Slashdot Mirror
Translated KDE/Linux Usability Report Available
WHudson writes "Relevantive AG, a German consulting firm who recently completed a study on Linux usability, posted their results in English translation today. Bottom line: Linux nearly as easy to use as Windows XP, but the wording of system and program messages could use some more clarity."
"Bottom line: Linux nearly as easy to use as Windows XP, but the wording of system and program messages could use some more clarity." I've actually find the opposite. For me, Linux errors are helpful (except for maybe getting a printer to work), unlike the jargon the BSOD gives you.
I was checking out the article, and there seems to be a slight affiliation with microsoft (where this article is originally posted) So, for it to defend linux the way it does is suprising (since some spornsorships are coming from microsoft, I usually don't expect that.)
Astroturfer?
He merely said that people are used to Windows and thus they have a harder time learning to use KDE than someone who'd never been exposed to either. I'm not sure how you managed to interpret that as a pro-MS comment...
And considering that OSS is supposed to be everyone working for the general good, it could be considered communist in nature... communism isn't necessarily a bad thing, ya know.
Sure, it can be done, but you really shouldn't complain when it doesn't fit your needs out of the box and needs tweaking.
There is a good reason KDE/SuSE and not Gnome/Redhat was tested in the usability report.
easier for the desktop user, you also make it harder
for the people in other categories. Our needs are
not the same, therefore, the remedy can never
be the same.
The question is not whether we should accomodate
new users, the question is what costs and
inconvenienses are we willing to endure in
order to accomodate the newbies. And I don't
particularly care if new uers move to Linux, I would
rather not accomodate them at all. It is a
non-issue for me.
Some of the observed behaviors were incredibly interesting.
They categorized users based upon their performance in the tasks. Starting from page 74, I found some of the attributes and observations for each category to be interesting:
All observations are quoted directly from the report, but have been consolidated from multiple pages (74-77)
1. Group: Inexperienced performers
- They cannot mentally differentiate between OS, desktop environment and application.
- They are goal orientated and not interested in understand (sic) how they get there ("Now it is working").
- In order to place an application icon (Acrobat Reader) in the desktop bar at the bottom, they were looking for this option within the application itself (and did not succeed). This was the case for 21 of the 60 Linux test participants.
- They left an application open and tried to perform all further tasks within this application. For instance, they created a new folder using the file dialog of the word processor.
- They were confused by a high number of options and tried to find a familiar option from which they could start exploring the others.
2. Group: Experienced performers
- They are interested in understanding how something works.
- They consider themselves to be the cause of an error, not the computer.
- Due to their impatient navigation, they did not see some (sometimes important or helpful) options. Also, they could hardly see the tooltips since they moved the mouse too quickly before the tooltip had been displayed.
- If an action did not show an immediate result, they went onto another way and only came back much later to the initial action. Hence, this group needed to have the network folder displayed for quite a long time as they clicked somewhere else before the folder content was updated and displayed.
3. Group: Professional performers
- They plan their steps by their assumptions of the potential ways that the systems may offer.
- They can identify the "errors" or "inadequacies" of the system.
- They had problems especially when they did not expect a certain system behavior. This could be observed e.g. in Windows XP when they tried to write a file on a CD, since this function is integrated into Windows Explorer, while those users expected a stand-alone application.
.sig Realistic fines for copyright in
You cannot simply download this cool program from the developer's website and install it, unless he's made packages for your distro-- which, let's face it, is a little confusing for your average luser who just wants to download a file, browse to it using his nice graphical explorer-like interface and click it to install.
Most businesses are trying to avoid this type of behaviour from their employees anyways, whether with Windows or Linux. It is not a good idea to have all users install different software onto each computer, it is chaotic and downirght dangerous.
Now, you can configure WinXP so that only the admins an install anything, but really fine-tuning an XP is not as easy as it might seem - probably because hardly anyone does it.
So the linux approach that only athorized people can install new programs makes sense. Yeah, it might be a little annoying for the employee who cannot get his program installed just by clicking on it; but it does make sense that the IT people who are responsible for the maintenance and security of those systems are the ones who have the final say of whether a certain programme is to be installed or not.
On the other hand, the only users who are likely to try to install all types of crap onto their computers are those who think they are computer gods just because they have one at home and are able to surft the Internet and download music. And those users can end up being really dangerous, for they think they know much more than they really do. It is the ignorant users who really are no threat at all, for they will always ask before attempting to do anything.
And if installs are only done by competent people, it follows that they probably know how to do it (whether that is compiling from scratch or downloading a package for whatever distro they're using), so it shouldn't be very difficult. Not that it actually is difficult, you just need to know what you are doing.
Don't try to fix me. I'm not broken.
well, no, actually I didn't. And around here (small fragment of a big multinational) it's a part of an application framework...
IMO short labels according to function are better than names. And if there's a choice I'd prefer to see the function first and the app name bracketed second, as
- function (app1)
- function (app2)
By the way, what does iDVD do that iMovie doesn't (and vice versa)?"we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
The funny thing is that the people who couldn't care less and the people who love computers are now the ideal market for Linux. It's the people who have enough confidence to try to do things they don't know how to do who would struggle!
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
You won't run into problems installing official programs for vanilla installations. People bork up their machines by installing software that wasn't built for their desktops.
It's like trying to install a program that was built for WindowsXP, but wasn't meant for Win 98. It may work, but it also may not.
Honestly, I've had more problems getting Windows 98 apps to work with Windows 2000. Grim Fandango was one of them. Dark Age of Camalot was another. Both were incredibly crash-prone because the developers hadn't chosen to support the newer desktops. Win9x emulation mode helped, but didn't totally correct the problem. I've also experienced similar problems getting some CDR software to work on older Windows machines.
You're going to run into these sorts of problems as long as you have changes in your operating system. It's just the way that it goes.
Actually, my company has moved a number of ppl over to Linux recently. What we found was that the ppl who are normally afraid made the move nicely (turns out ther are afraid of hurting the system).
Likewise, the average person moved very nicely. Some complaints, but lots of compliments.
It was the ppl who were running XP pro with Office professional who thought that they were the 2'nd coming of christ right behind bill, who were having problems. Tried moving them to Gnome and that was no better. It came down to the fact that they knew MS inside out and did not want to change in a irrational fashion(think apple zealot) .
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
People that were spoon fed windows are never going to try out KDE and think its actually MORE usable.
Step one towards increasing acceptance of Linux GUI systems is to stop treating the Windows desktop metaphor as if it were pabulum that is only choked down by infants who don't know anymore. The Windows interface may not be perfect, but it's more than usable for the vast majority of the desktop market.
There's no such thing as a "false sense of intuitiveness". The only truly intuitive interface is the nipple ($1 to whoever said that).
Any usability study worth its salt has to take into consideration the subjects' previous experiences. Being different from Windows IS a usability issue to most people who are familiar with Windows.