuitively adapt to someone else's interface.
All that a configurable interface allows is for a user to change it to something that they think might be useful. Frequently, a person won't get around to changing the option, even if they realise they've made a mistake. Unfortunately, users aren't experts.
There certainly are problems that need to be solved, but the linked article doesn't solve anything.
...no, I wouldn't inflict Emacs on *any* non-hacker, but Emacs does what good software should do: be easy to use (just a few commands is all you need to know to edit files), but is infinitely customizable (to the point where you can learn Lisp and really customize it!)
I recently upgraded my Linux box and was horrified by Gnome2. It is anti-user. More to the point, it's anti- power user. I couldn't even change the window manager! Emulating Microsoft Windows may help Linux make inroads in the desktop market, but aesthetically, it's really offensive. Let me use Icewm or Sawfish! Let me choose my keybindings!
Gnome2 feels like a UI dungeon from which I cannot escape. For now I'm alternating between Icewm standalone and Blackbox.
Ah youth. It was the phone company too. What's more, they only came in one style, modern ugly, and you didn't own it. Which made it, incidentally, actually illegal to turn the bell off (since you had to open the case and hack the hardware to accomplish this). Don't like it? Go to another phone company. (Please look up "Hobson's Choice").
At least you could paint your Ford any color you wanted after you bought it. (Although the Stanley Bros. would get livid if you did this to a Steamer)
Those were the good old days.
KFG
A few weeks ago someone posted a link to a KDE fork. The project was supposed to make a new UI that didn't look windowsesque (it looked a bit like OSX). The website had flash animation demos of the "start menu" and "dock". Does anyone know what I'm talking about? I lost the link :(.
Is configorability the polar opposite of efficiency? I don't think so. Ideally, if the code is modular enough, it shouldn't need to be bloated.
Personally, I'd like to see the same kind of interopibility for GUI's that shells have (piping data from one app/tool to another).
In Soviet Russia, desktop configures YOU!
I miss this, espically with gnome 2x, 1.4 used to have a lovely applet where everything could be controlled centrally, and it had TONS Of features, i could control almost every aspect of the UI, this has changed in 2x, however, the start here and mac style control panels are getting better, i hope by gnome 2.4 we have the same functionality, if not WAY WAY more, ... as for kde i dont like it, i feel KDE is a bit too bloated for me, Gnome seems much thinner, yet quite robust. Windows is simply a candy coated snail, and aqua is decent, yet, needs improvement.
GNOME2/Metacity does a number of things "right" but there are still things that are missing.
KDE has done nothing to increase or decrease configurability from what I have seen--it only appears that they have advanced because GNOME2/Metacity has retreated. You need to look at GNOME2 with Sawfish or Enlightment to see what configurability truly is in a DE.
As for Sawfish under GNOME2...been there, done that, not going back. Has Sawfish been abandoned as has been claimed?
Make your software as configurable as you want, I don't care, but PLEASE make sure the default settings are reasonable.
:)
If I can just pick up a new program and start working without configuring it first, great. If I'm a hardcore user and want to customize things a bit, I can do that too.
But please don't use configuration options as a way to avoid hard design decisions. ("is it better to list foobars in one window or two? I don't know, let's make it an option!").
I'd like to see software that reports back to the developers how it's been configured. This way they can pick up configuration trends; e.g. if every power user wants a one-window foobar listing, maybe it should become the default...
This technique was extremely effective for the MS Excel developers; a few years ago they were shocked to discover that how users used the program was completely different from their mental image - the developers thought most people would use Excel for advanced financial calculations, when instead most people used it for simple stuff like shopping lists and line graphs - they took advantage of this discovery to hammer on the features that people really used. (no, normal copies of MS Excel don't report on your activities, just special beta-test ones
I think that my commentary that directly addresses the points made by Havoc Pennington in his "Free Software and Good User Interfaces" paper is a better article than the one linked here. It goes more into technical differences of opinion than this article so I think it's stronger. The article slashdot linked was mostly my opinion, the new one is more technical.
You can read the new commentary
here!
First, let me say that I hate the direction GNOME is moving. It's just plain not as configurable as KDE, and what configurability their is, is buried in a rather opaque registry.
Second, I think the larger problem is not so much configurability, but complexity. It's not a matter of how many options are there, but how those options are presented. The main problem with human beings is not that they can't deal with large amounts of data, but that they can only deal with small pieces of a large data set at a given time.
This problem encompasses not just configuration, but all desktop GUIs (even OS X). The Windows/Menus/Icons/Pointer is just too complex. There are too many widgets, too many places to access functionality, too many places to display information. For those of you on Windows (I feel your pain) fire up Windows Media Player. The interface is a nightmare. It's even hard for me to use! There are at least six different locations where controls are located. Information is displayed in multiple locations. It's just a mess. Then fire up Word. There are dozens of icons that have absolutely no recognizable meaning. The problem reaches critical mass in a program like AutoCad (I'm an engineering major, so I have a vested interest in seeing this UI mess disposed of as soon as possible!) Dozens of icons, all similar looking. Context menus that have no relation to the object being clicked on. Weird interactions between the command-line, menus, and context menus.
This interface complexity hinders not only ease of use, but efficiency. Think of what happens when your PC starts using the swap file. It spends all it's time trashing the hard drive instead of doing real work. When a user is confronted with all the gidgets in modern UIs, their thought process and efficiency slows to a crawl.
To ease the interface mess, we need to rethink how humans interact with the GUI. A next-gen GUI would have the following features:
1) Little to no "widgetry" visible on-screen. The user should be able to concentrate on what he's working on, rather than be distracted by UI information. Think "vi" vs "MS Word."
2) One point of access to functionality. Like "vi's" command line or Houdini's keyboard-menus.
3) Succinct context menus. Context menus should have no more than a half a dozen entries, and should only function as shortcuts for functionality accessible from the "common access point."
4) No more windows. Overlapping windows are just confusing and require too much user intervention. A next gen GUI should be based on a full-screen application mechanism. For the relatively few times when more than one application needs to be visible at the same time, mechanisms need to be provided to facillitate this. This is an example of optimizing for the common case.
5) More use of tabs. Tabs are a surprisingly easy mechanism for users to pick up. Note that all the navigation menus on the web are a version of the essential "tab view" concept.
6) Larger UI elements. Since the UI would only show the elements absolutely necessary at the moment, UI elements could be large, which greatly speeds up pattern recognition in the human brain.
7) More use of color. Humans are remarkably sensitive to color coding, but for some odd reason, current GUIs only use color for asthetic purposes.
8) More use of text. The human brain is a language processing machine. Current GUIs rely far too much on metaphors and other elements that require user training, instead of just plainly telling users what's going on. Take menu entries. Instead of being short and cryptic, they should be detailed and explanatory. Who cares if that makes the menu bigger. Are you looking at something else while you're reading the menu?
9) Seperation of "background" tasks from "foreground" tasks. KDE is doing a great job of this with it's notification bar programs for noatun and kopete.
10) More powerful application management. The user shouldn't have to manually manage applications. Some intelligence should be applied to keep running applications easily accessible. For example, when I'm doing research papers, the "taskbar" concept just plain can't handle the explosion of application windows.
11) Global workflow enhancers. Many of the workflow enhancers found in high-end applications like Maya and Photoshop, like info-bars, undo-histories, etc, could easily be applied to applications in general. A consistent set of workflow enhancers would greatly help efficiency, while reducing the burden on application developers to write these systems.
The overall point of this concept is to streamline the computer/human interface. It reduces the dependence on metaphors, which is hard for users to inderstand, and allows them to interact more directly. An implementation of this concept probably would not be intuitive. (BTW, intuitiveness is a sham. Nothing is intuitive, except the three built-in human actions, sucking, grasping, and cuddling.) It would require a modicum of user training. But with the large numbers of locations where user training is available, such as workplaces and schools, along with the rising number of computer-educated sons/daughters/grandchildren/friends/etc, such training should be acessible. Most importantly, teh features of the system are such that a minimum number of concepts are required to understand the whole system. Once those concepts are understood, the user can proceed without further intervention.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
A usability professional might say: RTFM.
which might receive a flame - it does day to day in software production - pitting architectural elegance and API consistency against the complex and not so elegant "human API" -
- flames acknowledged, but not baited in this discussion.
Occam's Razor does not apply to the human API.
Actually, KDE has this very feature. The first time you load it up, a dialog box with a nice slider bar lets you choose the level of "eye candy". You can even view a tree of options and turn specific options on and off.
I've come to expect a lot of bitching about gnome(-2.x) on slashdot, simply because the vast majority of users here are people who spend a LOT of time with computers. These are the people who bring up the dreaded workspaces vs desktops debate, bemoan the loss of edge-flipping, and berate the fact that you "can't do that neat thing I've always been able to do in WindowMaker." Others just shrug, smile patronizingly, and say "I don't see why everybody can't just use Emacs."
Ok, so, I have about 100 users in a large department all using linux -- currently both KDE and gnome-1.4 (rhl-7.3). All I can say -- I want an environment that doesn't require a computer degree to configure and operate it. Note -- my users are nearly all PhDs in Physics, or are on their way to obtaining a PhD in Physics, yet still they have trouble figuring out the interface. The notion of setting up our administrative assistants with a gnome-1.4 or a KDE workstation is bordering on silly at the moment.
However, looking at my shiny new gnome-2.2 installation, I must say that perhaps that is slowly changing. This looks MUCH more like an interface for the ordinary people who want to actually USE the applications, not hack them, or learn a separate programming language and a slew of wrist-numbing keybindings just to launch one successfully. Simplicity and responsiveness is the key.
Gnome is a very valuable project for those of us who are looking at maintaining a lot of desktops in a business or educational environment. Currently such setups are frequently limited to Windows or OS X, but both of these platforms come with a huge price-tag both in terms of the OS itself and in terms of admin time spent per each computer -- not only when it comes to the quickness of setup (remote customized pxe kickstarts vs. disk imaging, for example), but also in the area of patching and software maintenance (centralized package updating via RPM, including custom packages, vs... oh, hell, I don't know, everything I've seen on windows/osx is such an horrible hack). However, while administration benefits have been clear, adoption on the desktop has been slow to none, simply because there hasn't been a good, simple, and intuitive WIMP interface available for use on Linux for those who think of their computers as tools to do their day jobs and not in terms of a lifestyle or a political statement.
So, to those working on making GNOME a success on our business desktops I give a resounding cheer. To those who whine about workspaces vs. desktops, edge-flipping, and the fact that there are no longer five different clocks available for their panel -- I'm sure there is a windowing environment that will gladly welcome you. If you want eye-candy, look at Enlightenment. If you want a slew of features -- look at KDE. If you want lean-and-mean, look at WindowMaker and such.
But please don't abuse our cherished gnome developers if your favorite wm feature is not in 2.x, or that you cannot pass the --enable-throbbing-transparencies flags to applications any more. They are out to make a good business end-user desktop, and they seem to actually have a clue as to how to go about doing it. Now we need a gnome2-ified evolution and a decent gnome2-ified browser, and the underlying desktop structure is pretty much complete. Too bad OpenOffice(.org) is using its own widget set. I'm so tired of the "let's make our own widget set" mentality of modern projects...
Anyway -- Gnome2 developers: you are my heroes.
If you open yourself to the foo, You and foo become one.
On the ad-absurdium extreme of the customizable camp would be those who firmly believe that real users write their user interface from scratch. (the most fundamental stalwarts of this already extreme group would still like to get rid of those silly "high level languages" -- in the belief that only assembler gives access to the full power of the machine).
I haven't really delved enough into KDE and GNOME to decide which has produced a better compromise, but I am reasonably happy with what KDE allows me to stomp on.
And, of course, since it's open source, I still do have the choice of rewriting (or replacing) any part that doesn't modify to my satisfaction. (as long as I'm willing to read the dreaded highg-level-language source-code).
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
I think a purely OO desktop would be ideal. Is there any movement towards an object oriented desktop model for linux? Personally, I think that the application model is dated. All an application is, is functionality bound to a package. I find this very limiting.
Imagine a desktop where you had a dictionary (spell checker), which could be applied to any text (this post, documents, other peoples web pages). That ruler tool would no longer be stuck to abiword. You would have a basic set of tools which you could decide how to put together based on your needs (and of course, assembled into new objects).
Maybe I am wrong. It may be too easy for the user to hack together their own tools. There's just too much money to be made in binding tools together. The average user wouldn't need to buy applications if they had all the tools they needed.
Could you imagine if staples demanded that you buy their supplies in packages (pencils, papers, erasers, staplers etc.. ) and demanded that you only use their pens with their paper? Is this not analogous to what the software companies do with their application paradigm?
One thing that I've noticed is that interfaces of all sorts desktop, office suites, software, Development tools etc. Have added so many buttons, icons, shortcuts, hotkeys, "right-click menus" etc. That it's easy to forget to look for an obscure command or feature in a plain `old menu. A user's eyes can be diverted away and towards certain things on the screen. This over time this can lead to a change in where their eye's naturally look searching for something.
Just a little interesting thing that I've noticed after doing user testing on applications.
The big problem I've come across is that there are too many configuration apps. I'd like to see everything become more centralized. Things can also get very confusing when you install more then one desktop because the configuration apps from each desktop are often visible in all of them.
...like what KDE offers a user on their first login?
The main control is a slider bar, with "very little eye candy" on one end, and "way too much eye candy" on the other. The drop-down "advanced" controls allow individual checkboxes for particular candy features; the slider just turns them on and off in groups.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
Not quite a "KDE fork," or a kwin replacement, but I think you might actually be referring to this:
SlicKer
no one will read this, but. . I want an OS that works like the autocad14 command line. . .it would work great. . a seemless intergation of graphic and command line operations. . .autocad users will understand my point.
Mac OS X
Looks slick, interface designed by PROFFESSIONAL UI Designers and Graphic Artists
Works well, doesn't get in the way.
I don't need to waste time tweaking and testing different skins, everything follows the same theme, so I'm never surprised by new apps. Dialogs are well thought out, buttons say what they do, not just OK and Cancel.
Specialist Mac support for creative pros, Melbourne
CV, you've hit the nail right on the head.
When I started using Linux full-time (a few months ago) I tried to get used to Gnome (the RedHat default). It kept getting in the way of how I liked to work. So I switched to KDE and after playing around with it a bit I got my computer to work the way I want it to work. More so now than when I was using Win2k.
God is imaginary
I was going to post something along the lines of what you just said. But I'd go even further, saying the docs should build up a composite screen into the middle of the help system using the styles the user has defined and then document the kwy/mouse/whatever bindings on top of that as well... so to a user of a heavily customized system the help docs he is lookign at are for the system as he has it configured.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Over the last 2 months I've tried hard to find something better, settling on fluxbox for a while, then giving KDE 3.1 the earnest try. In the end I ended up back where I started, running enlightenment DR16.5 on all my linux boxes. I rarely am forced to work on a windows box, and wow does it remind me why I left. I would say the windows UI is the lowest common denominator, and for KDE or Gnome to try to emulate that is a waste of time. I'm with the poster who says why waste our time trying to copy windows or mac os, which IMHO is par with windows.
the rebuttal's comment that Mac OS is a very usable interface seems way off base. Simple, yes, but usable? in what way? With my setup on enlightenment I can work fast, manage multiple tasks easily, organize windows and have E remember evertyhing about it. Oh, and it just works. Want a program to start when I log in, I don't need to find some folder, or wade through half broken configuration programs, I just right click on the title bar of the program and go to remember, select restart application on login.
I want all my gimp windows to move together, right click title bar, go to groups menu and create a new group, don't want to have to do that every time, remember->group. I setup my own quick scripts to do various commands, throw them in my menu, and there I have it, left click on the desktop and I'm running anything I want. (This is my one complaint about enlightenment, that you have to restart enlightenment to get a menu change). the tooltips are great for users new to E, and the built in documentation is quite good as well.
eye candy? E's got it, snapshots of all my windows when I minimize them, or on on the pager. Ever seen the ripples effect? I like to use a wallpaper with a beach in the background and the ocean in the foreground, turn on ripples and you're at the beach. Mac OS X doesn't touch it with it's wimpy little mouseover growing icons. BTW, what's the deal with Mac OS? Is blue the only color theme you can get on the incredibly beautiful OS? Or does everyone just stick with it?
If you're a linux/BSD user and you're comfortable with the command line, and willing to invest an hour or so setting up your UI give enlightenment a serious look.
My Linux Command of the Day site : LCOD
I do not understand why so many smart developers assume that a highly configurable environment must be complicated. Design certainly becomes challenging, but talented solutions to allow the interface to be tailored in an untuitive manner are possible. Even the documentation issue is not necessarily insoluble. For online help, the system could automatically translate the output on the fly, based on the current UI settings.
Does KDE (or GNOME) currently have the ultimate solution? No. Is there a case for concentrating on a simplified UI? Yes, because in practice it allows a quality solution to be delivered in a much shorter period of time. Regardless, it is entirely reasonable for a group of open source developers to decide that they want to provide a highly configurable UI and not inherently impossible to do so without making the UI more complex.
Who needs tabbed browsing in the browser when PWM can force netscape to be a tabbed browser?
Why all the eye candy? PWM--the lightweight, lightning-fast, capable Window manager.
Choose functionality over glitz--leave the glitz up to applets which, coincidentally, PWM also supports extensively.
PWM PWM PWM! Yea!
Hell. I didn't even know you *cared.*
KFG
I'd be more than happy if someone could just port the palm desktop over to the pc, it has the simplest interface I have ever seen. If you ask my opinion, and no one has yet, that is the way to go.
If you say "latter" -- you are required to have previously stated two items!!! You can't say, "There are two, the latter of which..." That doesn't tell us anything. Wahoo
I mean, most FPS games have a universal key-bind system; similarly for most fighting games on consoles back in the days.
granted, fewer keys, ui mostly same, blah blah. but in the end what you really need is just ONE escape sequence that is atomic / universal (i.e. control-shift-esc ALWAYS gets you back to the UI config screen, say), and you can go from there.
I don't see why OSs can't be done like that. besides - most people use their OWN systems, where they already remembered that f5 is copy instead of refresh - it's having developers go with the same design methodology that really is going to be painful - especially in linux, methinks.
My life in the land of the rising sun.
you can run KDE as the filemanager for GNOME 2.x systems. Especially GNOME 2.2+ You can configure KDE to look however you want, possibly even run it without the kicker, and with the RedHat bluecurve theme it can almost match the GNOME applications with slight differences.
The GNOME weenies are all gonna scream about why GNOME rules because it's not bloated and will systematically downmod the KDE users. The KDE weenies are all gonna scream about how they switched from GNOME because it's gotten more bloated and KDE's actually pretty good; then they'll systematically downmod the GNOME users. Finally we get the nonmainstream fluxbox/blackbox/fmwv/whatever users who'll say how 1337 they are for using something obscure, and nobody will give a fuck so they'll all languish at score 1.
Wow, I'm right!
I don't think a desktop should be designed for control freaks. When it comes to customization it's important to provide a fine-grain control of colors, font size, thickness of font glyphs and antialiasing. When working overtime you really want a muted green-on-black color theme and oversize, semi-bold fonts.
the answer must be YES!
I've thought about this several times and have come to the conclusion that I really don't want a desktop wallpaper and icons. Those who do great, more power to ya. I've also come to the conclusion that I really don't want just a console. Those who do great, more power to ya. What I really want is is a command line desktop with a panel at the bottom for whatever guis I want to run. Basically give me konsole as my desktop (with the ability to restart in case something locks it up without having to restart x) that ends where the panel begins. I'm a sys-admin that prefers working in the console for most things, but for web-browsing, IM'ing, email, and the like I prefer a gui, it's just easier and faster (yes it is, for me anyway). If I want to see a picture I'll open a picture. If I want to see icons for my programs I'll open kfmclient. I do want eyecandy (styles, themes, icons, etc.), however for most of my work it is irrelevant. Can you give this to me kde? Can you give this to me gnome? Can you give this to me anyone? I don't have time to figure it out for myself. Does anyone have any ideas as to how to do this, other than open a big console, make it sticky and still have the underlying desktop stuff? Oh yeah, I want multiple desktops with the console common between all of them, so that if I have a gui open I just have to go to a clean desktop. Yes I know there is a show desktop key and I hate it.
I haven't read this entire thread, as it is now very long, so this may be redundant, but oh-well...
I use IceWM, and in my opinion, it is an excellent example of an interface with many options to customize it's look while not sacrificing speed or size. Blackbox is another excellent example that comes to mind. I'm not gonna say Ice is quick to configure, but then I enjoy doing things like that in my spare time, so it works for _me_. In my opinion, there will never be one happy medium, never one window manager that everyone will use, and I like that.
People who don't can go use Windows or OS X, as they seem to work well for a lot of people.
I've never heard "KDE" and "less is more" on the same side of a sentence before...
Come on, guys, it's nice that Gnome and KDE bring a Windows/Macintosh-like desktop to Linux--lots of Windows refugees will be reasonably happy about that. It's also nice that some egregious usability problems, present in earlier desktops, have been fixed. But let's not pretend that there is anything fundamental being done here other than decent software engineering and avoidance of basic usability blunders.
To do substantially better, we will have to jettison the current straight-jacket of separate C/C++ applications and move to entirely new software architectures. And then, the distinction between "configurability" and "programming", between "user" and "programmer" will pretty much disappear.
It could work by having a .profile file writtern in plain txt (or xml) bundled along with the theme widgets etc. this document would be used to determine how KDE should act. For example whether icons are aligned on the left or right hand side, whether the menu bar is in the application or on top. How that start menu works. Like the registry in windows but not such a pain to use. a wizard could be used to muck about with this .profile, in a limited but user friendly way, while a pro would just edit the file by hand
By doing this you could create a mac theme which would make everything look and act the same way it does in OS9, rather then just making everything look like OS9. Have a KDE theme which makes everything act like KDE 2.1 or, god help us, a Windows 3.11 theme. All you would need to do is to insure that the base system was as customisable as possble. The most popular of these themes would emerge as the standard by a simple process of evolution.
By doing this you overcome most of the major problems that arise from customisation
1. The marjority of people do not have the time to play around with a GUI, and would much rather get everything spoon fed, ie Post AC on /. ;-). therefore giving options to this group would be a waste of time IMHO. However they could select their favourite beheavour from a group or download a new one off the internet, who knows someone might stumble on a magic combination of menu bars and icons that makes you wonder why you put up with windows for so long.
2. Even the most customisable interface in the world will still not act the way a minority of people demand, this group, could simply create or modify a existing .profile file and share it with like minded individuals.
3. Such profiles could be locked by Admin's where things are required to stay the same, for example an internet cafe etc.
4. You could share these profiles between different computers
As long as everything still uses qt whats the harm?
Maybe we need more examples, but it's not only about keyboard shortcuts. That's a simple example to give, but not the whole story.
Examples of configurable things that can impact documentation of a product are window managers / behaviours, configuring "single click / double click" functionality, skins, etc.
Imagine you change to a look and feel where buttons are triangles. But in an application, the triangle shape represents some "state" or "status" information. Now the super customizable look & feel clashes with your application.
There are much better examples of this, but it's way too late to think of many. The point is, I'm not only talking about shortcuts, but UI configurability in general.
- sigs are for wimps.
Since when does "flexible and configurable" have to be "bloated and difficult to use"?
Here's a hint: Stop tossing us unnecessary crap like network configuration tools for Desktop Environment A, B, and C. Stop giving us "wizards".
I keep seeing the argument that we need to make all of this easy enough for your grandparents to use, usually citing Windows as a basis for comparison.
Bzzt. Keep friggin' dreaming. My grandparents and my aunt both use Windows, and they still can't figure even half of it out. It doesn't matter what version; people who aren't tuned in to computers are either going to get it or they won't. No amount of helping them along or gentle pushes is going to change that. If someone has the drive to learn, they will. Our job, as users and developers, is to try and keep things flexible and useable with a minimum number of casualties. So what if my 86 year old grandfather isn't using Linux? Concentrate on the people who've converted from Windows seeking a better alternative. Worry about your existing and long-time users. If you alienate these people, you've lost already, and by that time, your grandparents won't give a shit and neither will anyone else.
Some of you are probably thinking, "Yeah, right on!" Here's where i'll probably piss you off, if I haven't already (though I have a feeling many of you already think i'm rambling about nothing).
Desktops need to be attractive, at least to an extent. My thought is, if i'm going to be staring at something for hours on end, I don't want it to look like a remnant of a black plague victim. It doesn't have to look like some kind of weird coloring book gone awry (*cough*longhorn*cough), but it does have to look nice enough that i'm not gouging my eyes out. And really, is this so difficult to do without bogging down system resources? Think about it.
To keep things minimal but customizable, allow the user to change the colors, fonts, background, window borders; the basics, so to speak. Allow the use of gradients so things are a little easier on the eyes, and allow anti-aliasing control. A small bit of code will take care of transparency control for the applications menu, and the file manager and taskbar can be left to third-party applications and/or plugins. If you want to attract the more "non-geek" audience, offer up a package that has all of that stuff pre-built in as a bundle, so they don't have to do any footwork hunting for new capabilities.
And for chrissakes, stop with the ugly application interfaces. IRIX, Solaris, etc. are a good example of what i'm talking about, but there are *many* on Linux/BSD/etc. A lot of people could take a nod from some of the apps out there for QNX. Nice looking, but very clean, well-laid out, and uncluttered. In particular, I like phirc, but even if you don't like that specific look, I think it gets across what i'm talking about, if only a little. Better still, stop offering applications that are tied to ONE desktop. This whole "applications for Gnome" and "applications for KDE" thing is bullshit.
We've already got most of this with window managers like Blackbox, Fluxbox, Waimea, etc. In some cases, things are only halfway where they should be (in my eyes, anyway), in others, they fall very short. However, I still have to ask myself, with almost every desktop i've used, "what the hell was the developer thinking?"
I ask this even more with 99% of the applications i've used.
So perhaps the question shouldn't be about desktops being bloated so much as software in general, and the design problems that consistently plague them? Just a thought.
I think if I wanted some bozo who thought he knew better than I did how I like to work dictate to me how I should work, I would be using Windows right now, not Linux.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
90% of users are intimidated by 1000 options. They just want to increase their font size. KDE has far too many options in their control app.
Gnome is smarter than KDE in this regard. KDE should have a simple control panel by default (for the 90% of users) and an advanced control panel without menu links that you have to run by command line.
KDE takes configuration too far.
--Giving to trolls for the benefit of us all
Hey, I just wrote KNewbieControl, especially for you:
, fonts,screensaver}
$ kcmshell LookNFeel/{background,kwindecoration,style,colors
Well, I was impressed anyway.
I'm happy since i'm using The AntiDesktop.
a must see...
-- search the web
between the 'highly configurable' and 'less is more' camps."
less is more. more is more!
It is not up to a Sun usability expert [to decide] what the best user interface is. It is up to the user.
No NO no NO NO ! Users do not know anything about what makes an interface tick!
Painting your car in stripes, adding fake exhaust pipes, Wunderbaums and antennae does NOT make it faster or easier to drive. Yet some people believe it does. They are called Rice Boys.
In my experience, cars that have been designed by engineers and usability people (from Lexus, Mercedes, what have you) are actually easier, safer and more enjoyable to drive than a Rice Boy Honda. These designers have spent decades on studying users and their habits. They are paid well for ensuring that all the buttons and controls you need are within an inch of your fingertips, and those you don't need are further away, but still within reach. These cars are also more expensive, but you get what you pay for. If your job is to drive a car for eight hours a day, you'd better get the most well-designed car you can afford; the choice between a Rice Boy Honda and a Mercedes should not be hard.
In the same way, if your job is to work with a computer for eight, ten or twelve hours a day, I'd expect you to get the best user interface you can afford. Anything else is plain stupid. How can you seriously believe that painting your user interface in stripes and adding blinken lichts and tons of eye candy would make it any faster, easier or more enjoyable to use?
Several years ago, Steve Jobs was heavily criticized for his decision to make the Mac OS X "Aqua" user interface look nice. Mac users thought that if Apple engineers spend their time on creating lickable buttons, they will forget about the usability. Their doubts were well founded, but luckily turned out to be unnecessary. The Mac OS X UI is a joy to use because of the underlying consistency, not because of the overlay of lickable buttons.
Until the KDE developers grasp that, there will be no Linux on the desktop.
--Bud
``KDE has always taken the approach that users will have different preferences on how they like to work so the UI should be as flexible and configurable as possible. Gnome 2 has taken the direction that "less-is-more" and that the configurability in Linux desktops, including Gnome 1.x, was clutter and confusing to the end-user.''
And I always thought GNOME was tnhe more configurable of the two; you can choose your own window manager, how configurable can you be? Then again, I am among those who think both GNOME and KDE come close to pure bloat, so maybe I should keep my mouth shut. I'd recommend KDE to any newbie, though, along with the whole slew off apps that have been written for it, evn though I prefer WindowMaker and GTK (without GNOME dependencies!) myself.
---
love:
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; umount; sleep
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
"highly configurable" and "less is more"? If you ask me, "highly configurable" by definition, incorporates "less is more". Or else it wouldn't be highly configurable...
Heh, on a side note I find it Ironic: OSes you deem bloated and "highly configurable" I have actually used the term "Less is MORE" when describing. Like OSX, even in it's simplest state, it uses MORE processor cycles looking pretty than I would ever want my machine using. At a conference I ran a TOP under OSX and watched as I simply drug a window around; it ate 85-90% of the CPU!
Less can definitely still be way too much!
I use XP at work which I deem "highly configurable" because I run it bare, looking indistinguishable from NT4.
Those were the good old days.
Did you wear an onion on your belt? I believe it was the style at the time.
Dunno how, i messed up with the url, the original ./ article is here and it point to the freshmeat one that talk about the use of screen and RatPoison as windows managers (and they're both a must-try).
-- search the web
You can't really blame Gnome for trying to win over Windows users. Most end users don't bother changing their settings, and that's why I often see their default page on IE is set to MSN. Microsoft knows this and thus use it to generate hits on thier MSN site. I'd suggest a compromise. An novice settings which uses settings similar to MS Windows, and an expert setting that will allow an expert users to twick the settings till the cows come home (kinda like the ICQ menu option).
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
very
"The ones who dont do anything are always the ones who try to pull you down" -- Henry Rollins
As Mosfet said, the solution is better organization, not wholesale throwing out of features!
Gnome 2 is the biggest disappointment for me. I was hoping for a Gnome 1.4 without the bugs, with a saner and friendlier GTK+ toolkit underpinning, with great internationalization support from Pango. If anything, gnome-terminal is now even buggier (with more features), while the severe cutting of options makes it impossible for me to set up a Gnome 2 desktop the way I would like to, short of hacking the code.
Examples:
- instead of 5 clocks, we have one. Don't like it? Well, cope. Blechh!
- want to use the Window List applet on a vertical panel? With the 'new and improved' option selection, one can't see the titles (due to the icons), and the buttons are supersized with no way of fixing it.
- No [apply] buttons. Great, so now when I make a selection, it applies it immediately, even if I want to do a number of things in one go and the individual steps are time-consuming to apply. Now changing settings takes longer
.
... and so on, so on.There was an old slashdot article reporting an interview with some UI expert [1], who made claims that configurability was a terrible thing. Yet the arguments used there were just invalid; they simply didn't apply. The principle of 'less-is-more' is at its base a good one: clutter is unattractive and unhelpful. But one should achieve this goal through better organisation, not by discarding things people are actually using! On my desktop I'd like the 'less-is-more' principle applied to reducing or eliminating excess toolbars, and maximising work space for example, but I don't see that happening in a hurry.
I may have to give KDE 3.1 another shot.
[1] speaking of lack of options limiting usability, how about a more functional slashdot search?!
I'm actually not surprised that the users flocked to the KDE boxes. KDE just looks nice and new from a cosmetic standpoint, and in your atmosphere, with everything set up via desktop icons, there's no real barrier to entry. I mean, Windows is just fine and all, but if there's no learning curve, I think people would like to try something new for a change.
I just wonder how long it was before people started saying, "hey, the internet explorer starts up faster on this Konqueror machine than on that IBM over there."
You're looking for FVWM95. Now go install it before you or they have finished compiling the binaries.
Stumbling in the dark
I hear slavering of jaws
Eaten by a grue.
The default Gnome2.2 install is very simple and straight-forward, Keeping It Simple is a lesson well-learned, but KDE has it's heavily intergrated desktop that tends to attract Win32-users some more. IMHO, the people trying out linux on their own now are people fed up with MS, but want to still have the idea of control over their system. People just wanting the computer to get things done should feel more at home with Gnome2. But then again, i'm a gtk-fanatic ;)
However, both these desktops need a decent amount of RAM, and for 64mb and less systems icewm does a reasonable job. Would be interested in peoples experience with XFCE4, with it's CDE-look it seems easier to learn for new users (just that i can't get used to it) and it's more attractive than icewm. Rox is great, but their program-install-method is a bit unconventional. A pity, as it's desktop is great (and gtk2 :o)
This sig is intentionally left blank
What we really need is a desktop environment which punishes the user by small electroshocks :-)
Its just a GUI issue...
That made no sense.
Some people make no sense.
If Windows 95 was stable and fast forever then noone would have upgraded
That made no sense.
Some people make no sense.
The first few paragraphs are contentless fluff. He talks about how KDE provides premade GUIs etc - so? Every other windowing system does this too. A choice quote:
Perhaps his definition of dialog box is different to mine, but most useful apps provide at least some functionality via them. To claim that KDE provides every single dialog box is ridiculous, it does not, and even when apps have custom dialogs they still need to be internally consistant.
Assertions without supporting evidence do not make an argument. I don't know what that last sentance is meant to be, perhaps a jab at Nautilus, but I don't know of any "free code that's been commercially influenced" which is now "unmaintainable".
Mosfet is either ignoring or ignorant of the fact that at least Waldo Bastian and David Faure have been employed to hack on KDE, and I recall somebody named Lars working for TrollTech on KDE a while ago, dunno if it's the same person. The last statement is far out - Havoc never even implied that, and even if he had, mosfet neatly demolished his own argument in the first sentance.
More distinctly dubious thinking. The people who make the most noise are not your "userbase". They are merely people who are making a lot of noise. You've always got to remember the silent majority who are just using the software, not bitching at the developers. That means you shouldn't add a feature just because a lot of noisy people want it, you should evaluate a feature based on the arguments for and against. Obviously, if it seems to be a popular feature take that into consideration, but the validity of the change should always come first.
"Auto-generating your gui" is not using a visual designer like QT Designer or Glade. Havoc was talking about people who thought you could for instance take a list of properties and dynamically generate the labels, layouts and edit boxes at runtime. Mosfet has totally misunderstood this throwaway statement, choosing instead to yet again pimp KDE and Qt, which isn't related to his argument and can therefore be safely ignored.
He apparently hasn't looked into the GNOME2 architecture in any depth. Most stuff isn't "hard coded", it's lifted from GConf. When Havoc talks about preferences bloat, it's mostly in relation to a good UI. Mosfet makes another comment earlier on about how having settings in config files upset users - odd, but I haven't heard of any users being upset about settings being in GConf, maybe because using a registry-style editor is actually easier than editing config files? Maybe it's to do with the choice of what to put in the UI as well.
I could go on, but most of the other counter-examples he gives can actually be turned around on him (kde does indeed have unbreak-me features). Although he makes a few fair points, the way he presents them makes his viewpoint far less compelling. Whenever Havoc makes a valid point, Mosfet responds by saying "I don't think this is true, and I think KDE does it well" - which is not a counter argument.
As much as I like to configure my Linux here and there, on every single edge to make it fit my needs, I really appreciate it to be able to install a fresh system from the newest RedHat or Debian or whatever if some bigger update is neccessary (2.2->2.4, glibc, GNOME1->2 etc.).
I really want to have everything configurable, even the desktop, be it GNOME or KDE.
But, IMHO, if for example the KDE people are going to implement a simplified interface for configuring the desktop and hide further options somewhere deeper, I fear that this will be the DEFAULT for distributions like RedHat; maybe they'll hide these options even deeper to "not confuse new users".
RedHat already did this with BlueCurve and trying to hide any differences between KDE and GNOME.
So, at least for me who wants to easily configure my system after a fresh install, it will in fact become harder to have the system behave as I like it because I will have to spend quite some time just to find out where all the options have gone.
Short: If KDE/GNOME offer less configuration options, even as an option, distributions will adapt. And in my very humble opinion, this is a bad move.
42. Easy. What is 32 + 8 + 2?
Sadly, I wasn't.
If I'm using it I want the potential to change everything.
If I'm administering it I want everything but the basics locked down to reasonable defaults.
Go here to create your own Slashdot dis
Preferably to the point that it allows me to choice a decent looking proportional-width font instead of the FUCKING STUPID fixed-width font KDE makes me use regardless of where in the DOZEN OR SO FUCKING prefs panels I state "Yes mistar smatrey man KDE haXX0rs, I would like a font that does not look like FUCKING ARSE!!!>". Is that so FUCKING HARD KDE haxors? Can you ever hope to achieve the functionality of Window Maker, the minimalism of BlackBox, or the semi-adequacy of GNOME?
Windows menus change depending on most used, this seems like the way to go: the interface learning you as much as you learning the interface. However the configuration needs to be portable so that you can use the next machine in the office or at home, or even let your configuration spread around the office like a virus (or a meme).
Maybe people could just sell their configuration/cookie set on ebay...
Be Free: Free Software Tuition
User error. You're supposed to enter one of the terms in parenthesis - not to copy the whole line.
Besides there can be several themes for the interface for user to get rid of some headaches while tuning it. I mean not the colors etc., but the set of functional keys and what they do.
May Peace Prevail On Earth
Gnome's new glitchiness and KDE's slowness since 3.0 have driven me back to XFce, Windowmaker, and IceWM. The fact that Gnome has become less configurable also means less tweakable. To correct crash-related events, the user is obliged to directly intervene in the "rc" and "config" files with correctives both at the user and the "sudo" level. Gnome2 is OK, KDE also...... KDE has become a train with too many wagons. It has difficulty climbing the useability hill. Some apps take forever to launch...., but it is tweakable, and minor problems are easily corrected through UI intervention. All I know is that in XFce, when I launch an app, its interface comes up instantly. Same with Windowmaker and IceWM. I agree with BOTH Mosfet and Eugenia, if that is possible. KDE is getting faster since 3.1, but I have a problem with the numerous applications that are totally worthless due to their incompatibility with accepted standards. But that too is changing. KDE is making a great effort in that also. I especially agree with Mosfet concerning RedmondHat, oops, I meant RedHat... RedHat has become the M$ of the Linux world....., and "big business" is welcomed to it. Debian or FreeBSD make for more reliable servers. But back to UI's The KFM "su" and regular modes, kmail, and KPPP make KDE worth the installation. I have never seen anyone successfully use the Gnome Dialer for mor than one run. Kmail is fast and elegant, has great filtering abilities, and beats even the glitchy, slow, cumbersome Evolution to hell. The file managing abilities inherent in KDE beat Nautilus, still glitchy after all these long years. But as I said earlier, XFce and/or Wmaker have them all beat, both for speed and for configurability.
being able to look at the source and submit a patch!
Consider this:
- How much time do you actually spend setting up your desktop/preferences/themes/etc... If you're like me, once in the beginning, and very occasionaly a little tweak.
- If you take the previous point into account, don't you agree that these settings should not clutter up your UI, and be stashed away somewhere?
- The more choices are on the screen at any given time, the more time you loose making up your mind. You don't need the distraction of having to deal with prefs when working on something.
So, I personally generally like them "invisible" - give me good defaults, and no boatloads of pref applets. Gnome2.2 does this pretty well imho.
Now when I DO want to change something, I would be very annoyed if I wasn't able to. However, I think most people that want to change their settings are a bit more advanced (caveat: for this premise to be true you better have to have good defaults). I very much doubt that these advanced users (what mosfet refers to as the userbase that want their prefs) can't handle changing the settings in a gconf-like registry. After all, you don't need to do it that often.
If changing a certain setting in Gnome becomes very popular, someone will write a little frontend for it, which over time gets integrated in Gnome proper I suppose - that's what happens if there's enough demand.
Bottom line: make customizing possible, but resist exposing the prefs in the UI when it doesn't make sense to. The newbies and experienced users get something with good defaults that they can use right away, the experienced users additionally have the option of diving into gconf-editor when there's no pref applet for what they want. Since they do this really rarely it shouldn't be a problem, and it's a bunch of clutter, implementation work and testing that's avoided.
That way everyone's happy. Newbies, experienced users, and the developers/designers that actually have to implement and test the little UI's that end up everywhere and untested because it's such an obscure pref very few people use it.
Of course this only works if Gnome does actually expose the needed prefs through gconf - but since I've been using Gnome2(.2) I haven't found one I needed or wanted that wasn't there yet, so I suppose for this user they're doing a good job.
Configurability YES. Clutter NO.
Most non-technical users don't configure anything. They just don't see the need. If it works, why change it? Witness the enormous number of Windows users who have MSN as their IE homepage, who have Tahoma (or Arial for older Windows versions) as font, and who have the standard icky-turquoise, blue, or Teletubbyland backgrounds.
Hence, as long as the defaults are right, there's no great need to spend months umming and ahhing over just how configurable the interface should be, because most of your users won't even bother looking for the controls, they'll just take what they're given. Let's call these people the appliance users, because they tend to treat a computer as a simple appliance to get a few simple tasks done, and outside of doing those tasks they tend not to play much (apart from Solitaire and Minesweeper!). Some of these people are probably better off with a simple appliance-like interface like OEone, rather than a classical WIMP interface. Altogether, the appliance users are maybe 85% of all computer users, possibly more.
On the other hand, it seems as though technically-minded users prefer greater configurability rather than less. They do not mind spending half a day setting up their work environment, because they feel it gives them extra comfort and productivity in the long run, or simply because 'it's cool to make things work the way I want them to'. Let's call them power users, because frankly, that's what they are. This group is somewhere between 5-10% of all computer users, but are by far the most influential on the purchasing decisions of others because of their knowledge about computers.
Then there is a third large group, who sit somewhere in the middle. This group looks for a modicum of flexibility but also looks for a sane set of defaults, enough customizability to make a GUI their own but also to have an environment which 'just works' to get on with the things that they need to do. Let's call these people the 'happy medium' users. These users probably make up somewhere between 5-10% of all computer users, a similar figure to the power users. Apple specializes in catering to this group of users, and probably has a hold on half the users that belong to this group. With MacOS X, Apple have begun to branch out into catering for power users too.
This is what I don't understand about Gnome 2's change in direction: all the major GUIs make an effort to satisfy the applicance users simply by having an initial interface that's not too overwhelming and by having a sound set of defaults. Linux GUIs have made great strides towards satisfying this group in the last year or two - I think there's not much to choose between KDE and Gnome for this group, to be honest. Linux GUIs have, previously, always been good at satisfying the power users. However, Gnome 2 appears to have all but dropped support for power users in favour of catering for 'happy medium' users.
This doesn't make good strategic sense. They have dropped support for one group (power users) in favour of another group, less influential on computing purchasing decisions ('happy medium' users) of approximately the same size. They haven't gained any numbers in doing so, but instead have upset and annoyed a lot of their existing users, most of whom were influential 'power users'.
And why have Gnome done this? Sadly I think it is because their usability team is in awe (for evidence, see for example the essentially pointless button order switch to copy Apple's way of doing it) of what Apple has done with their GUI but don't understand that Apple is a niche player with a GUI that is heavily adapted towards their target market - the 'happy medium' user.
This is why I cringe whenever I see usability engineers talking about Apple all the time. Sure, MacOS has a nice GUI, but without understanding the reasons why Apple took the decisions which make it a nice GUI and the context in which those decisions were taken, you have learnt very little about it at all.
Until KDE or Gnome gets easier to install and setup, I don't have a choice but to continue to use Windows on the desktop. I know lots of you will say "Yea, but its easy, just do this...." but thats not the point. I get paid to make the company money while reducing costs, period. Since I am very familiar with Linux, and have run it on servers for years, I am a perfect candidate to switch once it is more cost effective. Because I am a bonified capitolist, I'm not interested in changing from MS to OSS purely for political reasons. It has to be for financial reasons. I don't mind learning how to setup Apache, sendmail, ftpd and other daemons that are directly related to generating sales, but I don't have the time or inclination to become an expert on setting up KDE, when I can just pop a copy of winblozes on our staff's computers.
Right now, it would cost me more to install a free OS, train, configure and maintain it, than to just use Windows to begin with. We do use Star Office instead of MS Office on most boxes that need it, saving us a wad now. That was an easy transition. We have switched most of the servers over to Linux servers, because they offer better performance on lower end machines, allowing us to recycle machines effectively. The problem isn't the Linux kernel, or supporting programs. The problem is the GUI. Since we don't use the GUI on servers, its not relevent. Since the users depend on the GUI on the desktop, it is very relevent.
Eventually, Linux will be more cost effective, and I will be the first to change every machine. Once the GUI doesn't have 1000 options to dig through and the applications don't all work with different hotkeys, that will be the time to switch. And while I am not a MS fan, the fact is they make a pretty damn good GUI. Give me a bonified Windows 95 (not 98+) interface on a Linux kernel, not just one that kinda looks like it, but one that WORKS like it, and I will give you a wad of cash happily.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
The first few paragraphs are contentless fluff. He nitpicks on various overreaching statements, but does not address the core of Mosfet's argument: The idea that 'less is more' necessarily means eliminating preferences that real users want and use
Useless nitpicking that does not lead to any serious rebuttal of Mosfet's argument. It is very clear that Mosfet was touting the benefit of API provided dialog's and KDE's extensive use of them. Mosfet was exaggerating to be sure, but this does not refute the argument.
And people say KDE developers are paranoid!? Perhaps Mosfet *was* talking about Nautilus or perhaps he was talking about a multitude of other commercial Free Software applications/libraries. Perhaps Mosfet was talking about Qt. Note to IamTheRealMike: Assertions without supporting evidence do not make an argument
IamTheRealMike is ignoring the fact that Mosfet never claimed that some of these people were employed by various companies working on KDE at some time or other. IamTheRealMike might be ignorant of the fact that many of these same people have and do much of the boring coding in there own free time and as volunteers. The two are not mutually exclusive.
More distinctly dubious thinking. IamTheRealMike seems to believe that if a user makes a lot of noise or get's upset because a developer removes a preference that the user finds useful then they are not really part of the "userbase", but rather just some unpleasant individual that wants to cause problems for his favorite software project. If a user complains enough because he liked that feature and the developer does not agree then he is not a user
If Mosfet 'misunderstood' then he didn't *choose* anything
Whaaa?? Read the article again. Havoc touts the benefits of hard coding a preference many, many times. The statement you quoted was Mosfet's direct rebuttal to this kind of thinking. Once again with the paranoia
Then you are either willfully burying your head in the sand or you have not looked around enough. Maybe one of the disenfranchised users can help out IamTheRealMike here
I could go on, but most of IamTheRealMike's counter-arguments are not really addressing Mosfet's rebuttal. He seems really distressed by Mosfet's article and chooses to look at it as an attack on his favorite desktop environment. Although he makes a few nittpicking points, the way he presents them makes his viewpoint far less compelling. Whenever Mosfet makes a valid point, IamTheRealMike responds by ignoring it and choosing to misrepresent other quotes or indulge in paranoia - which is not a counter argument.
That'd be the other 95% of the computer using populace then.
It worked for me. Maybe it only works if you run it within KDE, or maybe you have different versions of the KDE/QT libraries.
I'm not sure if I really understand you but
8 0x 1024.html
maybe this would be more to your liking (sans
the MS start logo?)?
http://www.fvwm.org/screenshots/Mikhael-desk-12
From the article:
Another argument is that configurability equals bloat. This is simply not the case with KDE. On the performance front due to constant optimization of code KDE has managed to actually improve performance while increasing the amount of things users can configure to make KDE match how they work. That's a good deal.
It's not code bloat that people are talking about here, it's application bloat. The more things there are to configure, the more buttons and dialogs and so on that you present to the user, and the harder it is to figure out what each of them is for.
Yes, but why is it so necessary for Linux to take over the world? We have thousands of pieces of software, an extremely active user community, and we crank out absolutely fantastic stuff -- except, of course, the developers who are hell bent on trying to reach that 95%. That stuff, IMHO, is bloated, buggy, and derivative. And I think I know why.
more default themes.
This would allow customizability (pick your theme) without forcing the user to bother with configuring every little detail. These themes could be designed by the "experts" (whoever they may be....) and then users could just pick the style they like the same way they pick their Desktop Manager...
But I do know that the upgrade from GNOME 1.4 to 2.0 made me switch to KDE. The "upgrade" took away the ability to add some customizations that I had become dependant on, and I couldn't figure out how to get back. So I switched. Even though I had to learn something new (i.e. where in KDE I had to make those customizations) it was better than not being able to make them at all.
Yes, I could stick with gnome 1.4 forever. But that has no future. Sooner or later, it's not going to be able to support apps that I want to run. My current ranking of preferred environments is:
If GNOME 3.x allows me to make my customizations again (like it did in 1.4), then I'll probably switch back. But I use what works best for me. And it's no longer GNOME.
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
KDE hasn't bridged ANY gaps for me... Not until they start including my [Alt]+[SPACE]+c, n, x, etc. keystrokes that I've been using since Windows THREE POINT FRIGGIN' ONE! If you ask me, KDE is still in it's chicken suited dancing days. Gnome has figured out that those strokes are better than [Ctrl]+[F4] (for which one's hand must streach accross the keyboard which, for me at least, takes as much time as it does to use the mouse, utterly DEFEATING the point of the keystroke) and I can't figure out why KDE hasn't.
>> Lets think about designing stuff for the people who are actually going to be using it.
That *IS* the average user.
This is one of the secrets of interface design, listen carefully: everyone is right.
I have been working on a next-gen OS user interface for about two years in my spare time. Some of you might remember a posting from a week or so ago; I asked what a UI designer could do to make some positive contributions to an Open Source project (and I got some great answers). Now, I'm going to ask for some more advice, and hope that this story isn't so far down in the queue that it gets overshadowed.
First some backstory.
This interface I've designed works on two guiding principles. The first being that users no longer need the desktop metaphor. It does away with it completely. The second principle involves chaging how you work by tracking different paths of behaviour on the part of the user. For instance, the OS tracks a History of Everything. If you've ever used Photoshop's History palette, you have an inkling of what I'm talking about. You always have available to you a branching diagram of where you've been and what you've done, into the past (to a certain extent), and have the ability to change your path or backtrack and try a new method.
I've also made extensive use of modern computing interface ideas. You still wave a pointer around using the mouse, and control things with the keyboard, as there is a certain amount of knowledge that cannot really be 'undone' in the typical user's mind. This is not a bad thing, but it does make it more difficult to truly break new ground. One instance in my project is the use of GUI Windows - I've basically done away with them in favour of Pie Menus. Window-pane type objects still exist when appropriate, but generally are reserved for Applications (another paradigm that is necessary out of pure economics).
Anyways, I don't want to give away a whole lot here yet as I'm still finishing it. It's in the form of a Flash projector that you can run full-screen to get an idea of what I'm talking about.
Now, my question (still with me?)... do you, Slashdotters, think that you would truly be willing to 'put up' with a radically new interface paradigm, if you thought it was worthwhile? I know the question sounds a bit spurious, "of course I'll use it if its better". But you need to think. The very limited testing I've done with a small group of people has had great feedback, but also great growing pains. The grip that your UI habits have on you are incredibly strong. The vast majority of frustration amongst users occurs when they become accustomed and familiar with a particular function, and then it changes on them. Even if the change is better, it is fequently painful for the user -- even to the point where they will discount the experience entirely as being 'not right'.
Of course, my project could just be an abject failure so far. :) But I don't think so. Personally, i believe that using a computer should be like playing a piano. The information should just glide, enabling inprovisation, suggesting alternatives, and generally a whole lot of fun. Think Minority Report. Didn't you just giggle when you saw that interface?
Anyways, enough gibberish. Slashdot, your thoughts and suggestions are much appreciated, as I am basically targeting this UI initially as a windowmanager replacement for one of the Linux distros and possibly OS X... and moreover, I am targeting this UI at YOU.
Thanks.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
>> I dropped Gnome 2 because it started to feel like Windows.
;-p, heh, i'm even such a coward that I've posted in AC ;-p
If you avoid a piece of software not because of its merits but rather because it feels like windows, that's totally bullshit.
Of course you may have made some valid points about not being able to customize things (which, actually i do not agree with, but that is another question), but dismissing something because it's like windows is not a valid point. It's prejudice. And (mod me down for this), I think the Windows GUI is actually (much) better in some areas than *nix GUI's, though we are getting closer by the day.
Not trying to troll, but I expect moderators won't forgive me on this
I think people that want to reconfigure their desktop should be taken to the Mexican Liberachi Firing Squad.
i also think robllmo and helos need to stop ass raping eachother
If you knew as much about Linux as you claim then you would realize that:
1) GUI setup is a non-issue on most Linux Distros
2) If you don't like so many options in a GUI choose a different GUI
3) If you like the MS look so much there are 12 step programs availible, I mean GUI's that are similar.
So a hot key is not the same, big hairy deal. With all of the carp MS has put users through with their less than reliable software a few different commands should be a nicer alternative to random dll faults, BSOD's, and poor performance.
Here is a suggestion for training, find somebody in a group who is interested in switching. Train them and then use them as a local guru when you start to switch the other users in the group. You will actually save training costs in the long run by moving to a non-comercially driven platform and keeping working knowledge at the worker level. How many 98 classes did you have to hold when switching from 95?
People don't need training to use a spreadsheet or click a mouse button, they just want the paid time off from their job.
I am speaking more elliptically than I should have. For "because it started to feel like Windows," you may substitute, "because it is starting to seem like Windows -- which is a buggy, crash-prone GUI that forces me to mouse around forever over a desktop governed by a couple of dozen competing, incommensurate metaphors that barely make sense when taken individually."
I'm not trying to troll either. Whether you like Windows isn't really the point, I think. It's whether you believe trying to reach a user other than yourself (a user created out of market research and some dim vision of where people want to go today) makes any sense at all.
there are too many neXTstep influenced desktops out there.. (windows, kde, gnome 1.x)
we need to get futuristic and stop using old interfaces
the newest gnome looks a bit different... but the shit is in the *box series in my opinion..
fast.. lean.. less frills... not user friendly (but that can always be changed)
but they could use some changes....like tabs for all the currently running windows in the tool bar.. etc (all in a popup menu)
or even have something like BeOS' style.
So we produce all this great stuff, but you don't think it's worth making it easy for other people to use it? Why shouldn't we share our toys, and make it pleasant to do so?
I'm sure this won't get noticed and I'll bet I'm repeating something else, but here's some more gas on the fire:
Put as many options as you possibly can in there. And then some. Let the user custimize his system to his personal tastes so that when he clicks "Login" he feels at home.
On the other hand, to reduce system bloat, only install/run/use good defaults. I wouldn't mind the features of Windows if they didn't decide to turn them all on by default, and the same goes for other OSes as well.
The idea that you can't have many options and little bloat is a myth. Good defaults make it possible, and all developers should understand this.
~Dalcius
Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
Something that never ceases to amaze me, in my decade of using both Windows and various Unices/Window Environments, is that even in the year 2003, cut-and-paste between apps in Unix is still spotty.
I also set Konq's javascrip popup policy to 'smart', which stops the endless flood of popups on some sites. Some of the users were _thrilled_ that konq did this.
The cafe owner is quite satisfied, but not enough yet to move all the boxes to *nix. (I used FreeBSD for the terminals, but the users never noticed ;). Heh, maybe some day I'll switch im over completely :)
Please say more about global workflow enhancers
(i.e. #11)
Not familiar with those applications, but
very curious/interested to understand your point.
Thanks
of course, saying anything bad about KDE at all will drop this post to -1, bit i feel that my voice must be heard.
mosfet claims that "Gnome 2 has taken the direction that "less-is-more" and that the configurability in Linux desktops, including Gnome 1.x, was clutter and confusing to the end-user."
first of all, Gnome2 is highly configurable, but just because i don't have a gazliion options to make changes pasted all over the desktop and right click menus doesn't mean it isn't possible.
for me, i love a subtle, clean and crisp looking desktop. Gnome2 comes right out of the box looking just like that. sure, there are a few options i go into the gconf editor and tweak, but that's just me.
there's nothing wrong with KDE. it fits the bill for some people. hey, some people are Christains, and that's great. but it's just not my thing. i don't see anything wrong with it.
and why does the KDE community seem like the whiney bunch? to give you an example, you won't see Havoc Pennington rebutting Mosfet's stuff. why? because Havoc Pennington doesn't need to, and he knows it.
perhaps KDE should close up their source and box it at CompUSA. remember what happened when Red Hat took KDE source, modified it a bit for their own use? the KDE kids went nuts! i saw crying and whining pasted all over the net about that one, didn't you?
RedHat can (and does) change Gnome 1.x and Gnome 2 in their distros. does/would the Gnome team complain?
they don't and will not. they are mature individuals that realize their code is open and anyone can make changes and bundle it in their software.
ok, enough ranting. i don't think this merited a mod point, but i don't think it loses one either.
Hey, have you tried Ion?
Just a nitpick -- you can try to end terrorism, and succeed, without using force; thus, the wording of your analogy is a bit ambigous.
It's like, when you go to a nasty restaurant and ask for a salad, you get a million options. What kind of salad? What kind of dressing (from this choice of sixteen) -- and will that be low-fat and on the side? Croutons? Bacon bits?
But when I go to a GOOD restaurant and ask for a salad, they just bring me a GOOD SALAD, no questions asked. They've put the work into developing a salad that I'll like, and that's why I've chosen that restaurant. Would that software were the same way...
Complaints about this will be met in the finest tradition by hitting you with a Bundle of Sticks, or (in the extreme) by burning you on a BOS.
For example, Red Hat has determined that they know best and metacity is the One True Window Manager. And the metacity designer has decided that he evidently knows the One True Way of window management - which elimitated several features I depended on. Those being described as "crackrock" in the almost nonexistant documentation. Evidently those of us who do not find the One True Window Manager to do what we need are crack users. Sawfish was still included in the latest distribution - but who knows how long this will last. (Hell, I'm waiting for them to do what DEC did years back and not include the C compiler - after all, its too much for users to have to cope with.)
As you might deduce from the tone, I find this kind of "I know whats best for you" attitude to be more than a bit annoying. But then, think of the people who think this way - the UI designers at Microsoft (and probably Mr Gates), Joseph Stalin, Pat Robertson and his friends, Osama Bin Laden, George W Bush, Mao Tse Tung- the list of people who think now (or who have thought) that they know whats best for everyone and who now get to make that decision binding includes many names that you dont really want to be included with (though given the attitudes I've seen from some UI designers, I do wonder about that).
OK - so including Stalin and a UI designer in the same sentence is very much an exaggeration in terms of power and the ability to do evil. But it is not an exaggeration in terms of intent. Both kinds of people want to decide whats good and right for the rest of us and both kinds of people have the attitude that its Good For Us and that our wants and needs don't really count.
Ask the average windows user if they liked 98 after 95. Ask them if they liked 2000 after 98se or ME. Ask them if they now like XP after 2000. The overwhelming response is YES! The reason?
POLISH AND FEATURES.
Now by features, i don't mean get your work done faster and get on with your life features, i mean more restrictive, content copyright control, shiny new buttons and widgets features.
M$ has known this all along. They don't have to make it ACTUALLY better. It just has to LOOK better, and maybe not crash quite as often.
KDE 3.1 is a beautiful example of how to provide new USEABLE features and applications, as well as all the shiny visual polish one could ever hope for. Saying that everybody just wants it to work and do not care what it looks like is pure bullshit.
They also seem to be working forward with the mentality of making the newer versions run BETTER on older hardware. Something many other developers have never done.
KDE is the most progressive of the bunch IMHO. They have produced more useful, and polished product in the past 2 yrs than M$ has in its history. But I digress. M$ isn't about producing what people want. They are about producing what makes money. Two very different things.
Why not? Its the users computer, the users desktop.
Why should I believe that the UI designer knows whats best for me? Usually they do not.
The way this thread is going makes me think that everyone is quite content to let some idiot make these decisions as long as they call themselves a UI designer and treat the users with sufficient contempt.
I have it set up so a root shell in X for me comes up (usually) in a terminal window with a bright orange background, purple foreground, a big font and a prompt "You Are ROOT ! ". (If you don't know why, perhaps someone should be making decisions for you.) I"m waiting for someone to decide that this is ugly and should not be allowed . (Don't laugh - think of the good ole DOS prompt .)
I wish I had that kind of arrogance. (I have, I'll admit, other kinds of arrogance).
I always want to take these guys who seem to have decided that they know more than I do what is appropriate for my desktop (or editor, or shell or whatever) and chain them to desks with 7 point fonts in dark gray displayed on a black background and 20 by 20 character windows. Then make them do something complex. And respond to every complaint with "Nyah, Nyah - I know better than you do..."
No. Remove the space between "colors," and "fonts". It doesn't belong there. Then it works, at least under bash. Don't know about csh etc.
I can change desktops by scrolling the wheel on my mouse. I can only do it with enlightemnent. Do you know of any other window manager that can do that?
Looking for a great online backup: Green Backup
It should be just a command prompt.
I miss my OS/2 Workplace Shell and Launch Pad. The only problem I (and many others) had was the lack of file manager, which was easily resolved.
"Configurability Considered Harmful"
Configurability is inversely proportional to supportability.
Configurability damages portability of employee skills, and makes it harder to hire people who can "hit the ground running".
Configurability damages portability of employee skills within a company.
Try this exercise: think of the last non-trivial problem you had. Now think about what it would take to talk your mother through fixing it on the telephone. Now think about what it would take to talk your mother through it on the telephone if she had an entirely different "skin", "theme", or window manager.
-- Terry
Despite OS X's minor shortcomings, they are nothing next to the ugly mess that is the Linux desktop experience. I can boot up my Linux desktop and be presented with apps that use "://" to label their open dialog. Vast heirarchies of unintelligently labelled items on my Start menu rip-off. Windows that leave trails when dragged. Tons of conflicting window libraries, each with their own looks and standards and fanbases. Poorly placed menu-items. General sluggishness and an attitude of "you figure it out yourself or write something on your own; we're volunteers so we can't be arsed to bother with the needs of the user." As technical users, most Slashdot denizens can get used to this experience and revel in the smugness of the fact that they're using their neat GNU/Linux systems they took so long to configure, as if that proves the value of their systems.
In reality, as GUI systems go, Linux is left in the dust, and the sooner it is realized, the greater chance there is of people finally getting off their asses and conquering the desktop. I would love to see that day come, because the potential is really there, but nobody takes advantage of it, and instead we obsess over taking screenshots with our latest KDE skin, complete with required xclock session running somewhere in the corner for effect. Or we run the latest GSomething app that rips off a popular Windows app, just implemented poorly (but with zillions more options, so that makes it better! 5 checkboxes and a config file edit for something I click a pushbutton for in Windows).
Just my opinion on the matter...could be wrong.
The OS X dock is easily moved to the right side.
dynamicUI as in:
dynamicUI - "I'm freaking tired of all this 'what/this is the best' blahablhahey conversation/articles/statements/research/... and let freak'n ME(YES,!ME!ME!ME, yapp ME the freak'n stupid morone-user) put "put the stuff on the screen" were freak'n I like it. Give me the power to fiddle every aspect of the UI, fundle every pixel of my freak'n screen how-I-want-it". GIVE me that power!"
Sorry if I'm a bit harsh, but I'm just absolutely tiered of this whole "what/this is the best" topic. There just isn't a thing, because we (individuals, THE USER's!) are all diffrent from each other. We all have are own on take on what we like and dislike about everything in this world. But that doesn't make we can't live under the same sky on this planet, just let us do what we do how we seem fit like to do it and leave us alone.
Einstein said it: It's relative!
That is my take on the whole thing.
SIG: 90% chance moderators will fail to understand me and mod me "flaimbait", 5% chance that they may get my drift, and 5% chance surtain they'll absolutely fail to see it!
I don't claim I know more than I know, and if you know you know more than I know, then by all means, let me know.
I like a desktop with a footrest and a cupholder. If I could just get it to have the feel of a velvet Elvis painting I would be in heaven.
Harpo Tunnel Syndrome--my wrist feels funny.
Many many /. people post as Anonymous Coward because they don't want to bother configuring beyond the defaults.
So..., there are so many duplicate stories because the editors don't bother to change the previous content?
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
Desktop user interfaces should not be configurable. Microsoft shall configure your desktop. If you don't like the way it is, you can petition them by mailing MS-20984983259204385902485 along with a check for $10,000 dollars. The check will be cashed immediately but the form shall take Microsoft no less than 600 years or your entire life, whichever is longer, to "process." Once it has been "processed," the request will be submitted to a committee that rolls a pair of dice 100 times. These dice are "fixed" to roll a 7 no matter what. If the dice roll double-sixes all 101 out of the 100 times, then your request is approved and is submitted to the change department, where someone will shred the document because they're too lazy to process it.
IMHO no one UI can make absolutely everyone happy, the responses to this post make that point very well, there are a lot of great ideas about how to properly implent a UI, and what a proper UI should be but that will only please some of the people. Unless you let each and every user design his or her own UI, everyone will have some kind of problem with what is presented to them. This is something that is possible, in the Windows world there's Litestep and Stardock's Desktop X, you can build the UI of your dreams if you care enough, unfortunately not everyone wants to(or has the time to) sit there and work through config files. Make a modular UI that defaults to a simple yet functional design, but make it modular enough that those who care enough can make it what they like can do so without jumping through flaming hoops. That's just my two cents... P.S. Does it bother anyone else that Konqueror as a file manger tries to be a file viewer for everything? I mean I click on a text file because I want to edit it, not because I want to view it in the file manager where I can't do anyhting to it.
If I may ask, why FreeBSD?
I actually prefer the *BSD's over Linux because they seem to be more solid. That is, things just work better (hardware detection, etc). I love the installs too. They arn't super pretty, but they work and are dead simple (if you ignore the partitioning aspect).
Now with nVidia supporting FreeBSD it would only take VMware3 support for me to switch. Alas, I don't see that happening and I will never run another OS that doesn't support VMware or something just as good (as a consultant, developer, and tester VMware is a godsend).
There is only one drawback that I can even consider being an issue with excessive customization. That is the fact that it becomes exponentially more difficult with each added feature to provide accurate tech support instructions.
For example:
You get some one who is new to computers who doesn't know how to close a window, but their distro was setup with the close buttons on the left side while the tech support guy's is on the right side. It's gonna be awfully confusing to a user as to where to click.
Now while I believe linux isn't really for beginners quite yet, this is still an important issue that can arrise in any situation and even effect experts.
I've done some tech support and believe me it's hard to help someone to find something in their windows start menu if you forgot that their version of windows doesn't have everything the new XP one does.
If someone can come up with a workable solution for this, then I say customize away! But until then, I think only simple preferences should be implemented.
http://brandonbloom.name
And now with VMware4 around the corner, the VMware-on-BSD thing seems even more far-fetched.
:)
ohwell... all operating systems suck. Makes me depressed.
Actually the Tile Horizonaltally/Tile Vertically Command works great when this is needed. That is the main thing I HATE about KDE and GNOME. IceWM is the only WM I've found that can accomplish this. Otherwise I tend to spend minutes, literally trying to line the windows up in such a way that I can copy and paste stuff from window to window or read a web page and type something into a text editor or email program, etc. Really, I think this is the most important feature any GUI can have, Microsoft and IceWM only got it half right, it really needs to have a key on the keyboard as well like one of those F1-F12 buttons. Though since every app uses these keys slightly differently, it needs it's own keys on the weyboard! If that right context menu key, or whatever it's called, the one next to the right windows key, deserves it's own key tile vertically and horizontally certainly do.
Yes I agree. Unfortunately that is *NOT* how the term is being used. In designing for the 'average' or 'regular' user, *nix GUI designers (at least Gnome designers) are aiming "for the corporate desktop," that is the 'average' win* user, not the 'average' Gnome user (nor even that 'average' likely future Gnome user). The idea of course, is that the average win* user will being to use Gnome (or KDE or whatever), but that is wild fantasy.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
KDE is the suckiest GUI on planet... well, I guess its still better than CDE. So, why would you want to ask KDE developers about GUI issues?
Short answer: Quickest to set up. Quickest to recover.
Long answer: I made my own releases with the release Makefile that lives in /usr/src somewhere. With some custom packages added I just scripted an installation ready to go. So, in the event that one of the terminals break (for whatever reason), I can have another one up in less than 30 minutes. I basically script disklabel and fdisk to blow a disklabel on the device, run newfs on all the filesystems and unpack the base tarball and install some packages in there. Then it sets up DHCP networking and fetches a tarball with a KDE kiosk config from another internal box. It took me several days to get it _just_ _right_, but it works really cool now. Boot machine, stick in CD, get some coffee, and voila, instant terminal.
Yes, I did play with several Linux distro's to do this, but it was quicker, easier and less painless with FreeBSD. Somehow I always go back to FreeBSD when it comes to things like this. It's hella more flexible. I love it.
As for the video support, yeah, I know NVIDIA has FreeBSD drivers, but they need to get more stable. I'm now on Gentoo with my desktop, but once driver support for FreeBSD NVIDIA is rock solid, I'll go back to FreeBSD on my desktop. Fortunately, my KDE terminals have Matrox MGA Gxx's, for which driver support is pretty solid in FreeBSD, lucky me.