Slashdot Mirror
KDE 3.3 UI, Evaluated By 7 Real Users
sgtrock writes "UserInstinct has an article that documents the reactions to KDE 3.3 by 7 users with limited or no Linux background. By and large, they found KDE intrguing, but far too busy. They all complained about some pretty basic UI issues; no stars echoed while the password was typed, anti-aliased fonts off by default, far too many options shown by default, etc. Most had minor UI issues as well; some of which were KDE specific, others that weren't.
All in all, I would have to regard this test KDE 3.3's UI as somewhat disappointing. Especially since KDE strives so hard to provide a consistent and easy to use UI.
IMO the single biggest issue is probably the overwhelming number of options that are exposed to a first-time user. Personally, I'm a guy who likes to tweak almost everything on a UI, so I love the way that KDE works. However, I have seen myself just how quickly beginners get turned off by the very busy option screens. There must be a better way of showing a sane number of options while still allowing power users to access the more esoteric ones. Anyone have any thoughts?"
The major problem that I have with using GNU/Linux as a desktop is the lack of a standardized UI. In Windows or Mac, no matter what program I'm in, I know based on UI guidelines and traditions that I am going to be able to use alt+f4 to close a program or window+r to run something, or command+f to open sherlock.
It is also a strength, because of the different choices developers have, but as a user, it is annoying to not have a consistant UI.
If you just use a mouse, it's not a problem, but the keyboard shortcuts are a big deal to me.
A lot of good programs are GTK and a lot of good ones are QT. You almost have to CHOOSE if you want to have a consistant UI.
Chris
I don't want to make 101 decisions when I work on my computer. I want sensible defaults and not have to care about plethoras of unneeded options.
Don't have options. Pick something and stick with it. If it doesn't work, change it.
Real people don't like options. Weirdos like options.
-- Too lazy to get a lower UID.
There must be a better way of showing a sane number of options while still allowing power users to access the more esoteric ones.
Why does everybody try to be one-size-fits-all? Maybe infinite customizability is possible, allowing in a single code-base to be used by both novices and experts, but that may be a bad engineering tradeoff.
There is room on Linux for different desktop environments for novices, experts, Windows refugees, Macintosh refugees, Motif refugees, keyboard fanatics, disabled users, kids, gamers, computer labs, and many others.
I think XFCE and Gnome are a good example of two desktop environments that share a lot of code but are targeted at different user communities.
I use both Gnome and KDE. Gnome strikes me as a more "UNIXy" kind of desktop environment, but KDE's strength could be that it feels more comfortable to people coming from Windows or Macintosh. Maybe that's the user community KDE should target more aggressively, rather than trying to be all things to all people. That would mean removing some customizability from KDE, making its interface more Windows/Mac-like, and simplifying the UI.
There must be a better way of showing a sane number of options while still allowing power users to access the more esoteric ones. Any thoughts?
Well, some of the more sophisticated user interfaces I've seen have a concept called "tabs". I know it might be hard to visualize, but imagine that you could split the configuration screen into two separate screens, and only show one of them at a time. The first screen could have the basic configuration, and the second could have the more advanced, "esoteric" ones.
Why, you could even label the screens "Simple" and "Advanced"! What a revolutionary concept!
[/sarcasm]
This space intentionally left blank.
It seems like this is a better method than eliminating features from a preference dialog box [ala Gnome].
My Daily photo website.
Many times, options are offered as a lazy hack instead of making a UI really usable. If 9 out of 10 users need some advanced option checked, why isn't it on by default? Why is the alternate behavior even needed?
I also think that checkboxes are sometimes offered by the programmer who can't decide how he wants his app to behave. By offering multiple behaviors, he escapes having to commit to one or the other under the guise of offering the user more. But unless you have nothing better to do than to twiddle checkboxes on and off all day, most users won't touch the defaults, meaning that all those options the programmer thought he was offering are in fact unused.
The better way to UI design is to decide what the task is and then to offer a default behavior that best offers it. If there is indeed an alternate that could be prefered by some, perhaps multiple options can be ganged together and toggled with one switch. I do this in my text editor configuration: The option to type with the words wrapped at the window margin is coupled with not setting an auto-textwidth (auto-truncation of lines at a given length) and with using tabs as true tab characters. The opposite is to auto-truncate at a set width, ignore the window margin, and use spaces instead of tabs since the two most basic behaviors are to enter text to preserve line formatting and to ignore it.
Most options aren't really options. And you have to realize that those offered have the potential to confuse more than to help. Once you develop a highly conservative perspective about offering options, you begin to value each one offered more. Besides, if the so-called power users really are, let them fiddle with configuration files, registries and source code like they claim to understand. Just don't bog down the average user!
There is no need to use a SlashDot sig for SEO...
no stars echoed while the password was typed,
This is a global option in KDE. It's up to the distro how they want their defaults. Personally I like the stars *off* so a casual passer by can't see how long or short my password is.
anti-aliased fonts off by default
Again, a distribution thing. If you compile KDE from source yourself you'll find them (surprise!) on by default.
Kopete send messages by pressing enter
Again, default config thing a packager could easily change. And in current KDE CVS it is already changed.
far too many options shown by default, etc.
A distro could easily change the default KControl link to point to settings:// instead, which is far less confusing.
Mostly an uninformed article IMO. If the reviwers want to test the newbie usability of *KDE* itself, not of whatever distro they happen to be on, they should at least spend some time learning how to do things in KDE so that they can set up the system to be newbie-friendly *before* the newbies test it.
KDE is more volunteer driven, hence it aims to appeal to fellow developers and home power users, for whom configurability and features are wanted.
As a biased KDE user, I think it has the potential to be better than Gnome on the corporate desktop. However this study is right, there are too many 'in your face' options. I agree that KDE needs to cut back on the number of buttons, menu entrys, context menu entries and configuration options shown at the top level. Examples:
There are items in the study I think are dumb, KMail is a fine name for the KDE email client, much better than Kamel (or whatever the suggestion was).
The KDE project is making movements in the right direction, there is a nascent KDE-Usability project. Gnome has gone too far in usability through streamlining, KDE hasn't gone far enough, yet.
Of course all that's opinion, but I say it anyway.
Alex
You'd have to find a dozen similarly intelligent people who had never used a computer.
Not at all! Don't let the laziness of amateur usability researchers fool you. Double blind study of user interfaces is still possible. Take ten OSX users and put five in front of KDE and five in front of WinXP. Or take ten WinXP users and put five in front of GNOME and five in front of OSX.
I work with some award winning usability engineers, and they perform some very rigorous studies. They will take the a group of experienced users and place half in front of the existing interface and the other half in front of the same interface with only one control changed. Then they use metrics to determine actual effort expended to use the interfaces. They've even recorded actual sessions and digitized the movements of the users to study interface efficiency.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
I use KDE (it's awesome) and have tried many other environments including gnome, xfce (also very good), and more. I also happen to know about usability. I understand KDE is not adhering to popular usability standards.
So, what?
I chose KDE because it wasn't as simple as gnome. I like KDE and Konqueror because they are full or options and advanced menu choices.
gnome is a great business desktop. It is what a company should have on its PCs so that the employees would not pay attention to anything else except their job.
But KDE is great for the home. and I want it to stay so. There is no need to apply usability theories on the KDE development.
This is where it gets interesting. Do you want to please people who will only ever use kde once, or do you want to please people who will use kde all the time?
I think this might be more of an early adopter/pragmatic adopter dichotomy than an experienced user/first time user dichotomy. Products go through a natural cycle, starting with early adopters, switching over to pragmatic adopters and finally ending up with late adopters. Each of these groups have different characteristics and needs. Early adopters are interested in the technology, and how it can be tweaked. They may make freqent changes to their desktop just because they're bored.
Pragmatic adopters are relatively less interested in the technology itself than the tasks they intend to use the technology for. As such a plethora of customization options is a real drag -- they have a harder time finding the few things they might want to tweak. They may even feel they ought to make an effort to understand a number of bells and whistles so they don't accidentally miss something important.
The problem with a system that is created by people "scratching their itch" is that they are likely to be firmly in the early adopter crowd.
I personally can go either way. I like to tweak my work computer's user interface because I spend quite a bit of time on it. On the other hand my personal pet peeve is with media players with bizarre and arcane user interfaces. I understand the appeal I guess, but when I reach for the player, it's because I want to listen to music, not hunt around on the Internet for a half decent skin.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
What essential options do you think GNOME has taken away?
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
Studies like this are wrong-headed: car lovers would ridicule the suggestion that all models should be made alike, maybe we should think of our computer's WM 'dashboard' the same way.
Simplified, standard business UIs are like station wagons--practical, easy to use, automatic transmision all the way.
KDE is more like a Porsche--fine tuned control, manual transmision, yet still fully polished, appealing to a broad category of enthusiasts who take their vehicle more "seriously". You can argue all you want about manual transmission not being necessary anymore, the people who drive these cars *want* it and don't care that it's less 'accessible' to others.
The smaller, more exotic WM's are like the cult classics--Ford Cobra, classic Mustang, etc. These are for people who have a fascination with mythical features that goes far beyond the desires of the general public. The fans of these cars look down on the mainstream "enthusiasts" as wanna-be's, and take pride in the long and esoteric learning curve that has allowed them to develop this closeness with their machine. Try explaining to one of these guys that an automatic transmission station wagon is a superior design!
My point is that none of these groups are 'right' or 'better'. The only way to go wrong is in trying to be all things to all people.
(With apologies to "In the beginning was the command line" for stealing a good metaphor.)
I sort of agree, but.
You have to remember that _selling_ open source (I mean, getting people to use it) requires that they perceive immediate benefits. (In fact, they sometimes say, to get people to change your product needs to be TEN TIMES better than their existing choice.)
Now if you use something for half an hour and you find it difficult, you are not going to assume "hey, I bet once I get used to this it will be fantastic". You will assume, quite rationally, that it is going to carry on being difficult to use.
That is why initial impressions do count.
Of course this depends on the context. Big departments can take long term decisions to switch users over, and evaluate user experience after six months. But for SOHO or home use, you have to have *immediate* usability.
Well, I'm an advanced user, but It's not like I spend all my time clicking advanced buttons. Besides, those buttons are usually only on configuration pages, which are not something I'd generally use repeatedly to do a job.
The best idea is to just provide a concise UI for basic users, and customisation options and lots of keyboard shortcuts for the advanced ones. MS Visual Studio is a good example of this sort of UI design.
As heretical as it sounds, no one ever stays a newbie forever.
But everyone was a newbie once. You can't ignore either side of it: design only for newbies, and only newbies will use it. But design only for experts, and NOBODY will ever use it.
Every UI designer must aim for the right balance of accessibility and power.
I would rather reward my long time loyal customer than someone just sniffing around for a good deal.
That makes sense if you actually have those long-term customers. Microsoft does; KDE does not.
Non-monopolist UIs have a greater need to focus on new users. They're a bigger part of KDE's potential audience. Most computer operators have used MS Windows, but only a slender fraction have any KDE experience.
PS. My primary workstation runs KDE exclusively. Even though I hate single-clicking to launch icons.