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.
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
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.)
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.