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."
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Yes, keep it like Aqua.
The big Desktops out there Windows, Classic Mac, Aqua, KDE, Gnome - of them the only two IMHO that aren't configurable to the point a user gets in trouble are Classic Mac and Aqua.
Classic Mac is a little too static, I much prefer Aqua to anything else.
It's open to tweaking if the inner geek wants to tweak it, but for the normal user/student/professional it's just right. A user can fart around with things in the Dock to the point where they think they are really making themselves a custom computer and they don't crap up the desktop with icons.
They can't stretch out the Dock and make it take up the screen like one can with the Start bar in Windows, nor can they accidently click and move the mouse and have the bar magically go to a side or the top.
Apple did some...dumb things with Aqua as Jef Rankin has pointed out, but for the most part it's the least shitty Desktop out there.
There's a reason why there are so few gifted UI designers contributing to open source. People like mosfet call us "so-called usability experts", open source leaders like Eric Raymond proclaim we're completely wrong for explaining things like the fact that interfaces sholuld be designed before code is written, and projects like GNOME and KDE generally make us feel as unwelcome as possible.
At every step of the way the world of open source and free software has done everything possible to keep us out of the process.
Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
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.