OpenUsability and KDE: Cooperating on KPDF

sultanoslack writes "More from the world of usability in KDE -- there's an interview up where Albert Astals Cid, the KPDF maintainer, and Florian Grässle, a usability engineer from OpenUsability on working together to make KPDF more usable and some of the challenges in working together in a developer / usability engineer team. We've been seeing more from the OpenUsability folks lately, and they'll also be present doing a talk and staffing a booth this week at LinuxTag, Europe's largest Open Source conference." This interview-with-screenshots provides a neat look at the interaction of usability concerns and software development.

Comments

Nice development

[moz25]

I certainly welcome this development. Usability is not exactly the first thing that comes to mind with a lot of open source software. This is an area that proprietary software companies still have an edge on because they're also in a position to pay for the extra work going into interface design.

Basically there are several aspects a good interface should fulfill -- like preventing errors before they happen and the user has to deal with them or giving the user control and freedom over the application (and not vice versa), offering an efficient interface and so on.

I'm not sure how errors can be prevented, assuming that they're not within control of the application. Does he mean design errors? Can someone explain?

Re:Nice development

[kebes]

I agree with the "preventing errors before they happen" concept. Basically the application should warn you that a value is erroneous at the first opportunity. You shouldn't have to wait until you're trying to save a document for the error to screw you. You shouldn't even have to wait until clicking "OK" for an error box to show up saying a value is out of bounds... basically helpful tooltips should appear as you are typing, warning you if your input doesn't makes sense or is out of bounds or whatever.

Applications can also be built to "look" for certain kinds of common problems and take action. For instance, an application can keep watch of memory or disk space, so instead of just getting a "disk full" error or whatever, the user is warned enough ahead of time that he can deal with the problem... rather than losing the work he's done.

Re:Nice development

[rg3]

Eventhough this doesn't relate to GUI applications, just imagine:

$ rm -fr /
This will erase the whole tree! Type "Yes, I know" to continue: _

Even for correct input, an application should prevent you from making dangerous actions and things that, while for a computer are perfectly legal, might be an error from the human point of view.

The rm example is just an example. You have to take into account the type of users that are using your application, if they're experts or not, etc. Well, sometimes a little bit of error prevention from the application can save your ass :).

Re:Nice development

[N3Roaster]

Safety features on command line tools might be nice, but it would be hard to incorporate that sort of thing in a UNIX environment where the tools are often being called from shell scripts and such. If simple command line utilities are going to try to keep me from shooting myself in the foot, I want a flag for releasing the safety.

P.S. If '$ rm -fr /' will erase the whole tree, your permissions are seriously messed up.

Re:Nice development

[fermion]

I'm not sure how errors can be prevented, assuming that they're not within control of the application. Does he mean design errors? Can someone explain?

First, errors typically mean that the user did not experience the expected outcome, and is not typically a judgemental statement. My unmderstanding of this is that a human will expect certain things, and will act based on past experience. For instance, on a web page certain colors have come to mean visited links, while others will attract attention. So, to maximize success, one want to follow existing guidelines and use colors so that the most often used content will be highlighted.

For the OS, this means that the user is able to do what he or she expects. For instance, if the OS brings an unrequested(by the user) inactive windows into focus or allowing dialog boxes from background processes to the foregroung will often lead to user error. The OS should therefore typically allow the user to work in the foreground application while attracting the user attention in a non-hostile way.

Other things quickly come to mind. The default box in an exit query should neither be save or discard, but cancel. We figured this out many years ago in vi. Autosave is fine, but it should not save over the actual file. Unlimited undo is a blessing. Having the menus in the same place and in the same order utilizes the human habit of repitition to maximize succes.

Like in any process much of the success of the human factor comes from the way of the design. All to often the designers will blame the user when it is really the incompentent design. A sucessful design makes the next logical step the path of least resistance. For most tasks, it should not require years of training to utilize the interface.

Re:Nice development

[AvitarX]

A case of what you are talking about to the extreme I will share as a cautionary tale to programmers.

Quark Xpress has a problem where it gives errors to the efffect of "object not on clip board ..." and forces you to re-enter a value, if I would be alloud to finish changing value before it gave the error I could have a working box much more easy.

Re:Nice development

[strider44]

KDevelop is a great example of this. That red cross next to a syntactical error makes my life a whole lot easier when typing quite quickly.

Re:Nice development

[Boiling_point_]

basically helpful tooltips should appear as you are typing, warning you if your input doesn't makes sense or is out of bounds or whatever

Good usability tries to take this further. When designing, one anticipates errors the users might make, and removes the possibility for them happening at all (see Jakob's fifth heuristic). Simple example: instead of using a simple text box for date entry in the format dd/mm/yyyy and hoping the user reads the explanatory note next to the field, one might use three dropdowns.

Careful design helps, but for complex systems not even a guru can predictively design the perfect interface. That's where usability testing makes such a difference. That involves getting real people to use successive iterations of a design until it's really great.

Facilitating and interpreting this testing is a different skill to designing in the first place. Involving test users outside the development team is something that takes preparation, and often money. Is it any wonder that interface design is the weakest link in FOSS?

Re:Nice development

[Moochman]

"Involving test users outside the development team is something that takes preparation, and often money. Is it any wonder that interface design is the weakest link in FOSS?"

I agree with almost everything you say; however, it should be noted that involving test users outside of the development team also comes free with open-source software, since every development release is available to anyone for download. I would argue that money is not the main barrier, but rather a combination of 1) lack of exposure for non-established software 2) lack of willingness of end-users to try untested/unstable software and 3) lack of willingness of coders to implement suggested changes. Hopefully all three of these things are getting better as open-source becomes more mainstream and coders and end-users start paying more attention to each other.

Re:Nice development

[HishamMuhammad]

The Z Shell features some heuristics for that. If a command line performs a completion on "*" and the command is "rm", it asks for confirmation, even with -f:

hisham@brick /Depot/test]rm a*
hisham@brick /Depot/test]rm *
zsh: sure you want to delete all the files in /Depot/test [yn]? n
hisham@brick /Depot/test]rm -f *
zsh: sure you want to delete all the files in /Depot/test [yn]?

Obviously, as everything in zsh, this is configurable (setopt -u rm_star_silent to disable it).

Re:Nice development

[AaronLawrence]

instead of using a simple text box for date entry in the format dd/mm/yyyy and hoping the user reads the explanatory note next to the field, one might use three dropdowns.

One might, but then one would make the field extremely clumsy for keyboard navigation. There are tradeoffs of course...

Re:Nice development

[say]

So, three dropdowns is a usability feature? Then I don't want usability. It takes four or five times as long to pick three numbers from dropdowns than to write them in a textfield.

Doing input checking as you type, or at least when you're finished and move on, is better. Then you'll only be hassled when you do wrong.

Re:Nice development

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't take it out on us just because you can't use a mouse well :-P

The issue here is, in what order should the day, month, year numbers be put? With three dropdowns the user has to choose from valid entries.

With a text field there are ambiguous answers possible - 05/07/2005 ... what month is that date in?

This is the sort of user error that can be avoided by a slightly more restrictive UI.

And as for speed, I find the old tab and select works just as fast ... but YMMV.

Kevin

Re:Nice development

[WaterBreath]

But in the corporate world, money can solve at least 1 and 2, and probably 3 as well, in most cases. (I envision a manager telling a stubborn coder, "This is what we pay you to do. If you don't want to do what we pay you to do, then we just won't pay you anymore.")

It may not be the only solution to the difficulties of usability testing. But so far it has proved to be one of the most effective ones.

Re:Nice development

[Bertie]

Yes, but that requires the designer to really think about what they're implementing, which is something they seldom do when there's a good-enough-for-most answer already in existence. UI designers are mostly sheep. Chancers. There's very few original thinkers among them. I know this because I am one.

Good Thing(TM)

[neurokaotix]

The OpenUsability group is exactly what is needed in the Linux/open source community right now. Standards on how software should be layed out and behave is one of the major setbacks in the open source community. It seems as if just about everyone has their own version and great idea on how an application should be layed out. This is one reason (just one) why Windows will continue to have an edge in the desktop market. On Windows you can open just about any application and already know how to use it (at least, at the most basic level). If you've used Microsoft Word then you've got a head start on knowing Internet Explorer, Notepad, and Calc.exe.

Re:Good Thing(TM)

[Brandybuck]

If you've used Microsoft Word then you've got a head start on knowing Internet Explorer, Notepad, and Calc.exe.

How is this any different from KDE or GNOME? If I've used KWord, for example, I've got a head start on knowing Konqueror, KWrite and kcalc.

Re:Good Thing(TM)

[arose]

GNOME Human Interface Guidelines.

Re:Good Thing(TM)

[Tony Hoyle]

I hope they do it properly and *not* take any notice of GNOME.. thinks like being unable to cancel a lot of actions because the cancel button was deemed to be 'too complex' by the usability expert... hiding all the useful options so you can't configure the damned thing any more, making every single app have its own font/style settings instead of a global one.. not to mention putting the OK/Cancel buttons the wrong way around for the sole reason that it's 'different to microsoft'.

Re:Good Thing(TM)

[InfiniteWisdom]

thinks like being unable to cancel a lot of actions
Like what?

hiding all the useful options so you can't configure the damned thing any more
That's what GConf-edit is for. You can find all the settings the application has, including documentation for every setting. Makes more sense to me to have things hidden away behind a standardised interface than to have a menu/dialog option for options you're unlikely to change more than once

font/style settings instead of a global one
That's just plain baloney

not to mention putting the OK/Cancel buttons the wrong way around for the sole reason that it's 'different to microsoft'.
The "right" way being defined as the way Microsoft does it? Or do you have a real argument for why it's more "right"?

Re:Good Thing(TM)

[cortana]

He's just bitching because GONME/GOMONE/whatever the hell it was called turned out to be nothing but a load of hot air. :)

Re:Good Thing(TM)

[nathanh]

On Windows you can open just about any application and already know how to use it (at least, at the most basic level).

iTunes, Word, Photoshop, Winamp, Autocad, Antispyware...

Yeah, they all look and work exactly the same. No differences whatsoever. Nosiree. Identical. Windows is a PANACEA for UI consistency, I tells ya.

Re:Good Thing(TM)

[pherthyl]

You're quite wrong in that respect. Just because there are two widget sets with about equal popularity on Linux doesn't mean that applications are not consistent.
My Linux (KDE) environment is much more consistent than my Windows environment. In windows, a lot of apps roll their own widgets (off the top of my head, MS Office, Visual Studio, Firefox, MSN Messenger, Winamp, Various proprietary apps for hardware devices, Zonealarm firewall, AVG antivirus)
Hell, every second application I use on Windows has it's own idea of what widgets to use or what keyboard shortcuts to assign.

In KDE, the only application I run that doesn't use KDE widgets and standard keyboard shortcuts is Firefox. Every other application is very predictable and consistent.

Also, consistancy goes further than just looks and keyboard shortcuts. In KDE, the advanced text editor widget is the same in every editor, so I get the same syntax highlighting and code folding and whatever if I'm editing C++ in KDevelop or if I'm doing PHP in Quanta or viewing a text file in Kate. In addition, I get the same spell checking whether I'm typing an email in Kontact, typing an instant message in Kopete, or submitting a form in Konqueror. I could go on. Network transparency, password storing, mouse gestures.. All these things are standard across the whole platform.

Now that is a level of consistency not matched in ANY other platform.

Re:Good Thing(TM)

[strider44]

The "right" way being defined as the way Microsoft does it? Or do you have a real argument for why it's more "right"?

It is a standard. It is carried through pretty much every operating system. I agree with the grandparent in this one. Not doing something simply because it is the same as what Microsoft does is just petty and silly, like saying we shouldn't have a network or a browser in Linux cause Windows has them.

Re:Good Thing(TM)

[ubernostrum]

thinks like being unable to cancel a lot of actions because the cancel button was deemed to be 'too complex' by the usability expert

I challenge you to name even one instance where an action in a core GNOME application cannot be canceled, and where the person at the GNOME project publicly stated (i.e., mailing list, Bugzilla, whatever) that it was because cancelling it is "too complex".

hiding all the useful options so you can't configure the damned thing any more

The options that hard-core UNIX geeks find useful are frightening and confusing to 99% of the computer-using population. Thus, those options were moved into GConf where the hard-core geeks will still be able to access them, but where they won't cause problems for average users. Meanwhile, GNOME has gone from a bloated "take six weeks to configure before you can use any apps" DE to one with sensible defaults that let most people (including this UNIX geek) just sit down and start getting work done.

making every single app have its own font/style settings instead of a global one

Again, would you care to provide examples? The only applications I've seen which have their own font settings are text editors/word processors, and those are an expected function of such applications. They also only change the text area where editing takes place, not the fonts used by menus and other controls; in other words, even those apps use the fonts set through GNOME's preferences.

In the future, try talking out of your mouth instead of your ass.

Re:Good Thing(TM)

[InfiniteWisdom]

I happen to think that having the "OK" button in corner is a logical and predictable place for the most frequently used button to me. Just because Windows does it doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

You could make that argument for everything, and say that we should all either be using Windows or that other applications should aim solely to duplicate the windows UI.

Re:Good Thing(TM)

[be-fan]

And by "every operating system", you mean Windows. Certainly, the only other major desktop OS, the Mac, does it it like GNOME does.

Re:Good Thing(TM)

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that why I cringe each time I use a Gnomish program?

I don't want to (re)start a KDE/GNOME flame war (BTW the article was about KDE not GNOME) BUT, some people do dislike profundly GNOME interface.

Re:Good Thing(TM)

[Anonymous Coward]

The options that hard-core UNIX geeks find useful are frightening

Frightening? Really? You think people are actually frightened by options? Hyperbole is the worst possible thing you can use when trying to make a point.

Re:Good Thing(TM)

[HaydnH]

Have you ever used 3d Studio Max and Other 3D applications?? You need a degree in half of them to figure out how to save a file! Ok - slight exageration but the UI is usualy pretty poor.

Re:Good Thing(TM)

[Anonymous Coward]

Word (or rather Office), and IE each have completely separate widget implementations and their own style guide (or lack of one). Notepad is useless (it's actually a demo of a deprecated widget) and that leaves Calc, which inevitably as a desktop calculator doesn't obey the document interface behaviour you started out with in Word.

Now, that said I don't think more usability people would hurt the Linux desktop. Another team filing usability bugs against major apps and tools like Gnumeric, evince, etc would probably be welcomed. Just don't get the idea that /any/ of today's desktop offerings have this cracked.

Re:Good Thing(TM)

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh you mean the dripping love letter to Jef Raskin?

The GNOME HIG is garbage, and completely contrary to the way things have been done on UNIX for almost two decades. Ever hear of CUA?

Re:Good Thing(TM)

[Anonymous Coward]

NO, the "RIGHT" way as defined by the CUA interface standard, which Microsoft only adheres to (and did not invent themselves). CUA is the way it's been done on UNIX for a LONG time.

The GNOME HIG, by following Macintosh design standards, flies in the face of what was commonly accepted in the UNIX world. It has NOTHING to do with Microsoft at all--they did not invent the CUA.

Defenders of the GNOME HIG, such as yourself, are typical holier-than-thou interface zealots who assume that you know better than everyone else (but why is that a surprise, since you appear to worship Jef Raskin, the king of "I know better than you do" Land?)

Re:Good Thing(TM)

[arose]

From Wikipedia:

Used originally in the OS/2 and Microsoft Windows operating systems [..]

Re:Good Thing(TM)

[coolGuyZak]

Uhhh... you (both) seem to forget that we are not talking about "Desktop OS"... we are talking about desktop usability.

So, you shoudn't forget CDE, KDE, Enlightenment, NeXTStep, etc.

Not that it particularly matters, but I prefer the KDE way of doig things... [OK][Apply][Reset][Cancel]. The way MS does it (switch Apply & cancel around) makes no sense at all... Buttons that do (somewhat) like effects should be kept together.

(Note: in KDE not all options are always present... usually it's OK, Apply, Cancel for dialogs, and OK, Apply, Reset for (say) KControl Applets.

Re:Good Thing(TM)

[FooBarWidget]

It's based on the MacOS X UI guide. MacOS X is Good, therebefore the GIG must also be Good.

Re:Good Thing(TM)

[be-fan]

CDE, Enightenment, NeXTStep, etc, are not desktops from a statistical point of view. Basically, when GNOME and KDE were young, there were two desktop OSs: Mac and Windows. KDE went with the Windows order (the historical *NIX order), and GNOME went with the Mac order. There is no particular reason to consider either order better, though when in doubt, copying the Mac can't hurt...

Re:Good Thing(TM)

[coolGuyZak]

When KDE was young, GNOME did not exist. It was created almost exclusively because KDE used Qt, and the GNU folk didn't like the QPL. The reason why GNOME has a UI like a Mac was (originally) because they needed to differentiate themselves from KDE. Considering the history of KDE, I would postulate that it copied the *nix way of things, and what windows did is irrelevent. However, the only way to really know is ask the dude who made it.

(Amazingly enough, some still critisize KDE for using Qt, because even though the library is GPL, it is still managed by TrollTech. To them I say STFU. Please find a real reason to dislike KDE. Don't change the argument just to fit in with the rest of the close-minded fools.)

I consider GNOME as the middle child of desktops. It was never really liked, and so made a mess of itself, just to get noticed. And that's not a flame. GNOME had some things going for it, but the developers decided to create a desktop almost exclusively for idiots. I used to highly enjoy GNOME... but sometime around the 1.x-2.x switch, they bastardized their HIG. I promptly converted to KDE. Not because I hate simplicity. More because they removed the bits I liked for the sake of it.

Luckily, KDE is now in a period of usability reform. And, instead of removing features for the sake of usability, they are finding ways to make their functionality usable. I can have my cake and eat it too.

There is no particular reason to consider either order better, though when in doubt, copying the Mac can't hurt

Food for thought: Copying the mac can only hurt as much as copying windows. Both have issues with usability. Both have issues with software patents. (Not that both are equally evil, though--at least Apple contributes something useful to OSS).

Re:Good Thing(TM)

[ubernostrum]

How most open-source projects think. Hint: anybody with any experience in actual usability can tell you that users, above all else, want things that are simple and work, not things that they have ot spend six weeks configuring. Look at the iPod: simple interface, few controls, hugely popular. Look at the Mozilla suite versus Firefox: Mozilla is huge, bloated, and has more configuration options than most Slashdotters have zits. Firefox is simple, slimmed-down, has a fraction of the visible options, and has taken 10% of a previously heavily-entrenched market in a tiny amount of time.

OK to get the joke out of the way...

[Anonymous Coward]

The editors misspelt Kooperating. Zam!

Linux v. OS X

[dotslashdot]

What's the difference between Linux & OS X? Usability. And that makes all the difference. HUGE difference. KDE is great, Konqueror is nothing short of amazing in its versatility, but the lack of polish can really hurt Linux distributions. Do you want to spend your days trying to figure out why your scanner suddenly doesn't work well under the new Mandrake/Fedora/SuSe or do you want to use your scanner? Usability is important--even for Geeks--because allows you to accomplish what you need/want to do. If you enjoy trying to fix things, that's great, but most people need their computers for work/play and don't have the time or inclination to troubleshoot their main desktop computer.

Re:Linux v. OS X

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, I always thought the difference was that OS X was proprietary.

Re:Linux v. OS X

[LMCBoy]

What's the difference between Linux & OS X? Usability.

Eh...I'd say KDE usability is actually better than OS X in many respects. What you describe in your post is hardware compatibility, not usability.

Re:Linux v. OS X

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting, I didn't see OSX mentioned anywhere in the original article? Could this be a troll, or off topic?

Re:Linux v. OS X

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever. Look, not everyone is on this idiotic OSX is the greatest thing ever bandwagon so just keep comments like this wrapped in caveats like "for my tastes anyway" etc.

Some people actually *prefer* linux. Do you get that? *Most* linux users like linux over OSX! Understand? I *do not* want OSX! Is this sinking in?

Besides, all OSX users are women or gay canadians anyway.

Re:Linux v. OS X

[zsau]

Macs aren't the be-all-end-all of usability. The Mac UI has many problems itself: Consider the case of menus for instance. If you click, it closes the menu. That seems to make sense, except when you consider that it closes the menu if you click on a separator (which you probably did because you mis-aimed given that there's no clear separator between the separator and the items above and below ... now you need to open the menu again, re-aim, and perhaps repeat!), and the menu closes if you click an item with a submenu, which you probably did because you want the damn thing to open!

Not to mention the amount of times I've been confused/lost time (or even slept in!) because some dialog boxes are instant apply, others are apply-when-you-close and others are explicit-apply. Of course you have to guess which is which (even different pages of the same, central System Preferences box behave randomly differently!), whereas in X, the different desktop environments either behave close enough or look radically different.

I'm not saying that X-based Dekstop Environments have no usability problems, or even necessarily that they have less. I'm saying that we shouldn't glorify OS X, because it's just the same mess we already have, but with the menubar at the top of the screen.

(Whether your scanner works isn't an issue of usability really (it's an issue of driver support), and in any case it's something that's being worked on. Many distributions allow you to plug in hardware and have it 'just work' nowadays, and just as Mac OS X has drivers for some thingns Linux doesn't, Linux has drivers for some (modern, desktop-oriented) things Mac OS X doesn't. If you want any random piece of hardware working, you use Windows.)

Re:Linux v. OS X

[drsquare]

The problem with KDE is, even if its usability is fine, it's all thrown out the window as soon as you open non-KDE apps, because in their infinite wisdom, open source programmers decided to divide programs up into groups, each group having completely different interfaces and settings. For example if you set up a theme in KDE, and you open a program which uses gtk, your theme doesn't work. The same goes for running QT programs under gnome. What genius decided that was a good idea? Surely the apps should use the same toolkit for a consistent interface? This also means that taskbar applets are incompatible, so either effort is duplicated, or you can only use half of the applets available.

Also KDE is cluttered and messy. Even simple dialog boxes seem to be over 1200 pixels wide. There's no excuse for this at all, I dread to think what it would be like using KDE with 1024x768, half of the options would be off the screen. It seems that the KDE developers all have giant resolutions and think everyone else does as well. And the start menu is about half a mile high. The categories of applications are flooded with near-identical programs, and things like Open Office don't appear at all so you have to launch it from the command line.

The best thing Linux could do to improve the user experience is to stop having ten million toolkits and environments and have a STANDARD CONSISTENT INTERFACE! Programs which don't use the settings you've chosen should be the exception, not the rule.

Re:Linux v. OS X

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes! OS X really has it's share of usability problems.

Another one:
Ever tried to open the same pdf file in two windows, because you want, for example, compare the first page to the second side by side? Near impossible, unless you resort to opening the same file with two different programs (say preview and acroread).

Re:Linux v. OS X

[MrHanky]

Oh, come on. What you say about KDE and Gnome goes for use of various toolkits and libraries in Windows and OS X as well (the latter can even use two differet window border styles at the same time, for double consitency). Getting rid of the various toolkits will either kill backwards compatibility (how are you going to run Notepad or Wordpad if all you have is .NET without reimplementing them from scratch?) or future innovation (how are you going to develop good apps if all you have is $oldlibrary), and is about as good for usability as murdering the bourgeoisie is for maintaining equality and justice: It doesn't even seem sane, and it isn't.

Additionally, KDE runs very well at 1024x768, and if you use a good (ie Debian-based) distro, OpenOffice.org does show up in the menues, right in the 'Office' sub-menu.

Re:Linux v. OS X

[Ricin]

I don't know about vice versa, but GTK apps can be made to blend in quite well with KDE without resorting to having "sort of the same theme for both": GTK-Qt Theme Engine http://www.freedesktop.org/Software/gtk-qt

Re:Linux v. OS X

[LMCBoy]

The problem with KDE is, even if its usability is fine, it's all thrown out the window as soon as you open non-KDE apps, because in their infinite wisdom, open source programmers decided to divide programs up into groups, each group having completely different interfaces and settings.

Yes, this is completely unique to open source. OS X would never craft a commpletely unique interface for, say, Quicktime. Or The Calculator. It's all about the HIG for them, right?

The larger point here is that opne source developers are not a single entity, so *of course* they don't necessarily coordinate UI decisions. However, this is starting to change.
And commercial desktops like OS X and Windows don't have this excuse.

Even simple dialog boxes seem to be over 1200 pixels wide.

I hate to call you a liar, can you tell us what this "simpe" dialog is?

Re:Linux v. OS X

[spitzak]

I agree that the scanner not working in the first place is a hardware compatability problem.

However the poster seemed to be complaining about a scanner that *was* working and suddently stopped. This *does* seem to be a problem in Linux, it has happened to me and friends of mine (for me it is sound playback which quits and does not return unless rebooting, but plays just fine when it does work, for my friend it was a PCMCIA storage card that worked perfectly until he changed something supposedly unrelated and it never worked again). These problems do indicate that something is wrong in Linux.

Re:Linux v. OS X

[Mornelithe]

The problem with KDE is, even if its usability is fine, it's all thrown out the window as soon as you open non-KDE apps

Then don't use any non-KDE apps. I get through my day just fine without GTK/Gnome being installed on my system at all. I might just be able to do the reverse, if I were a fan of Gnome.

For example if you set up a theme in KDE, and you open a program which uses gtk, your theme doesn't work.

It does if you have the gtk-qt theme installed.

Surely the apps should use the same toolkit for a consistent interface?

Perhaps these independent volunteers are using whatever toolkit they personally prefer, and aren't all part of some sort of big conspiracy to produce inconsistent interfaces on Linux.

Or perhaps you can put forward a good plan for making everyone who likes Gnome abandon their values and take up all the code, ideas and direction of KDE wholesale.

The best thing Linux could do to improve the user experience is to stop having ten million toolkits and environments and have a STANDARD CONSISTENT INTERFACE!

The best thing you could do is to develop an elementary understanding of how open source software (the desktop environments in particular) is produced. Then you might realize why your suggestions about common toolkits and unifying the desktop environments don't really make any sense.

Re:Linux v. OS X

[drsquare]

Then don't use any non-KDE apps

Great, so the only way to make the Linux UI even remotely consistent is to uninstall half your applications. That's the most fucking stupid thing I've ever heard. Who the hell came up with that one? Not only the inconsistency, but now you've got two different sets of libraries runnign, eating up ram, and twice as much to upgrade/patch/install. All for ABSOLUTELY ZERO EXTRA GAIN. It's like having two steering wheels in your car, or two languages in one book. I think it's time for Linus to crack some heads together.

Re:Linux v. OS X

[Mornelithe]

What the hell are you going on about?

Great, so the only way to make the Linux UI even remotely consistent is to uninstall half your applications.

KDE is a complete desktop environment. If you have both KDE and Gnome installed, then half of your programs do the same thing as the other half. It's quite possible to use KDE applications for everything, unless you're trying to run something that's not a typical desktop application.

There are only a couple exceptions I can think of as far as 'things people would use every day' are concerned (and they're for artists, not a typical desktop user).

Most of the inconsistency comes from more hardcore users, who feel they have to pick and choose from the various desktop environments, or from external programs. Konqueror and kopete work fine, but some people prefer firefox and gaim, and use them. Their systems will look a little inconsistent. However, it's through their own choices. KDE can serve as a fine desktop, without any need gnome/gtk/etc. applications.

It's like having two steering wheels in your car

Uh...

or two languages in one book.

No, it's like printing copies of a book in two different languages, so that both people who speak English and those who speak Spanish can read the story.

More than that, it's like packaging each chapter separately, so that if you want, you can assemble a book that has half English and half Spanish. But that's in no way forced upon you.

I think it's time for Linus to crack some heads together.

Linus has nothing to do with the desktop environments. In fact, KDE (and Gnome, too, I'm sure) runs on many different platforms, most of which don't use the Linux kernel at all.

By the way, had you read my whole post, you might have caught the fact that both these projects are produce by volunteers who build with whatever they want. You can't force them to do things only one way.

Why don't you start a project that picks one of the desktop environments, and proclaims that it is the One Official Linux Desktop. Then, when you get enough support, you can officially say that it's consistent, and the other stuff out there are just fringe projects, not part of the Linux Desktop.

That's the most fucking stupid thing I've ever heard.

Perhaps you should consider reading your own post.

Usability is a good thing

[mislam]

Glad to see usability of open source software coming to fore front of the development. This is vital in terms of winning the heart and sould (and mind?) of regular everyday Joe users.

Re:Usability is a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you mean heartd?

Re:Usability is a good thing

[LifesABeach]

I know I am preaching to the chior about this. But if Al' really wants to see this "usability" work, then PLEASE have a web page "mini how to" on how to make KDE act and feel like Windows so that my boss will not know any better. The benefits of that one web page would be like a shot that could be heard all over the world.

Linux usability definitely needs a lot of work

[timecop]

The other day I downloaded Fedora Core 4 DVD to try it out.

Usability problems already began right at the installer. Below is some things I noticed that should probably have been fixed long time ago:

1) I noticed the installer was using gnome-themed Yes/No dialog boxes when it wanted to ask questions. The problem is, half of those dialogs used GTK2's Yes/No buttons (red/green circle) and the other half used GNOME's yes/no buttons - green enter symbol and a red X. This is very inconsistent and confusing to the user.
2) At a number of times, default option in a Yes/No dialog was not the "cancel" one but one which would make irreversible changes. This is not good - what if someone accidentally presses "enter" on a dialog like this?
3) Keyboard navigation, while present had several bugs. At one point, installer asked for a root password, and when I entered a "weak" password, it popped up a warning dialog about this. The problem is, after I dismissed the dialog (with a esc key), keyboard focus was no longer on the installer! (or anythign else for that matter, no amount of alt-tabbing or pressing tab would get the focus back on the installer. If someone without a mouse was running this, at this point they have no other choice but to abort the install and start from beginning.

There was some other issues, but these are all I can remember off hand, and remember, this is just in the OS installer (GUI) itself! I can't imagine how much worse it gets once the system is installed and gets used. So, to make a long story short, any kind of cooperation to take usability one step higher is certainly welcome. Unfortunately this is only for a single KDE app, which isnt really unique in its function, but any change is better than nothing.

Re:Linux usability definitely needs a lot of work

[bullitB]

The problem is, half of those dialogs used GTK2's Yes/No buttons (red/green circle) and the other half used GNOME's yes/no buttons - green enter symbol and a red X. This is very inconsistent and confusing to the user.

Not nearly as confusing as why everyone insists on perpetuating the Yes/No/Cancel paradigm. I don't see why no one else is adopting the new Apple-style verb-based dialog buttons. For example, in a Linux install I might see:

"Your screen's fonts are of a really low resolution. Do you want to install 100 dpi X11 fonts? This will make the fonts look better, but you may want to not install the fonts to save disk space." ...with the buttons "Yes" and "No". This sucks. You basically have to read the entire alert to even know what's being asked, and even then there's some ambiguity. Does "Yes" mean yes, I want to save disk space? Does "No" mean I don't care about my hard drive, and want pretty fonts?

A vastly more usable dialog would have buttons labeled "Install Fonts" and "Don't Install Fonts." No ambiguity, and the dialog itself is much easier to recognize.

Re:Linux usability definitely needs a lot of work

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, exactly. Acutally there's a whole section on Microsoft's User Interface Design and Development (website) about User Interface Text and how to write proper sentences/etc for the dialogs used by the windows applications. There's similar information in the GNOME HIG 2.0, however it seems even redhat developers themselves don't quite follow these in their installer. :(

Re:Linux usability definitely needs a lot of work

[Anonymous Coward]

>>A vastly more usable dialog would have buttons labeled "Install Fonts" and "Don't Install Fonts." No ambiguity, and the dialog itself is much easier to recognize.

But sometimes the user dosen't know which option is best. So perhaps the dialog should also have a button labeled "User is confused. Let the computer decide."

Re:Linux usability definitely needs a lot of work

[CableModemSniper]

word.

Re:Linux usability definitely needs a lot of work

[Anonymous Coward]

That's retarted. Yes means 'yes, do something that will install/change something on my box' and no means 'no, cancel, don't change or install anything'. That's a lot simpler than reading what the damn button says every time.

Re:Linux usability definitely needs a lot of work

[Brandybuck]

You basically have to read the entire alert to even know what's being asked...

Pardon me for being dense, but what the fsck is wrong with that? Let me guess, the next Apple interface won't even have text, and dialog messages will consist of pantomime quicktime movies...

Re:Linux usability definitely needs a lot of work

[zsau]

I don't see why no one else is adopting the new Apple-style verb-based dialog buttons.

They are. Take a look at http://rox.sourceforge.net/phpwiki/index.php/Style Guide/Dialogs for instance. (That's from the ROX Desktop style guide, because I use a ROX Desktop, but it shows that at least two non-Apple desktop environments recommend the use of verb-based dialog buttons.)

Re:Linux usability definitely needs a lot of work

[be-fan]

Why do all that reading when you don't have to? It's about efficiency. If you can get the same thing across with little text and well-chosen button labels, why not do it?

Re:Linux usability definitely needs a lot of work

[Anonymous Coward]

That's retarted. Yes means 'yes, do something that will install/change something on my box' and no means 'no, cancel, don't change or install anything'. That's a lot simpler than reading what the damn button says every time.

Then people are retarted [sic]. This has been tested to death and people just don't read the alerts. Getting rid of yes/no and ok/cancel means people click the wrong button less often. So, do we bang our heads against the wall and cry about users not doing what we want them to and call them names, or do we just change the frickin' buttons so it works better for everybody?

Re:Linux usability definitely needs a lot of work

[bullitB]

Bravo. Nicely done, ROX.

Now, let's get more developers to follow this stuff. :)

Re:Linux usability definitely needs a lot of work

[pyrrhonist]

Pardon me for being dense, but what the fsck is wrong with that?

What's wrong with it? It violates proper UI design!

A properly designed dialog box does not force the user to think about what the choices will actually do. Dialog boxes with a long string of ambiguous text and Yes/No buttons violate this concept, because the user has to read the text very carefully before he makes a choice. This forces the user to stop thinking about what he was trying to actually accomplish with the application in the first place and forces him to figure out what the developer actually meant. This leads to both mistakes and a loss in user productivity. If the buttons are clearly labelled with what the choice will actually do, the user is less prone to make a mistake.

Re:Linux usability definitely needs a lot of work

[Brandybuck]

A properly designed dialog box does not force the user to think about what the choices will actually do.

Aaargh! We've dumbed down the UI to the level of the flatworm! Why don't we just have a dialog box that has a nice smiley face and single button labeled "okey dokey"?

If OSX is about not thinking, then keep it the hell away from me.

Re:Linux usability definitely needs a lot of work

[grammar fascist]

If OSX is about not thinking, then keep it the hell away from me.

It's about letting the user get a vague idea of what's going on just by glancing. Every good UI has a presentation that allows this.

Imagine you've got some batch process that runs under a GUI. Every once in a while, something comes up that needs your attention. A message dialog gives you some options. Imagine there are four types. Would you rather see "OK/Cancel" every time one pops up, or a couple of buttons that let you know exactly what your options are just by glancing at them?

It's also about being unambiguous. A previous poster already pointed this out. Your common everyday English sentence has tens of valid ways to be parsed (ask any NLP researcher), and it's really easy to come up with something for which "Yes/No/Cancel" can be misinterpreted.

Re:Linux usability definitely needs a lot of work

[entrigant]

Do you want to install 100 dpi X11 fonts?

This is a yes or no question. Yes I want to install them. No I don't. The "user" should, in all circumstances, read the entire dialog before pressing a button. If the user had, and assuming the user has half a brain, then they saw the question, and the know what they are answering.

Re:Linux usability definitely needs a lot of work

[entrigant]

I noticed the installer was using gnome-themed Yes/No dialog boxes when it wanted to ask questions. The problem is, half of those dialogs used GTK2's Yes/No buttons (red/green circle) and the other half used GNOME's yes/no buttons - green enter symbol and a red X. This is very inconsistent and confusing to the user.

I pity no one that would get confused by that. Seriously, if that shit is confusing you then you have other issues you need to resolve before you get back on the computer.

Otherwise, you make some good points. Just remember usable does not have to mean dumbed down. You can make an interface that is usable for intelligent people too. Us intelligent people would appreciate it!

Re:Linux usability definitely needs a lot of work

[John Newman]

Not nearly as confusing as why everyone insists on perpetuating the Yes/No/Cancel paradigm. I don't see why no one else is adopting the new Apple-style verb-based dialog buttons.

You're right on the money about just what a good idea it is. Ideally, you should be able to get the jist without even reading the main text. It's more efficient, as well as being less prone to error. But it's not exactly "new". It was one of the founding principles of the Macintosh interface in 1984, and it was one of those little gems of an idea that they got exactly right. It's still enshrined in the (ageing) official Mac Human Interface Guidelines.

To paraphrase a cool flash from last fall:
"Are you sure you don't want to not decertify your non-vote for someone other than John Kerry?"
Yes/No
vs.
Vote for Kerry/Change Vote

Re:Linux usability definitely needs a lot of work

[John Newman]

A properly designed dialog box does not force the user to think about what the choices will actually do.

I think you were thinking the right way, but you just gave a perfect example of the ambiguity of language that can torpedo the Yes/No/Cancel paradigm.

It's not that the user shouldn't think about what the choices will do. Of course he should. That's the whole point of the box, to present options. (One of the repliers obviously misinterpeted your post in this way.) But the user shouldn't have to ever think about what the choices are, or have to stop to figure out how to properly interpret the text in the box. It's not about reading comprehension. It's about presenting a choice as clearly as possible. Verb-labeled buttons make the choices as stark as possible, so the user can spend his time weighing which choice is better, instead of working out what the heck the choices actually are.

Re:Linux usability definitely needs a lot of work

[John Newman]

But sometimes the user dosen't know which option is best. So perhaps the dialog should also have a button labeled "User is confused. Let the computer decide."

That's what sane default options are supposed to be for. Why you should never map an irreversibly destructive action to a default-key button.

Re:Linux usability definitely needs a lot of work

[John Newman]

This is a yes or no question. Yes I want to install them. No I don't.

It takes five seconds of programmer time to substitute "Install fonts" and "Don't install fonts" for "Yes" and "No", and the choices are now absolutely unambiguous. Any programmer with half a brain would realize those five seconds will save his users, not to mention his company's support folks, hours of time in aggregate - re-reading the text, undoing an undesired action, looking for help, etc. It's not a matter of reading the box, it's a matter of understanding what "Yes" and "No" mean beyond a reaonable doubt without feeling like you're taking the SATs again. People are using your program to do something, not for the sake of the pure joy of having figured out what the heck you meant when you wrote that box at 4am.

Longer explanation of why Yes/No just never works well:
The box needs to be long enough to explain what it wants to do and why it wants to do it. For example, "Do you want to install 100 dpi X11 fonts?" makes absolutely no sense in isolation. Why is the computer asking me such an arcane question? You have to add the reason, like the GP did: "Your screen's fonts are of a really low resolution." For non-obvious questions like this, you also should explain why you might or might not want to choose either option: "Do you want to install 100 dpi X11 fonts? This will make the fonts look better, but you may want to not install the fonts to save disk space." Altogether, this makes a well-written and informative box, but it's long. Yes/No doesn't work after a paragraph. What part are you saying "Yes" to, anyway? But with verb-labeled buttons, it's instantly obvious. You can read and understand the text, and then don't need to waste any more time understanding which button does what. It's instantly, idiot-proofily obvious. That's good interface design. Yes/No works, barely, when the entire box is one statement, like "Do you want to save changes before quitting?" But even then, verb boxes are more efficient. With Yes/No, you need to read the whole thing very carefully, as carefully as the font example above, to make sure you aren't screwing yourself by instinctively pressing "Yes". If the buttons were labeled "Save" and "Don't Save", you can safely skim the box, recognize it's the same as always, and know that "Save" will do exactly that. Little things like that separate a good interface from an infuriating pile of slag.

Re:Linux usability definitely needs a lot of work

[pyrrhonist]

Yes, that's exactly what I mean. That didn't come across the way I phrased it.

Re:Linux usability definitely needs a lot of work

[pyrrhonist]

Aaargh! We've dumbed down the UI to the level of the flatworm! Why don't we just have a dialog box that has a nice smiley face and single button labeled "okey dokey"?

It's not "dumbing down the UI", it's making the user's choices explicit to help him avoid mistakes. This should be the goal of all UIs. Think about it. Is it easier and less time consuming to use an unambiguous UI? Sure it is. Wouldn't you much rather use a simple to understand UI? Sure you would.

The user shouldn't have to figure out what the developer means by "Yes" or "No" in relation to the message in the box. Dialogs with a Yes/No choice are hostile to the user and time consuming for even expert users (i.e. you can't just click a button without checking if it's the correct one first even if you've encountered the dialog before). When the buttons explicitly tell the user what the choice is going to do, it is easy for the user to pick out the correct choice without having to think about whether "Yes" means one thing or another. Furthermore, when the choices are explicit, expert users can move through the dialog much easier.

Maybe an example would help. Consider if the following horribly screwed up message was displayed by a dialog box:

Would you prefer to not expurgate another drive instead of drive C?

First imagine this message with buttons labelled "Yes" and "No", and then imagine it with buttons labelled, "Erase C" and "Don't Erase C".

Do you see how it's explicitly obvious what is about to happen with the second set of buttons no matter how screwed up the message in the dialog box is? The user does not have to figure out what action the button is going to perform in relation to the message, because it's obvious.

Do you see that no matter how complicated the choices are, it's always easier for the user if the actions are explicitly labelled?

Re:Linux usability definitely needs a lot of work

[Anonymous Coward]

The GNOME HIG explicitly says to use verb dialogs, in fact to use verb buttons in general unless there's a good solid reason not to.

The GTK+ 2.x dialog code explicitly encourages you to do this correctly, it's NO EXTRA STEPS to put "Install more monkeys" on a button instead of "OK", although it does take an extra step if you want the monkey option to have an icon of a monkey...

So when you say "no one else" you mean "the installer dialog I happened to look at". Which is, you know, fine, except that it's going to lead to the usual Slashdot ignorance war where various people argue about the 2005 Linux desktop based on their experience of Red Hat 6.x

Re:Linux usability definitely needs a lot of work

[Anonymous Coward]

It's also enshrined in the GNOME Human Interface Guidelines and is thus obeyed both by GNOME core dialogs and by plenty of GNOME applications (and please file bugs against any you find where the dialogs remain confusing)

For example if you try to quit Gnumeric, the GNOME spreadsheet, without saving your work, you will see a dialog which offers to [Discard] or [Save] the changes, and a [Don't quit] option if you change your mind after realising what you've done. If you have several documents open, Gnumeric extends its description of the problem and adds buttons for [Save all], [Discard all].

Re:Linux usability definitely needs a lot of work

[The Shrubber]

Think of it as a question of clarity.

Take scientific research, for example. A large part of a scientist's life is publishing his work, communicating his results. Would you complain that he was dumbing down his articles just because he worked extra hard to make them easy to read? No, you'd applaud him for conveying difficult concepts as effectively as possible. A scientific article should let the reader focus on the science, and not wade through poor grammar, ambiguous sentences, and various other sources of unreadability.

Similarly, a GUI should let the user focus on what he wants to do without having to wade through poor gramamr, unclear choices, and various other sources of unusability.

Re:Linux usability definitely needs a lot of work

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should the user know what the hell 100dpi X11 fonts are? The problem is that the dialog exists in the first place, not the way it reads.

The deafult install should just install this stuff automatically, disk space is cheap, no one cares. Of course the option to remove unwanted features to save space should be there so that all of us geeks who actually care can set things up just the way we want them, but the *vast* majority of users would have no idea what the dialog was talking about in the first place.

Let the program make the technical implementation decisions and let the user decide about things releveant to his goals (likely "please install this without breaking anything"). Don't ask, do instead and give the option to undo.

Re:Linux usability definitely needs a lot of work

[IamTheRealMike]

The guy was almost certainly looking at the Debian installer, which at least traditionally had a habit of asking lots of questions like that. It was basically a text book case of how not to design an easy to use installer. I have no idea if the new one is better in this regard, I never tried it, but it's still textual.

Re:Linux usability definitely needs a lot of work

[delete]

Let me guess, the next Apple interface won't even have text

Apple are way ahead of you...

Re:Linux usability definitely needs a lot of work

[chthonicdaemon]

Him: You basically have to read the entire alert to even know what's being asked...

You: Pardon me for being dense, but what the fsck is wrong with that? Let me guess, the next Apple interface won't even have text, and dialog messages will consist of pantomime quicktime movies...

The problem is that very few people read dialog boxes. This is a human attribute that is not going to change easily, so people who design things that people use should take it into account. Design of worker environments on shop floors take into account that it requires more effort to reach outside a semicircle with a radius of half your armslength. They don't say: the guy is lazy and should just reach for the button/nailgun/whatever. In the same way, the average joe doesn't read very fast -- even avid readers like me dont want to read the full text of every dialog box. A dialog box with more than a few lines of text will probably not get read.

You have probably skimmed over parts of this post!

Making dialogs give you the least amount of information that allows you to make a choice is just like commenting your code. It's not for when you are one with your code and know exactly what's going on, it's for crunch time 3 AM when it's not all that clear whether pressing yes or no will delete the info on your hard drive.

Re:Linux usability definitely needs a lot of work

[JohnFluxx]

"Not nearly as confusing as why everyone insists on perpetuating the Yes/No/Cancel paradigm."

In KDE having Yes/No/Cancel is considered a bug. If you find any please file a bug against the app.

Re:Linux usability definitely needs a lot of work

[shakah]

Maybe an example would help. Consider if the following horribly screwed up message was displayed by a dialog box:

Would you prefer to not expurgate another drive instead of drive C?

First imagine this message with buttons labelled "Yes" and "No", and then imagine it with buttons labelled, "Erase C" and "Don't Erase C".

Do you see how it's explicitly obvious what is about to happen with the second set of buttons no matter how screwed up the message in the dialog box is? The user does not have to figure out what action the button is going to perform in relation to the message, because it's obvious.

Do you see that no matter how complicated the choices are, it's always easier for the user if the actions are explicitly labelled?

Your example is a bit disingenuous -- we could just as easily magine a dialog box with two buttons labelled "expurgate another drive instead of C" and "do not expurgate another drive instead of C", versus a dialog with a message of "Erase C ?" with "Yes" and "No" buttons.

Which is easier to use?

Re:Linux usability definitely needs a lot of work

[Brandybuck]

Which is why we're glad you're not designing user interfaces. Seriously.

Re:Linux usability definitely needs a lot of work

[pyrrhonist]

Your example is a bit disingenuous -- we could just as easily magine a dialog box with two buttons labelled "expurgate another drive instead of C" and "do not expurgate another drive instead of C", versus a dialog with a message of "Erase C ?" with "Yes" and "No" buttons. Which is easier to use?

No, you're not getting it. You've zeroed in on the fact that a developer could obfuscate a UI, but this is not what I was trying to illustrate. Thus you've simply succeeded in illustrating two examples of bad UI design. My example was not about the possibility that a UI could be obfuscated, but rather that even if a dialog's message was hard for the user to understand, properly designed choices would succeed in helping the user. That is why I made a contrived example. Understand?

The point I am trying to get across is that no matter how unclear the message is to the user, the choices he is shown should be unambiguous in relation to that message. The goal of designing a good UI is to make it painfully obvious to the user what the UI actually does. A dialog box with a simple "Yes/No" choice does not succeed in this, because it offers no affordances for what action the dialog will take.

Re:Linux usability definitely needs a lot of work

[shakah]

Actually I mostly agree with your points.

I was just pointing out that examples like the one you provided can be twisted in just about any direction.

Re:Linux usability definitely needs a lot of work

[Brandybuck]

The user shouldn't have to figure out what the developer means by "Yes" or "No" in relation to the message in the box.

Call me an elitist, but I've no use for users who don't know what "yes" and "no" mean. Seriously. If my dialog text has bad grammar, then tell me and I'll fix it. If it's ambiguous, then tell me and I'll fix it. But slavish adherence to out-of-ass usability rules just so slashdot posters are happy is something I won't do.

I have written dialogs that used verbs instead of answers, when it makes sense. But I am not going to design my dialogs with the assumption that my users are idiots. I have too much respect for them to do that.

There's also another factor, and that's the coding itself. Most confirmation dialogs can be written as boolean functions, and even used within if statements. Yes==true ; no==false. Getting away from this perfect mapping is dangerous, because if we're asking a boolean true/false question, we should be getting a boolean true/false answer back.

When the buttons explicitly tell the user what the choice is going to do, it is easy for the user to pick out the correct choice without having to think about whether "Yes" means one thing or another.

So why not put the entire dialog text into a button? That's the result if you keep following your chain of logic. Because you're assuming that the user will never read the actual dialog text. Well if not, why put it there at all?

To reiterate, if my dialog text has bad grammar, is confusing, or does not lend itself to a simple boolean yes/no answer, then log a bug and I'll fix it.

Re:Linux usability definitely needs a lot of work

[pyrrhonist]

I was just pointing out that examples like the one you provided can be twisted in just about any direction.

So true. That's an excellant point, and definitely something to keep in mind when designing UIs.

Re:Linux usability definitely needs a lot of work

[MikeBabcock]

The *default* button should always be the one that continues to the next step.

Going back is a non-default action. ESC fills that role fine; although unimplemented.

Re:Linux usability definitely needs a lot of work

[pyrrhonist]

Which is why we're glad you're not designing user interfaces. Seriously.

That was completely uncalled for. :p

Re:Linux usability definitely needs a lot of work

[pyrrhonist]

Call me an elitist, but I've no use for users who don't know what "yes" and "no" mean.

It's not that they don't know what "Yes" and "No" mean, it's that it's clearer and easier if they don't have to connect the "Yes" and "No" with choices given by the message in the dialog.

But slavish adherence to out-of-ass usability rules just so slashdot posters are happy is something I won't do.

As a UI designer, your job is to make it easier for all levels of users to use the application.

But I am not going to design my dialogs with the assumption that my users are idiots. I have too much respect for them to do that.

You're not assuming that the users are idiots. You're offering the user affordances to help him navigate, which ends up helping all levels of users. By forcing the user to figure out what your dialog means, you're disrespecting your user by making them use a hostile UI.

Most confirmation dialogs can be written as boolean functions, and even used within if statements. Yes==true ; no==false. Getting away from this perfect mapping is dangerous, because if we're asking a boolean true/false question, we should be getting a boolean true/false answer back.

It's still a boolean function regardless of what the two buttons have on them.

So why not put the entire dialog text into a button? That's the result if you keep following your chain of logic.

No, you don't get it: You're not trying to fill up the buttons with as much information as possible. You're goal as a UI designer is to provide the user with affordances to make navigating the UI easier and quicker. Clearly labelled buttons provide an affordance for the user, whereas "Yes/No" choices do not.

Because you're assuming that the user will never read the actual dialog text. Well if not, why put it there at all?

No, I'm making the choices that the dialog box offers explicit, which makes the action that will be performed obvious to the user. The message should still provide additional information that will help the user make the decision.

To reiterate, if my dialog text has bad grammar, is confusing, or does not lend itself to a simple boolean yes/no answer, then log a bug and I'll fix it.

Again, it's not about defects, it's about making the UI easier to use.

Re:Linux usability definitely needs a lot of work

[Brandybuck]

It's not that they don't know what "Yes" and "No" mean, it's that it's clearer and easier if they don't have to connect the "Yes" and "No" with choices given by the message in the dialog.

In real life conversations, outside of software, we ask yes/no questions ALL THE TIME. It doesn't confuse the people we are talking to. It doesn't make it easier for them if we hand them a cue card with possible answers on it.

Question: "Are you coming to the party?"
Answer: "Yes."

See how simple that is? I fail to understand how I can make a dialog asking the same question any easier for the user.

Again, it's not about defects, it's about making the UI easier to use.

As near as I can tell, it's about slavish adherence to someone's made up rule. Where are the studies demonstrating that yes/no is more difficult than verb/verb? Merely pointing to the Apple interface guidelines is not good enough. I'm not going to rewrite all of my dialogs just because you say so. Show me the evidence!

Merely saying something isn't usable isn't good enough. Merely saying it confuses users isn't good enough. Merely saying that Apple does it one way isn't good enough. I want to know way yes/no is acceptable in spoken language but unacceptable if used as labels in a dialog.

p.s. I have personally received letters of praise from my users, remarking on how much more usable my software is from my competitors. I take pride in that. It therefore is somewhat insulting for you to come along, who has probably never even seen my software, and claim that it's all wrong because I don't have Apple's Seal of Approval on my interface.

Re:Linux usability definitely needs a lot of work

[pyrrhonist]

In real life conversations, outside of software, we ask yes/no questions ALL THE TIME.

We also ask questions that provide explicit choices all the time too.

"Do you want pancakes or waffles for breakfast?"

Furthermore, real world metaphors rarely, if at all, ever apply to user interfaces.

It doesn't make it easier for them if we hand them a cue card with possible answers on it.

That's a bad metaphor. On the dialog, you're already handing the user a cure card with "Yes" and "No". Why not save the user some frustration and just be explicit?

I fail to understand how I can make a dialog asking the same question any easier for the user.

Again, that's a bad example. Look at some dialog boxes from actual products.

As near as I can tell, it's about slavish adherence to someone's made up rule.

No it isn't; it's entirely based on HCI guidelines and research.

Where are the studies demonstrating that yes/no is more difficult than verb/verb?

There are hundreds of studies. You should do some reading on Human-Computer Interaction and Cognitive Psychology.

See the bibliography for The Design of Everyday Things by Donald Norman.

Merely pointing to the Apple interface guidelines is not good enough. I'm not going to rewrite all of my dialogs just because you say so. Show me the evidence!

The Apple interface guidelines are based on many years of research by many people who are very respected in HCI. They are not to be dismissed lightly.

However, if you don't believe either me or Apple, then maybe you'll believe the de facto reference for UI design, Desiging the User Interface by Ben Shneiderman.

It therefore is somewhat insulting for you to come along, who has probably never even seen my software, and claim that it's all wrong because I don't have Apple's Seal of Approval on my interface.

First of all, I never once claimed that your interfaces were wrong, because you, "don't have Apple's Seal of Approval". I merely pointed out a better way of doing things based on research in HCI done by people with far more experience in HCI than either of us. You are far too sensitive if you find that insulting.

Secondly, may I remind you that you insulted me for no apparent reason.

Some Screenshots from KDE SVN

[Anonymous Coward]

http://img99.echo.cx/my.php?image=snapshot10qu.jpg
http://img127.echo.cx/my.php?image=snapshot11yl.pn g
http://img128.echo.cx/my.php?image=snapshot18am.jp g
http://img263.echo.cx/my.php?image=snapshot19ir.jp g
http://img102.echo.cx/my.php?image=snapshot22rk.jp g
http://img99.echo.cx/my.php?image=snapshot39vf.jpg
http://img241.echo.cx/my.php?image=snapshot42sc.jp g
http://img288.echo.cx/my.php?image=snapshot54gf.jp g
http://img152.echo.cx/my.php?image=ss6id.jpg

Re:Some Screenshots from KDE SVN

[Brandybuck]

Sorry, but those images come from the .cx domain. I still haven't recovered from the last image I saw at the .cx domain. You can't fool me twice.

Re:Some Screenshots from KDE SVN

[Anonymous Coward]

Not everything under .cx is bad... those pictures are just fine.

Re:Some Screenshots from KDE SVN

[Anonymous Coward]

Sigh. Some people have no sense of humour.

Albert Cid?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like code for some sort of illicit drug!

That would be "kooperating", thankyouverymuch

[melted]

That would be "kooperating", thankyouverymuch

Shakespeare

[flood6]

provides a neat look

Did we run out of adjectives?

Re:My problem with Openusability

[Anonymous Coward]

There is possibly a reason _you_ think nobody else displays lists in reverse-chronological order.

I, for one, regularly use reverse-chronological order for e.g. my e-mail.

Re:My problem with Openusability

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree 100%. I also read my mail in reverse chronological order, and for many forums, I find it is useful as well.
If the thread is 15 pages deep, I don't want to go to page 15 to see the current stuff, I can if I need to, but give me the information I want first.
Anyone who calls themselves some sort of "usability-expert" even if they state they are only partially trained, and doesn't think about things like this, should consider another field.

Re:My problem with Openusability

[Anonymous Coward]

The Slashdot front page is in reverse chronological order.

I want a comment feature!

[Cinquero]

And not only for PDF files. Just put a transparent layer on top of every page and let the user write his comments on it, make some sketches etc. and save it along with the commented file to some other person, eg. the author...

Re:My problem with Openusability

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't get it (I'm the original poster). Keep in mind I'm talking about the messages in each thread, not the list of threads in the forums. Anyway, the default display must not be in reverse-chronological order. Explanation:

It's assumed that the default settings are for newcomers, guests, and casual users. These users usually want to read the entire thread, not just the latest comments (you can figure out why yourself). Try reading an entire thread, with messages that may be longer than one screen, in sequence, when it's displayed in reverse order. You'll see what I mean.

For frequent users, it's assumed that they will setup an account, login, and set their

preference to suit their own reading style.

Note: this is for threads and order of messages in threads. Not for forums and order of threads in forums, or blogs and order of articles in blogs, etc. E.g., in Slashdot, the front page articles are listed in reverse order, but the comments are listed in chronological order (by default).

Anyone who calls themselves some sort of "usability-expert" even if they state they are only partially trained, and doesn't think about things like this, should consider another field.

Take your arrogant, ignorant statements and shove them up your ass.

Forsooth

[Anonymous Coward]

Methinks you art a cad!

wtf

[lubricated]

before worrying about usablity they should worry about functionality, I don't care how usuable a pdf viewer is if it renders incorectly to the point of being useless.

Re:wtf

[Anonymous Coward]

To their credit the kpdf from kde 3.4 loads pdfs with amazing speed and has really good search capabilities finally. no more need to install acroread (kghostscript is a good enough backup reader for the small percentage of files where fonts are messed up with kpdf...math notation stuff usually)

Re:wtf

[Mornelithe]

Care to be specific? KPDF renders all PDFs I've ever tried fine. If you have some that don't, then perhaps you should post bug reports and let the developers know what isn't working. That way the bugs can get fixed, and you won't have to sit around bitching on Slashdot (which helps exactly no one) anymore.

Re:wtf

[cmacb]

Well, it sure doesn't render all PDFs that I've tried. I keep a copy of Acroread around just in case. I keep Kpdf, Kghostview, and Xghostview installed and for any given PDF one of them or all three may fail to render it properly. They can also be extremely slow at times. While I'd say that MOST of the time the open source version are faster than Acroread I've seen exceptions (as recently as two days ago) that would take several minutes to display a fairly ordinary looking page in the open version and display almost immediately in Acroread. One thing I'm not sure of is whether the PDF file format is totally open, or does Adobe hold some information back? Maybe it would be better if there were some standard for this sort of thing that was not "owned" by a particular company.

Re:wtf

[lubricated]

it missrendered all the math notation that latex produces. Which made it completly useless last quarter.

Re:What about KDE usability, what about Linux ?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Start tackling the real issues which make Linux a miserable near-unusable experience for about 90% of people and you will win a lot of praise."

Which are?

Re:My problem with Openusability

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a partially-trained usability engineer and I went to the Openusability site the first time it was mentioned here. I was hoping I could help out. But as soon as I looked at the forums I was shocked: By default, the messages are displayed in reverse-chronological order (last message first). There is a reason nobody else does this: it's unusable.

So I thought about it a little and decided to pass on. Yes, I could have tried to point out the problem and get it fixed. But I think if the site starts out with such a fundamental flaw, it has quite an uphill battle to go through. Still, I hope the actual participants have better sense.

So instead of even making a token effort to help you post on Slashdot /. dissing them? Do I even need to tell you how lame that is?

Light a candle instead of cursing their darkness...

Re:My problem with Openusability

[Anonymous Coward]

You're comparing apples and oranges. Yeah the frontpage is in reverse order, just like all forum main pages show threads in reverse order by default. But click on any article, and by default, the comments are shown in chronological order. This is the same as the majority of blogs and forums. Openusability has it wrong when displaying individual threads.

kpdf - yeah where is the usability

[gullevek]

The first thing and most important thing missing from kpdf is the chapters view. what do i do with some small thumbnails if I want to see the chapters to jump there quickly. yeah and references in the pdf, they should be usable in kpdf, because if you have a 200 page manual and you want to jump from the index to the chapter and it works in all other viewers but not in kpdf, than something is wrong here.

Re:kpdf - yeah where is the usability

[Uncle_Al]

Well in my KPDF (from KDE 3.4.1) there is a "Contents" sidebar where I can see the chapters and all...

...so I guess this problem has already been resolved (if it existed in the first place :-)

Re:kpdf - yeah where is the usability

[civilizedINTENSITY]

I think the parent is suggesting problems using PDF hyperlinks from within KPDF. I didn't think this was a problem, though javascript might raise an issues...

Re:kpdf - yeah where is the usability

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Hmmm...just tested The Use of Lisp in Semantic Web Applications in KPDF, KGhostview, xpdf, and envince. Hyperlinks to the references list worked in xpdf and envince, and didn't work in KPDF and KGhostview. I wasn't aware of this issue before.

Re:kpdf - yeah where is the usability

[Uncle_Al]

Again, in my version of KPDF (from 3.4.1) this works without problems. So it might be a relatively recent feature...

But (and this is the important part) it is there ;-)

Re:kpdf - yeah where is the usability

[civilizedINTENSITY]

~$ kpdf --version Qt: 3.3.4 KDE: 3.3.2 KPDF: 0.3.3

Usability

[Anonymous Coward]

I have made several attempts to switch to Linux completely, but still find myself going back to windoze simply for usability. Take the process for downloading/installing new software - it's just a complete pain! I have tried a few different distributions hoping to find one that provides an intuitive way to do that. I'm not particular fan of .exe, but it does provide a simply way for the end-user to accomplish the task.

If the Linux community really wants to get mere mortals to switch, make it so we can actually use it. As it is, Linux appears to be struggling with an identity crisis. Is it striving to be a viable alternative to Windows, or is it really just geekware? I want to make the switch, but the bottom line is that if I have such a difficult time accomplishing what should be a relatively simple task (and I'm a relatively experienced Windows user from DOS6.0), how is it that the Linux community expects to get Joe Sixpack on-board?

Re:Usability

[pembo13]

Contact me an I'll be more than happy to guide you on the switch.

Re:Usability

[Anonymous Coward]

Installing application in Windows drives me entirely insane. If I want to download a utility program, I have to navigate through tons of ads on a site which hosts the shareware. I need to make sure that the given piece of shareware does not contain spyware, as many windows apps do. Then I have to find the installer and run it. Then I have to answer a bunch of questions about my system's configuration (or just hit Next a bunch). Now that I have it installed, I have to deal with nag screens on every boot or pay a fee. If I don't want to see the nag screens, I can try to uninstall it.

Uninstalling windows applications is sometimes impossible. This is because Windows needs to have the original installer in the same location it originally was (such as on your desktop) to uninstall it. Sometimes an upgrade breaks and you're left with an uninstall that errors and an upgrade that errors, forcing you to search and delete a whole bunch of keys in the windows registry.

Compare this to a distro such as debian where I can find a package I need from a gui or the command line, install it along with dependencies, and it almost always just works.

Software installation and removal in windows is not easy at all, you're just used to it.

Re:Usability

[grilo]

I have made several attempts to switch to Linux completely, but still find myself going back to windoze simply for usability.

I thought this was an oxymoron. And then you launch Winamp or iTunes to listen to some music, Windows Media Player to view some movies, Microsoft Office to do some stuff, MSN Messenger to talk to some friends, and find out they all look completely different.

But since I don't want to quote you out of context, use those words to my interest, and completely miss the point, let me say that installation of software in most Linux distributions is, undoubtedly, much easier than in Windows (of course, depending on the package system). Apt and repository based installers usually provide you with a good deal of software, which, in 99% of the cases, work instantly and couldn't be much simpler (especially when using a tool like Synaptic). Add to that the warranty that it won't have spyware, virus, or anything which may hurt your system, and you've got a pretty usable thing.

But you may be a fan of a more decentralized model, and use something like Autopackage. Let me tell you that, to me, Autopackage is the most kick-ass solution for software instalation existant on GNU/Linux systems (the only time I was in awe, was with the FreeBSD ports). It Just Works(TM).

What's funny, is that I usually instantly label people like you as someone needing to get a clue or two. So, you change your operating system, and you expect stuff to work the exact same way? Why change then? Hey, some people may find that the lack of spyware, running anti-viral software updates and defragmenting their hard drive hurts their usage, and that we should reproduce it as closely as possible.

[...] how is it that the Linux community expects to get Joe Sixpack on-board?

That's where you got it wrong, mister. The "Linux community" doesn't want to get Joe Sixpack on board. The companies do. The core of the Linux community just wants to write their goddamned software, and enter the occasional flamefest about some topic.

It's companies that are instilling values like usability and such; seeing a chance to take over the Windows desktop market, they will try to capitalize on it.

Now, I'm not saying enterprises are a bad thing. I actually happen to think they are a great thing and, without a Red Hat, I'd have never used Linux, and without Ubuntu, I'd never be truly happy using one. I'm just saying the way it is.

This Linux community you talk about is a non-existant entity people like to call up everytime they want to address this huge anarchy. They are unable to grasp the structure of this... err... thing, so they just throw it into the community. There is not a bloody company called "The Linux community" which you can blame. It's complete and absolute anarchy, where no authority exists outside each individual project. People haven't realized that, and it hurts their expectations. They expect to enter a forum with a ridiculous question, and an answer just pops up, as if it were tech support. And if it doesn't, they come to Slashdot complain how "all you linux fanboys think you're 1337 and just answer STFU RTFM and I will use windows if you don't cuddle me and kiss me, and give me honey at breakfast".

Linux is ready for the desktop, it just isn't ready for people that aren't ready for it.

Re:Usability

[coolGuyZak]

There is not a bloody company called "The Linux community" which you can blame

That's it! I have it! That's what I'll call my company. It's perfect. 1: abbreviated, it's TLC. Damn straight. TLC gives you TLC. hah! 2nd, while I'll have to take the flak for all of the bad stuff, I can claim all the good stuff as my own as well!! The Linux Community released security advisories for apps X, Y, Z and A. The Linux Community has made a very stable operating system. ::cue evil laugh::

On a more serious note, I am a member of the community that wants to increase the usability of the desktop, and I don't have a corporate agenda. I just want my desktop to be more usable. (Plus, it doesn't hurt to show off all the features KDE has that, say, Windows doesn't ;)

Don't get me wrong... that's not attempting to convert. That's bragging. "See? with all the blood sweat and tears I put into compiling Gentoo from stage 1, I get spellchecking in all of my text boxes. What? No. Don't have movies working yet." 8-)

Figures

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone points out a usability problem with something and it gets modded as Troll. No wonder Linux/OSS usability is going nowhere!

Re:Figures

[grimJester]

Someone points out a usability problem with something and it gets modded as Troll. No wonder Linux/OSS usability is going nowhere!

You must be new here. The standard answer for an end user who has a complaint is "Fork it!".

Re:My problem with Openusability

[VoidWraith]

Reverse chronology is a problem? Would you rather have to scroll through vast amounts of forum topics or emails or what have you to get to the most recent ones? No. I think chronological listing is a far worse option for such a thing.

Perhaps you should be arguing for a choice, not forcing forward chronology upon others.

Unless you're talking about within the forum topics themselves, in that case, that's plain strange, and I see where you're coming from!

Re:What about KDE usability, what about Linux ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Off-the-top-my-head:

1. It simply doesn't appeal (other than as a tinkering project or as a server) because Linux is built by developers for developers on a waft of stale, old and now meaningless approaches to computing.

2. X Windows. Which is something from the past. It is something from a different era to do with academia, research and 'serious computing'. It has a stuffy decrepit educational feel and has no business at all being on any desktop machine in this age. It is a slice of history to do with Unix that was important in certain circles long ago, but is truly meaningless today. Additionally, it is flakey, slow, full of problems and legacy technologies and adds yet another layer to already bloated sandwich. Just because it is free doesn't mean it is any good, and it's being deployed in a fashion that it was never meant for.

3. It seems to be a real problem with Linux developers to come up with an original and fresh, professional looking GUI. Linux has failed in that respect and what we are left is a load of home grown rubbish which is just a sad, messy, slow homage to Windows 95.

It is a truly pathetic spectacle.

4. It seems two thirds of any GUI app on Linux rely on something from KDE or GNOME and that is a real problem when I don't want to install them.

5. Applications. They are some great applications for Linux (I'm not going to consider CL apps which are basically the same on any *nix and well let's be honest are more developer tools anyway). It's a great shame that those good GUI apps like Open Office and GIMP rely on X Windows.

6. Application deployment. I don't want to install source code, I don't want to rpm or emerge or apt-get. I want to go to a nice pretty site and download a nice pretty app that shows up on my desktop and that I can double click. And that doesn't depend on installing 20 other different dependencies...you see that's another problem. Because of the patchwork nature of Linux, other than the kernel, there are no 'core' files, everything is a free for all.

7. If something goes wrong with Linux there is no set of GUI options to fix it, more often than not newbies and casual users are left floundering on the command line begging for help in forums and getting told to read the man page. This is also a problem to do with Linux's way of organising config files. There are simply too many of them all over the place. The number of text config files should be about 1/16th what it currently is.

I mean it's not rocket science. Linux is great for configurability (if you know what you doing), it is great for hacking around with, a great learning experience and great for a server OS but it's a terrible tragedy that the hard work and amazing effort that has gone into the Linux kernel over many years is effectively trapped under a ton of sad, inward looking, pathetic crap, put together by people who literally haven't got a clue about what makes a nice, professional system for the majority of users. That is a real shame, but of course you know all this already.

Re:My problem with Openusability

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes within the topics. That's why I specifically said "messages". And I never said anything about forcing or lack of choice. I'm talking about the fucking default settings. You prefer something else, you login and set your preference... What's wrong with you people, do you read only half the words in comments before replying?!

My problem with OpenShoving.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Take your arrogant, ignorant statements and shove them up your ass."

Can we have a usability study on that?

Re:My problem with OpenShoving.

[Anonymous Coward]

The act is not intended to be usable. Actually, it's intended to be as painful as possible. So, no.

Used to vs. usability

[Hal XP]

This is one reason (just one) why Windows will continue to have an edge in the desktop market. On Windows you can open just about any application and already know how to use it (at least, at the most basic level).

This doesn't prove that Windows is actually more usable (i.e. user-friendly) than Gnome or KDE. This does suggest that more people are already used to the Windows way of doing things. A better test of usability is to sit a person, say a Mac zealot, who has not used either Gnome or Windows XP and ask her which of the two is actually easier to use. BTW I find OSX infinitely easier to use than Windows XP

Re:My problem with Openusability

[Anonymous Coward]

An article was posted on Slashdot about them, so I made a comment in the context of the article. I have no obligation to help them, and as I mentioned, they seem to miss some of the fundamental issues about usability, so I see no reason to help them (it'll be like trying to help Microsoft with security). I stated some facts and my opinion. What I didn't do is insult anyone, unlike you.

Now that they're finished w/ gnome...

[entrigant]

... they've come to screw up KDE. :(

Linux is perfectly usable right now to the people who want to use it. The never ending quest to push our OS on the average non geek will turn our own OS against us. All I ever see reading about this usability nonsense is a bunch of whiners digging for the multiple ways an ignorant user could misunderatand what he sees. There is no one true "usability". What is usable for a hardcore geek is not usable for soccer mom, and what is "usable" for her is painful to the hardcore geek. We are screwing up our own OS. Let soccer moms have windows. Linux is our baby.

Re:Now that they're finished w/ gnome...

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe it should and CAN go either way. This is the design goal that should be kept in mind. For instance - you can run an application like NERO from its "dumbed-down"/wizardy std. interface, or just jump RIGHT TO it's main actual working program. This is how most ANY software can and should be designed. Problem is? It takes time & effort. The very fact ANYBODY puts time into Linux freeware development (or any freeware at all for that matter) is astounding, because it IS work. Time-consuming, often frustrating, hassling mental work. Anyone who doesn't code wouldn't understand what I just said most likely but it is a fact. Even with today's well documented api's and also RAD tools, there are still things that are not that simple to make a 'one button click' affair, but it's what end-users want, so you have to go for it and try to make it so. Additionally, for the 'make it easy to fix' part others have mentioned here? I still sincerely believe that simple text editable files like .ini files are the simplest way for this to happen rather than registry or binary stores (even though they often read/write faster) with a gui interface to them if need be so an end-user CAN actually get "into the engine" & fix it.

Re:Now that they're finished w/ gnome...

[MemoryDragon]

Actually so far it is not like that, all the usability has been done so far in a sane manner. The insanity of gnome is, that they applied usability for the most idiotic user and thus locking out one good power feature after the other.

KDE follows currently more the approach, make the common features more visible, change design weaknesses, but dont cut off the power user base (which is the core audience) by crippeling the programs. KPDF is the perfect example, it still has no feature lost, and so far is currently the best PDF reader, no matter which OS, there is currently no better one in existence. That is what I would call applied usability in a sane way.

Gnome on the other hand, has lost many users, with its we dumb everything down for the idiots approach, because most of its users were not idiots, but they feel sort of locked in and crippled in their usage.

Re:Now that they're finished w/ gnome...

[Taladar]

a) I fully agree with you that usability is not the same for every user group
b) I don't think KDE-users really qualify as hardcore geeks

Re:Now that they're finished w/ gnome...

[m50d]

KDE believes in choice, so I don't think it will happen. You never see KDE making a change without giving an option for it. At the worst they'll change the defaults to something insane like spatial file manager, tiny cramped open dialog and reversed yes/no dialog, but if you keep your ~/.kde it will stay the way it was. (I hope)

Re:Now that they're finished w/ gnome...

[grilo]

Nice troll on GNOME, but I can say you probably also think the iPod is a screwed interface, because it doesn't have half of the buttons that your car's stereo has, to push.

I very much doubt that a soccer mom has different requirements. I want something that lets me get my work done. I don't launch GNOME to spend hours tweaking it, but to get work done. Unlike many "geeks", this "geek" prefers to spend his time actually learning stuff, not seeing what color my cursor turns when I choose "red".

Let me use an analogy to make it clearer. There's a "one true geek" and you. Both had this urge for phones. The "one true geek" would get an "old" phone, lots of documents stating how it works, open it wide, completely dismantle it and try to reassemble it back. You would go out, buy a cellphone, and wouldn't really care about anything too melodramatic: stick with changing the color of the LCD screen, the background image, and enjoy the possibility to configure what tune to play when the brother calls, making it different from the girlfriend.

So, hardcore geeks don't really give a shit about tweaking KDE. But they do give a shit when they want to configure the bloody screen resolution and can't, because it's like searching for a needle in a haystack.

Re:Now that they're finished w/ gnome...

[FooBarWidget]

Well, isn't that exactly what Slashdotters want? In every single Linux article you see Slashdotters whine about "Linux will NEVER be ready for the desktop until grandma can use it!"
So GNOME applied many usability studies for grandma-type people. And now the Slashdotters whine again. Some people even blatantly deny the existance of those usability studies and continue to whine about how unusable GNOME is.

Re:Now that they're finished w/ gnome...

[civilizedINTENSITY]

For each and every "usability" rant there is a corresponding "poweruser" rant. We needs must ballance the easy learning curve with the ability to do things directly. "Too many options! Too many options! Head explodes!" has to be ballanced against "do it the way God intended, and don't even consider straying from Her ideal conception of your workflow". Maybe gnome is listening to their users. All I know is I switched to KDE. Konquorer *rocks*.

Re:Now that they're finished w/ gnome...

[FooBarWidget]

Except the "usability" rants get modded up to +5 Insightful, while the power user rants either get modded down, or get flamed down by "your attitude is exactly what I'm talking about"-zealots.

Re:Now that they're finished w/ gnome...

[JohnFluxx]

And this is why there will always be a kde/gnome divide. Something I like btw. Speaking as KDE coder :)

Re:Now that they're finished w/ gnome...

[coolGuyZak]

There's a very good reason for that -- Linux power users usually are rather zealotrous. (Possibly because they spend all their time power using, instead of communicating?? ;)

I consider myself a power user on Linux. I know my way around several distros (command-line style), and completely pwn kcontrol. I also used to come off as an uber-zealot. I was one l337 d00d. Know what I'm saying?

Anyway, recently I had an epiphany. For all of my knowledge, I couldn't actually communicate with anyone. I have always tried to spread the knowledge. Unfortunately, the way I was going about it was wrong. Instead of empathizing with the user, I would scorn them. After all, they were using a far inferior method, compared to the (obvious) One True Way (tm). Power users tend to have that very attitude. Hence, I am teaching myself how to communicate with "Joe User".

It also doesn't help that they tend to express themselves with highly technical language... Most don't realize that to most other people, they are talking gibberish. I noticed this very early. Unfortunately, I am not well versed at scaling down the gibberish. I either talk incomprehensibly, or dumb it down to children levels... neither of which are good.

Re:Now that they're finished w/ gnome...

[entrigant]

b) I don't think KDE-users really qualify as hardcore geeks

As a group maybe not, but you'll find more using KDE than you will gnome these days :).

Re:Now that they're finished w/ gnome...

[entrigant]

I very much doubt that a soccer mom has different requirements. I want something that lets me get my work done.

I think you might have missed the point. People get work done in different ways. Do you use th ekeyboard or mouse more. Heavy keyboard users almost always have customizations to their layout or special shortcuts just for them. There are equally varying ways in how mousers do their work, and it can be quite dependant on how the UI of an app is designed. A heavily customizable desktop can allow you to change your desktop to best match HOW you want to get your work done.

I don't launch GNOME to spend hours tweaking it, but to get work done.

I don't launch KDE and spend hours tweaking it. I have hundreds of small and large tweaks that have been done one at a time over a period of several years. When I see something that could be done quicker or more easily, I change it so I can do it that way. One more customization. As my ability to understand and use the system evolves I change many things. Chances are very good I do things very differently than you, and if you tried to use my system you'd have a rough time at first. This is exactly what I meant by what is usable for one person is NOT usable for another.

But they do give a shit when they want to configure the bloody screen resolution and can't, because it's like searching for a needle in a haystack.

Right click on Desktop. Select Configure Desktop. Select Display. That's one damn big needle.

As for your clevel little phone analogy, allow me to apologize for hitting that nerve.

Re:Now that they're finished w/ gnome...

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Well I've a lot of experience tutoring Math and Physics, and some of the math has been for people making up not taking math in highschool. You talk to people so that they understand. Sometimes you talk to them awhile until they can understand what it is that they came to talk about.

The thing is, it isn't power users who want to limit the number of browsers or window managers or office suites. That is backasswards. If I'm in a shell, and want to read an html file, I'll use lynx. If I'm in konq, I'll just click on it. If I'm not in anything, I'll Alt-F2 and prob use firefox. What I use depends on where I currently am, and what I'm doing, and what I want to do with what I'm going to open. Therefor, diversity is a good thing.

Rather, it isn't for powerusers that it is suggested that we do away with all but one window manager. The idea is that too many options is too confusing. Simplify but throwing out options. Simplify by doing away with menu items. Simplify by presenting a GUI that is simple and intuitive to do the small subset of functionality that it presents, and do away with regular expressions. Hey, do away with the URL in a file browser, too. They shouldn't be thinking that hard, it'll confuse them. Make it spatial. If it is easier for a newbie to open a file by dragging it on top of an icon, why let it be opened any other way? Too many options is confusing. If they have to look at a manual to use it, it is broke. Hence latex is broke. The fact is that not everyone should be using the same tools. Don't put grandma in a Learjet, and don't ask someone comfortable with a motercycle to switch to a buick. And please don't say that "the solution" is to do away with Learjets, motercycles, and anything that isn't a buick, for consistency. Sometimes motercycles are the right tool for the job, too.

Re:Now that they're finished w/ gnome...

[coolGuyZak]

You talk to people so that they understand.

That's what I was saying... (and I did say I was working on it ;)

Sometimes you talk to them awhile until they can understand what it is that they came to talk about

If you have to talk to them in that manner, you are taking the wrong approach. I agree that you may have to spend some time to find a common ground, but it should only take a while if it's something that takes a while regardless.

A good example: I once explained why mac programs didn't run on intel PCs (before the switch) to a freind of mine. E.g. I explained it to the instruction level. In detail. It took me about half an hour -- the same amount of time it took me to learn the difference -- to teach her. And I did it all through an analogy I knew she would understand: dog training. I won't go into the details, but it was a sight.

The thing is, it isn't power users who want to limit the number of browsers or window managers or office suites

Never said it was.

and now for something completely different

How does the last part have any relevency to my post? I was talking about how power users hold themselves on an insurmountable pedastal, and how that hurts their ability to be heard.

And please don't say that "the solution" is to do away with Learjets, motercycles, and anything that isn't a buick, for consistency

Uh... why not? You appear to want to do the same thing to the interface:

Simplify but throwing out options. Simplify by doing away with menu items. Simplify by presenting a GUI that is simple and intuitive to do the small subset of functionality that it presents, and do away with regular expressions.

To my untrained ear, it sounds like you want to make the Learjet into a Buick. Possibly not the same thing as removing it entirely, but it definitely has the same effect.

Here's a better option. Put grandma in a Leerjet, and present the controls similarly to her trusty buick. However, don't remove the other jet controls... just stick them in a place where they're less confusing. Or hide them inside of other controls. Or find a way to blend them in with the rest of the buick-style.

For instace: If she opens Konq as a file manager, grandma doen't have to know that you can type a URL into the location bar. Similarly, she doesn't need to know that you can type a file location in web mode. If she finds it out, she might be impressed, or she might not give a damn. She can still use it the same way she always has.

And do similarly for window managers. Provide a default, and then place a secret switch somewhere so you have access to everything else. (Somewhat like adding the Universal repo in Ubuntu).

If it is easier for a newbie to open a file by dragging it on top of an icon, why let it be opened any other way?

Huh... maybe because newbies arn't the only people who use the software.

If they have to look at a manual to use it, it is broke.

Huh... strange... I needed to look at a manual to learn how to properly moderate... I guess moderation is broke. (D'oh!) ;)

Re:Now that they're finished w/ gnome...

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Sometimes you talk to them awhile until they can understand what it is that they came to talk about

If you have to talk to them in that manner, you are taking the wrong approach. I agree that you may have to spend some time to find a common ground, but it should only take a while if it's something that takes a while regardless.

Finding common ground is the easy part. The thing is Math and Physics are cumulative in nature. Sometimes, when someone comes in with questions about how to do the chapter 13 homework, you see that they can't do it because they can't do the chapter 12 stuff. So reviewing chapter 12 stuff, it becomes apparent that they lost it around chapter 9. This isn't so much about finding a common language to communicate ideas, as it is bringing the skill set up to a level where the current work is happening. This also happens across prerequisites, where Intro Dif Eq uses alot of calculus II & III tools. In Quantum Mechanics, it is possible to simplify expressions that would otherwise be hairy integrals with the use of Linear Algebra. Terms cancel out, and what is left is approachable. Trying to tutor someone who says, "I need to be able to do this on the test tomorrow, but don't give me any math shit, I want to learn physics, not linear algebra", makes it hard. Watching me solve a few, they see "magic" happening, and to understand the magic, they pick up what they missed in the math classes they slept through (because they didn't need it to do the undergrad physics homework). So we fill in the missing pieces, and they suddenly can do the problems. Some subjects are just like that. There are no shortcuts around the shortcuts :-)

I admit I was ranting, in regards to the dumbing down of UIs. I would like to say that not all powerusers are snobs, though. And my rant was actually against the forces that appear to me to want to mold all the various UIs (Learjets, motercycles, mopeds, and trikes) into one "buick", for consistency.

In terms of flying a jet with 'buick' controls, that would be difficult because car controls are insufficent to deal with the extra dimension. Unless you meant to drive the jet on the ground. In which case the advantage of a jet (that it can fly, *really* fast) is lost, and in fact a buick is more manuverable on the ground than a jet would be. That is why I recommend the use of an appropriate interface for what is being done at that time.

Re:Now that they're finished w/ gnome...

[coolGuyZak]

The thing is Math and Physics are cumulative in nature

We are on the same page here. :) In terms of flying a jet with 'buick' controls, that would be difficult because car controls are insufficent to deal with the extra dimension

Does grandma care about the extra dimension? My point was that she shouldn't have to, unless she wants to.

Mod Parent Up

[mad.frog]

I agree 100% with what he just said :-)

youve done fine the last 10 years

[Anonymous Coward]

dont worry, the next 10 years will not make linux any easier to use. people have been trying since the mid 1990s and it has basically gotten nowhere.

Good to see KPDF work

[jdowland]

Nice to see work being made on KPDF. Last year, KDE's document viewing infrastructure was ahead of GNOME's disperate GPDF and gnome-gv. There was the beginnings of a common document front-end with kviewshell, kdvi etc. However I don't know if they've managed to finish unifying it.

Perhaps inspired by this work though, the gnome people have thrown evince together: a UI-focussed front-end for document types.

Re:Good to see KPDF work

[Uncle_Al]

I guess the common document front-end would be konqueror...

...all of the document viewers can be embedded into it as KParts ;-)

Two words: Windows Mixer

[Ricin]

Yes usability is very important and undervalued, but it's quite rediculous to see Windows as the shining light in this respect.

I always say two words: Windows Mixer. Here's a (I suppose) utility that's meant to be used a lot by any and all users. But since it's birth (win95 or maybe even 3.x) it's been totally incomprehensible and it hasn't changed at all. Ask a random person to turn the microphone playing down but the recording level up (for example to reduce echos while in a conferencing app). They'll get confused and most often are not able to carry out the task. The result is every soundcard maker throwing a mixer app of their own on their driver CD. All have different UIs of course.

Besides, where KDE/Gnome/OSX strives to have apps that look and act in a uniform way, on Windows I see the opposite trend. Media players having their own wacky UI that's completely out of cue with "normal" apps. TV viewers: Why the heck do their widgets have to be dark blue or something. It's not CDE, it's Windows.

And here's the twist: many windows users seem to actually LIKE those incompatible and weird GUIs that come with such apps! What a world :)

Distribution independent installer? Autopackage.

[Tincan2k]

Depending on the distribution you have, downloading/installing software isn't really difficult, it's just different. These differences are what can be confusing for an end user. Eventually there may be more applications packaged with something like Autopackage http://autopackage.org/ that would help ease the confusion somewhat for new users. Odds are it's not that the solutions aren't there, it's just finding and using them.

caches

[Anonymous Coward]

You do appreciate that your operating system caches files you've just read from disk into RAM, right? If the time taken to read the file from the hard drive is significant, then opening the same file twice will always be faster the second time because it reads it from RAM. If you had the file and acroread in your cache due to having used them both previously it ought to load near-instantly.

Not that there aren't speed differences between all the PDF readers - I think acroread is usually faster but uses lots more RAM.

MOD PARENT DOWN

[Anonymous Coward]

timecop is GNAA's founder, disregard this blatant otaku troll.

Re:Distribution independent installer? Autopackage

[JohnFluxx]

Very soon now autopackage will support kde - so all kde apps can be installed via it. This will be a huge step IMHO. (There was some discussion how to handle c++ ABI changes which was holding back kde support)

My name is coolGuyZak. You insulted my desktop...

[coolGuyZak]

Prepare to die. ;)

The problem with KDE is, even if its usability is fine, it's all thrown out the window as soon as you open non-KDE apps, because in their infinite wisdom, open source programmers decided to divide programs up into groups, each group having completely different interfaces and settings.

As other have already pointed out, other OS's have this problem as well. Take windows: First, Media Player is wholly different than any other app. There is no consistency within the system tray. How about Winamp? Same issue as WMP. And who created the travesty of the XP programs menu? It is abhorrent that some links are global and others are user-specific... (and on top of that, it doesn't tell you).

What genius decided that was a good idea?

I don't know whose exact idea it was, but that would be the genious of the GIMP team... and you can blame Gnome for proliferating that miserable excuse for a UI library. (Had to troll gnome at least once. please forgive me ;)

Also KDE is cluttered and messy. Even simple dialog boxes seem to be over 1200 pixels wide.

I agree with you. KDE's dialog boxes are needlessly complicated, and incredably messy. Hwoever, there has been a vast amount of improvement during the 3.x series. Even more improvements are going into the 4.0 release, including a completely redesigned kicker & desktop (named Plasma).

Furthermore, one of my personal goals (once plasma discussion dies down somewhat) is to completely re-tool the KControl configuration screens. I want to make them less complcated, more intuitive, and a general joy to use. Hopefully, I'll be able to get something put out to make it into v4.0--4.1 at the latest.

There's no excuse for this at all, I dread to think what it would be like using KDE with 1024x768, half of the options would be off the screen. It seems that the KDE developers all have giant resolutions and think everyone else does as well.

I do have large resolutions. I run my desktop at 1280x1024. If I had a 23" monitor, I'd probably run at 1600x1200. However, I also have small ones... My ThinkPad runs at 1024x768, and I have yet to have an issue with it.

Concerning the K Menu, it is rather large. Yet another improvement that is working it's way into Plasma. If possible, we want to provide a way to access your apps without using the K-Menu. The categories do have close to identical apps, but the point is to provide the user with choice. E.g. If they like Kate better than KWrite, then they should have that option. For now, you can always pare down the menu. Also, If you use a package-managed distro, they usually sort the apps into the proper places.

The best thing Linux could do to improve the user experience is to stop having ten million toolkits and environments and have a STANDARD CONSISTENT INTERFACE!i>

Yes, and no. Linux has something going for it with it's many toolkits which Microsoft and OSX don't have much of. Competition. MS rules the market, so they don't have to worry about improving their interface. (Unless a truly innovative app comes out, that threatens their market share... Firefox is a good example. If/When KDE comes out for windows, that will be quite another).

Mod me offtopic.

[coolGuyZak]

shouldn't "you" be replaced with "thou"?

Me thinks thou art a cad??

Re:Distribution independent installer? Autopackage

[Anonymous Coward]

Yours seems to be a more measured reply in that you correctly address the heart of the matter. Linux is different in many ways, most of them very good ways. However, like it or not Windows is what the majority of people cut their teeth on. That means that they (we) have learned not only to do things certain ways, but to look for information on how to do something in certain ways as well.

My reference to the "Linux community" refers to those who use and support the OS. That support runs the gammit from the company actively promoting and profiting by purporting it to be a viable alternative to Windows, to the guy who just uses it for what it is.

Nevertheless, if you have an interest in promoting the use of Linux you have an interest in the usability of Linux. That means that you should have an interest in resolving these very issues that new converts encounter. A particular task may be just different, but if it's not at least somewhat intuitive the result will be frustration. Even if one would prefer not to, we may go back to something we don't like simply because we can get something done.

I use Firefox and Thunderbird in Windows. All I had to do is download the files and execute them. I have been unable to accomplish that in either Suse 8.1 or 9.1. Yast seems to be a good tool, but doesn't provide a simple interface for installing a simple program. Big difference in usability for an end user.

Another distribution I have provides a copy of Gnucash. I happen to like the program and thought it might be nice to use it in Suse. However, it's the same problem as with Firefox or Thunderbird or anything else I may want to install. This is directly a usability issue.

I'm not the only one that struggles with this. Sure, familiarity is an issue here. If a reasonably well-seasoned end user has such difficulties accomplishing what should be a very simple task, what do you think it's like for those who have even less knowledge and experience?

Re:Distribution independent installer? Autopackage

[Tincan2k]

For Firefox and Thunderbird it's just as easy except you just extract it from the archive, then you run. Many apps don't need to be "installed" while some (usually non-cross platform ones) rely on external native libraries that my not be generally available or distributable with the app. That's what Yast and RPM are for; resolving required binary library app versions to provide consistent behaviour. There will be a learning curve with any system, but intuative usability also depends on the expectations of the user. For me certain aspects of Windows are very unintuative and unusable because I haven't used it in a long time. The issue many people have is that they only want to learn how to use Windows and expect that to be the standard interface to everything.