Slashdot Mirror


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.

8 of 184 comments (clear)

  1. Nice development by moz25 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

  2. Good Thing(TM) by neurokaotix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "...if people respected copyright more, like you guys do with the GPL so religiously, [the DMCA] wouldn't be necessary."
  3. Linux v. OS X by dotslashdot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Linux v. OS X by LMCBoy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
  4. Linux usability definitely needs a lot of work by timecop · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Linux usability definitely needs a lot of work by bullitB · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Linux usability definitely needs a lot of work by Brandybuck · · Score: 4, Funny

      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...

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    3. Re:Linux usability definitely needs a lot of work by pyrrhonist · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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?

      --
      Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.