Slashdot Mirror
Conducting a Unix Desktop Usability Study?
cyclop asks: "I am a close friend of a Ph.D. student on human interface usability. She's now working to tailor a KDE-vs-Gnome usability study (a pretty hot topic these days), and I have been called to help, as a long time GNU/Linux desktop user. What kind of advice -- both technical and theoretical -- would you give us on conducting a deep and objective study on the Unix desktop, that can be useful for the developers and the OSS community?"
"She has installed GNU/Linux and used both KDE and Gnome to get to know them, while I provided her a number of links on background information and previous usability studies on both DE, and advised her to subscribe to relevant mailing lists of both projects. However, I feel that it's not enough and that there are a lot of potential pitfalls and misconceptions that wait for us, me being a geek and she being a Linux newbie. Moreover, she found that most of the previous studies on the web were quite sloppy, in comparison with common usability research standards."
The out-of-the-box setup is a compromise at best; and shouldn't be used to judge the overall usability for people who use the system more than once.
Don't read slashdot.
I'm a n00b to Linux, kind of wanted to know before I chose one & tried Linux.
Get a slashdot poll on the topic and read the insightful comments.
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security
It *does* sound like perfect academic paper fodder.
by actually using it in daily life!
(on a side note: I was suprised after switching to Linux that I was not distracted anymore by annoying popups for virus scanners, 'unused icons' bullshit, 'network is connected' messages)
3-6 months perhaps?
"Usability" imho, in the usual meaning of the term, is a load of wank.
Who cares if the first time someone uses the environment that it takes a little orientation to get used to? In the real world, if a couple of weeks of pain makes you much more productive after that, it's a net benefit imho - the remainder of your time using the environment outweighs the significance of the learning time.
I'm not saying that initial learning is not important, but I think that these studies need to show both sides of the equation...
smash.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Sheesh man. It's Unix. It's not mean to be usable. : p
Get people who are not experts, see how many problems they run into doing simple tasks that they're familiar with on Windows. See how many of these they can solve themselves. Start half of them on Gnome and move them to KDE, do the other half in the reverse order.
It is probably also worth noting that most people (apparently including Linus) consider KDE more powerful, so KDE is kinda at a disadvantage.
You've got a lady friend and you have been called to help on conducting a deep and objective human interface study on the desktop?
Go for it!
(If you're wondering about the subject of this comment, the nipple is one of the most intuitive human interfaces btw).
Banu
Check out http://www.betterdesktop.org/
I have a feeling there are more interfaces than I can count... I don't know, so I'm asking... What are the other interfaces? And aren't there more than one interface from KDE & GNU?
I can appreciate that a PhD student has to narrow their field in order to complete their study, but this is an interesting topic. I could see entire periodicals dedicated to available interfaces. Hey, there aren't any of those are there?
The Admin and the Engineer
Use Science! Flip a coin and justify your reasons later.
I for one would like to see a study involving not just how easy it is to learn an interface, but once learned how productive one can be in said interface. For instance, I am proficient in both KDE and Gnome (and a myriad of other WMs which aren't mentioned here), but I feel I can get the most work done faster in KDE. Of course I do tweak quite a few aspects of KDE, but I digress. I would really like to see a productivity evaluation between already proficient users, confident with their skills on their respective interfaces, performing a series of common tasks and comparing the results.
Working in a DevOps shop is like playing in a band made up entirely of keytarists.
Keyboard accessibility
Keyboard accessibility
Keyboard accessibility
The above was achieved more through reflexive twitches than through hand-eye coordination.
The main thing Billy did right for the early versions of Windoz was to build in keyboard accessibility.
I was so delighted when I discovered that alt-tab worked in Firefox to switch tabs.
"The out-of-the-box setup is a compromise at best; and shouldn't be used to judge the overall usability for people who use the system more than once."
I wouldn't recommend doing that.
My advice? Don't have someone who's been a long time GNU/Linux user assisting her. Chances are, you're fond of either KDE or Gnome. Before the study has even started, I'm alarmed by potential bias. Let her do the study on her own, gather the facts and come up with her own conclusion. Isn't that what Ph.D.'s do?
"[...] while I provided her a number of links on background information and previous usability studies on both DE, and advised her to subscribe to relevant mailing lists of both projects."
To me, the study is already flawed. You've dropped a load of information onto her lap, while a complete "newbie" doesn't have that same luxury. How can a usability study be unbiased in this manner? Who's to say you didn't provide her with REALLY good links to KDE information, while giving half-assed links to Gnome?
I like big butts and I cannot lie.
It's not clear that one can easily do an objective study on usability, as it can mean very different things to different people. It should at least be done with segregated populations (e.g. power-users vs. novices).
Some examples:
* A novice might look for how obvious it is to do a certain task, whereas an expert user might instead prefer what can be done fastest (e.g. notepad vs. emacs).
* Related: How much time does this person use a computer/this application can be an important factor. If I rarely do 3d design, I want to be told how to do everything, and have obvious controls (i.e. > 3 parameters might boggle my mind). However, if I work for Pixar, the verbose messages, and dumbed down controls (i.e. 30 parameters might just not cut it for what needs to be done).
* Certain paradigms might make sense to people who are used to using certain types of systems. Files and folders make perfect sense to many people, but certainly not to everyone (e.g. my mother). We think these simplified analogies work better for novices, but that isn't always the case. People think differently, and different analogies will make more/less sense dependent on their world view.
*) Get total PC newbies and Windows users to try using them and observe what they do, what they try, how and why they fail to succeed in their attempts. Let them talk verbosely about what they are doing.
.exe are apps etc.
*) Count the times you had to look in a manpage, in google, and how often you had to fire up a console for doing simple things (like creating a shared folder, browsing the internet, installing some plugins like flash etc.) Keep in mind: SIMPLE things! Trivial tasks done by the casual user.
*) For each system you need to learn how to use it, thats a fact. Unix users have to learn the concept behind the filesystem (nothing too fancy, but basic knowledge about what mounting is for example). This is comparable to the knowledge about the drive letters in Windows, the usage of backslash for separation in paths, that
*) Review the help system and documentation. Among other things, look for technical mumbo-jumbo. This is a common error. Stuff like SSH, SSL, CORBA, FUSE, pthreads etc. should never occur in enduser documentation.
*) Have a look at the menus. Are they cluttered or usable? How long did you have to search something in the menu?
This sig does not contain any SCO code.
But if you must, at least don't do KDE vs. Gnome. What's the best possible outcome of that? ("So in summary, Gnome tended to be less confusing for newbies, but power users preferred the configurability of KDE...")
Instead compare either or both against Windows or Macintosh for tasks that your _specific target userbase_ would do. [If you haven't defined one or more use cases you've already lost.] This would be much more valuable.
Better yet, switch your topic to focus exclusively on accessibility (a11y). Every DE out there needs some accessibility love.
Personally I think Apple has done a quite decent job of building a GUI on top of a UNIX core (the Darwin flavor of freeBSD).
Currently they have it working on two different processor families (the IBM Power series, and Intel).
Yes, it is proprietary, but that does NOT mean that "Aqua" is not a GUI desktop running on a UNIX system.
Why not compare the other UNIX desktops with what may be the best UNIX desktop running?
Don't get excited, it's just an honest question. After all, just because it was done by a commercial software shop doesn't mean it doesn't work...
How DOES the usability of other attempts at a UNIX GUI stand up to Aqua?
--Tomas
Worked perfectly. Email, Internet, Applix Word, Spreadsheets, etc. Putting KDE with OpenOffice on it would only make it that much more useable and interesting.
Frankly, I don't see why this is needed...people have been using it for years.
There...Can I please have my doctorate now?
I'm not a troll, but I play one on Slashdot.
Wow, you really come across as a... well, as a Gnome user, actually. :P
Try questioning the slashdot community. They're sure to offer up objective advice on the KDE vs. Gnome debate!
*cough!*
If you are pursuing a PhD in interface design, do you really need to ask slashdot how to conduct a usability survey?
You want an unbiased opinion?
Don't ask us.
For one its not GNU/Linux Desktop. It's KDE vs GNOME.
KDE runs under BSD as well as Linux. Gnome runs under Solaris.
Of course the GNU people probably want to start calling *BSD running GNOME GNU/*BSD because of all the GNU code in it.
Oh, wait. Its not that popular.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
The best usability desktop is where
1. Ctrl+C (Copy), Ctrl+X(Cut) Ctrl+A (Select All) Ctrl +V(Paste) Ctrl+P (Print)
works in all applications you open out of the box.
2. You open up a file Browser, go to the folder you wanna browse and type the first letter of the file and the cursor takes you there.
One has to agree, whatever follows MS Windows closely.
In this case that would be kde handsdown .
It all comes down to one thing. Can the user reconfigure their mouse so that right-click launches a terminal? If not, it's a useless desktop, and you should tell everybody to switch to a REAL desktop environment.
Something that both interfaces really lack are decent help documents from the GUI.
I think KDE edges out gonme in this department, but by and large, the help documents on both lack the completeness you would expect. This is not the fault of the GUI's per se, but the fact that X application programmers don't have to make KDE/GNOME help documents - I don't think it's really standardized.
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
Cause Linus said so!
Blah blah blah. PhD whaever. If you are serious act like adults and do some real research. Don't post bullshit here in a lame attempt to garner attention.
The first thing to understand is that you will have 3 groups of users:
#1. The ignorant users: These have never used a desktop before. These aren't as easy to find anymore. I worked with one woman back in the mid 90's who could not even use a mouse. She had to hold it still with one hand while she clicked the button with her other hand. After a week of solitare, she had the necessary muscle coordination to start learning the system.
#2. The tainted users: These have experience with systems other than the one you're testing. If your system isn't 100% like the one they're used to, they'll waste time clicking around where the functions are on their systems.
#3. Friends: These have worked on the system that they're being evaluated on.
Now, a system that is easy to learn for the "Ignorant" class may be incredibly un-friendly for more advanced "Friends".
Determine what functionality you want to measure and what GROUP you want to measure it for.
The real "ease" on an interface comes down to 2 things:
a. Can you quickly guess where a function is based upon your existing experience with it?
b. Once you know where a function is (you guessed at it before, you asked someone, you went to training), how easy is it to remember that 24 hours later, 1 week, 1 month, 6 months later?
If you are going to do a useability study, might I suggest sitting down a bunch of fairly bright volunteers with the documentation, and seeing how long it is before they get it up and running? As a Mac/PC user, I recall the hardest part of learning Unix (of which I still have no great command, but enough to extend the useability of my OS X laptop and write programs to batch simple functions for me) was the general spottiness of documentation--some of it is excellent and some of it looks like ot was written by an alien civilization (engineers!).
Find the provided docs and also find some of what you consider the best docs, and see if they can work it out for themselves without help. Once they get it running and customized, see how long it takes them to learn a new feature. Once they have learned a feature, see how long it takes them to use it on a repeat visit. Usability to me implies everything from the learning curve to the advanced user features.
That's not how you spell A-P-P-L-E!
The CB App. What's your 20?
Oh, that's easy. The most important thing you can do is ask each prospective user how they feel about the GPL. When they invariably profess ignorance, lecture them at length until they're sorry they ever met you. It's the Slashdot way.
If they stick around through your rant, it means they want something from you. Lecture them about how inferior LGPL is to GPL in an attempt to sway them to choose KDE, that should get rid of them.
Linux/Unix users are a self-selected bunch. You need to decide whether your user persona should be Joe Clueless (who is put in a room and has to perform basic functions in Linux) or the Power User.
The Power User may turn out to be the more typical linux user (from the standpoint of HP/IBM), so the reactions of Joe Clueless may just not be useful. Good to have a specific goal in mind while running this study. Are you trying to help developers understand power users better?
Or trying to help a company make mass market tools?
If dealing with Joe Clueless, be sure to give tasks about how to locate system documentation. I just installed Fedora Core and for the life of me couldn't find it (and I'm a fricking tech writer!)
Also, should you assume that users are dealing with a fully installed system (office/school user)? Or that users normally would need to figure out how to get their hardware to work (home user)? My "usability problems" have usually not been with the interface but just getting hardware to work, and that would not so much a problem if the Office/School made these decisions for me.
I would be very curious btw which of the package managers that users find the easiest to use. Crossdistribution comparison of how individual users used package managers would be really useful information!
This group does a lot of usability analysis http://openusability.org/index.php .
Also, I seem to remember that a few years ago Sun did a usability study of the Linux desktops.
Robert Nagle, Idiotprogrammer, Houston
I run Linux on old hardware (Used to use a P2 350 now using a P3 400) and have always tried to get the fastest performance out of it. I started out with KDE, then switched to XFCE, then to GNOME, and back to KDE in the end. KDE is now my favorite - it is very snappy, easy to set up, and easy to use. I do admit that it is a bit unorganized (GNOME's strongpoint IMHO is simplicity and organization), but, surprisingly, it performs faster than the other two desktops. Also, I love KDE's very extensible eye candy features :). I also tried many different browsers in search of the snappiest - I found that the answer is Opera. FF is an excellent browser, but it is just to bloated to run on my hardware.
'nuff said.
Don't go into it with the expectation that more like Windows or Mac OS is better. Sometimes they may be and sometime they may not be. Study people ranging from no experience up through experts.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
I wonder if she might better user her time doing something else. There is so much catcalling and pointless arguing in the nix community, and especially between the Gnome and KDE factions, or at least their fans. Nothing seems to be looked at objectively or is taken seriously except as grist for yet another propaganda offensive. Open source developers always have the ultimate get-out if something is subpar, namely that they aren't writing for a market or to a set of standards but for pleasure or their peers. The professional ones never use this excuse and turn in a top-class job, but scores of less talented or committed ones use it all the time.
Perhaps there are other areas - Ajax, even particular websites or other operating systems - that would repay her efforts more fully and bring her into contact with some outstanding and seriously experienced people.
Las qué passoun
tournoun pas maï
"What kind of advice -- both technical and theoretical -- would you give us on conducting a deep and objective study on the Unix desktop, that can be useful for the developers and the OSS community?"
...
If you're taking on the KDE vs. Gnome forces
Divert Warp Power to the Shields.
An occasionally used website (like an airline) or kiosk (photo stickers?) must be useable on first contact.
A work desktop must be quickly learnable and facilitate productivity of intermediate to advanced users.
Well we all know Linus's opinion. It's rather insightful: GNOME is overly simple and for dumb users, KDE is for smart people, haha. But, seriously, it is all about configurability. One of the nice thigns about both KDE and GNOME is all of the configuration you can do to them. The question is, how "stripped down" of a configuration are you going to start a user out with? Are you going to set up some nice buttons or put some useful help-guides on the desktop? For instance, I'm starting a cute little Web site I'm going to put on the desktop on my parents computer at home. I'm probably going to start them off with KDE, but that is because I get to set it up for them and give them a cute little guide to using it, and some simple pieces of software they might want to use.
IMHO - the "best" interface would be one that starts off at a child's level and allows the user to set the degree of functionality and complexity based upon his/her knowledge and needs.
How about, how many repetitions of instruction does it take for an average user to remember how to perform one action after a week of not using it?
And, once one function is explained, how quickly can the average user deduce/guess at related functions? This is how you select "bold" text. Then let them find "italics" and "underline".
For god's sake, woman. Read some Norman for the theoretical background (his older book, not his newer shite which pisses all over his previous work without any real reason to other than to shine his own "i'm a high priced consultant" knob now. Then, and this is serious though it's bound to not be seen as such here: read the MS stuff on usability. What MS stuff? Their design guidelines for apps. Or, read apple's. Forget the details - look for the philosophical points they emphasize there since whatever you get there certainly is a distilled version of what they have learned through years of getting it right.
(did I say MS got something right? ooh .. into the "troll" basket i go!)
If you want a deep and objective assessment, I would recommend not asking the community what they want to see. It's what your PhD candidate friend sees (independent of the community that produces the product) that is so critically important to improving the product.
Do it in terms of levels of computer literacy. Get your grandmothers to try and accomplish something on both gnome and kde. Then go for windows users. Not "power" users, anyone who knows how to view file extensions is too smart for this step. Then see if you can get some children involved - they seem to be naturally good at this sort of thing. Then test your average college student (skipping engineers and computer-type majors) Lastly test your tech-types. (Aka almost anyone who is reading this right now) (Notice placement of children and microsoft users) What questions to ask exactly? I have no idea, but I would start on your basics - try to go to a specific website, try to play solitaire, try to play a music CD, try to type and print a very simple letter - and I would eventually move up to changing system settings, accessing logs, etc.
I prefer gnome, and I think it is more usable then kde. I have friends who prefer kde, and think it is more usable then gnome. Right now I am using IceWM, because it's faster, smaller, and to me more usable then the former 2. I also have friends who swear by fvwm. Apples and oranges indeed.
I'm going to ask what kind of quirks and pitfalls the specific subject of the study should we take care. By the way, I'm NOT going to pursue a PhD in interface design. My friend is going. I'm a PhD student, but in biophysics.
-- Patent no.123456: A way to personalize
and pretend it's Linux
Get some novices (people who have never used the interface before) in, and a list of tasks to complete. Let some of them muddle through it on their own, and give others pointers on use of the help system, google, and man pages. (One of the tasks for the first group could be -finding- help on some of the things they won't be able to complete on their own.) This will help represent the range of people coming into it-some will have absolutely no idea what they're doing, others will have at least some support from other knowledgeable users who can at least point them in the right direction.
You also might want a broad cross-section of users-some who rarely or never use a computer at all, some who use one relatively frequently, and some "power users" from other operating systems. This could lead to a very interesting picture-do those that already "know how" on a different interfacee have a harder time with something new, or are they able to translate most of their knowledge and pick up more quickly?
As to a comparison between the two, you may wish not only to time how long it takes the users to complete their task lists, but also include feedback from them-were the help pages actually helpful, or did they just confuse the issue more? Was the experience relatively smooth and welcoming, or aggravating and frustrating? Was there anything the user expected to be/work a certain way that did not do as expected? Did the user find it necessary to work in CLI at any point, and if so, was this disorienting or frustrating, or relatively smooth? Did they ever think they had done something right when they really had screwed it up, and were any clues/warnings given them to this effect if so?
All these are factors in usability, and I'm sure anyone can list plenty that I missed. In the end, usability is determined by-well, the user. Since it is somewhat subjective (I find working in a command line far easier and more convenient then use of a GUI most of the time, but there are many that would disagree!), focus on what the end-user, presented with the interface for the first time, thinks of it overall.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
However, it depends on how you define useability. They take much less memory, are faster, are dependent on fewer packages. You can later put as many applications as you want into their menus as they are needed. But no one is ever going to study them because it can't be hyped like it can via the Gnome vs. KDE flamewars. Examples of more usable window managers would be Windowmaker, Afterstep, Enlightenment and many others.
Make sure the study becomes large and well known enough so MS's payoff for you to "adjust" your findings is higher.
You are who you are, let no one tell you different. But, never close your mind to a new point of view.
Linus seemed to be saying that he wants all the functions exposed and available. That's why he didn't like the GNOME approach of hiding what they considered "un-necessary" options.
... for a user who is unfamiliar with the system, a stipped down interface with only the functions that they'll be using would be the easiest to learn.
But
We have people at work who are really scared that they'll do something wrong with their computers. If ANYTHING changes, they need to be walked through it for a few days.
If you pretend the CLI is unusable you throw away the best part of every Unix desktop and you'll just be laughed at.
Make sure you use intelligent users, not uninitiated idiots, in the test. It's nice to have a system for beginners, but in the real world it's power users that matter and it's power users that Unix desktops are usually tailored to: That's where they shine.
First and foremost: Categorize your users. Usability is meaningless if you haven't identified the skills of the user and the tasks to be accomplished. For example, a rough categorization might be:
Novice, reading email and surfing the web
9-to-5 business user, lots of word processing and spreadsheet,
fairly experienced with Windows
Scientist, uses a few applications heavily, willing and able to
learn arcane interfaces
Computer geek, very knowledgable, wants to customize his windows
heavily, alter all menus, mostly uses command-line and emacs.
A single usability test couldn't possibly span these different users; each needs a completely different test. For example, computer geeks strongly favor the keyboard, and only use the mouse as a last resort. They're willing to spend lots of time learning all the emacs key sequences and are very good at it. They'll use ALT-TAB to change windows. By contrast, Grandma only surfs the web and checks email, and only uses the keyboard when typing an email.
I would think she would want to decide what type of user you are testing for. The needs of a large or medium sized business user would deviate greatly from those of a home user.
[RIAA] says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.
Watch who you take funding from. It doesn't matter if you're as objective as you can possibly be, if you get funded by anything even remotely associated with one camp or the other, the hardcore geeks won't trust a word you say.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
1. Desktop Environments are today not the loopholes of Linux usability. Both are superiour to Windows and easier to use.
2. Linux Desktop is always perfect when it works. The real problems are: It takes to much time to get it to work.
* unsupported hardware and broken hardware detection
* what happens if one component breaks, how are problems in hardware handled. (how to get rid off popup annnoyances), e.g. your cd drive is not detected, how does your music player handle the problem and help you, during installation the wrong mouse driver was selected, how do make it happen to switch the mouse driver to default when you only have keys.
* installation difficult and what to do when bugs happen
* error probability due to complexity
* ability to get your simple tasks done because of legal problems, e.g. mps, libdvdcss etc.
* internationalisation
* packages availability: I do not mean, use a tool to install a package. But say: There is the most recent version of Abiword. Now find a way to install that version on your distribution.
* some applications lack maturity or features
* api unstable or updated or broken versions break the system
Suggestion:
- usability of software installation: Yast, apt, klik etc.
- bugs: Users shall seek bugs. Study could investigate why they are not fixed.
- compile a list of past annoyances and look whether the problems prevail.
- look how to make users more productive. E.g to reduce time when searching for bugs.
Usability of help and documentation to solve problems. Ability to get help on the internet.
When you examine KDE vs. Gnome ask yourself what KDE or Gnome you were talking about. I mean KDE as shipped or some "improved" versions? Please always take the latest original version.
3. The solutions
* better integration of distribution functionality with the DE. DE or both DE are able to set standards and dictate them to all distributions which do not want to hack, they should better do that.
* quality checks. E.g. manpages for all applications? Translations 100%? x-projects
* system conformity checks.
* unify DE registry and standardize setting file data formats.
* buildserver
* bridge some desktop functionality
Try to establish which is the SIMPLER interface; the one with the fewest surprises; the least "clever" interface. That is, the one which will not turn off people who have a life, who just want a way to use their damn machine!
--- There is no bun but Bun, and Fuzzy is His prophet! Bunbun akbar! ---
We need more information.
Is she testing against newbies or experts or in between? Choice of distro will make a HUGE difference here.
An absolute newbie will have an easier time with Ubuntu even compared to windows (windows does not have a gui to download and install new apps without thought.)
While ubuntu will cause fits to 15 year Linux vetrans that cut their teeth on making their own distro or slackware.
Everything depends heavily on the perception of the users tested and the distro used. KDE and Gnome under Ubuntu is brain dead easy. The same pair under Slackware or BSD is certianly not.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Your friend probably has more knowledge on HCI than all of the comments here combined. Trust her, don't trust /., because what is true for cryptography is also true for usability - it's easy to get it wrong and hard to get it right, and it takes an expert to spot the difference.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Improve apon betterdesktop. The site is a collection of usability data with a focus on Linux apps. The front page gives more detail
peterrenshaw ~ Another Scrappy Startup
I'm quite surprised there is no such poll in /. considering the interest in this topic.
Generally no. Less memory, faster, dependent on fewer packages, these are all reasons for a GEEK. Joe Average doesnt care about that. The big DEs have file managers (I really like konqueror), do not need to be configured by manually editing some configfiles (BIG BIG reason against small DEs for end users - they dread complicated-looking stuff like this), have built-in help, support for tons of tasks (like browsing, watching some videos - and no, mplayer is not userfriendly, neither is its GUI; kaffeine is the enduser player), graphical frontends for tasks like fonts installation, printer installation etc.
Small DEs are good for specific workstations where the users are unlikely to do anything else than the pre-planned type work (like cgi departments with 3d artists using maya, or medical workstations with only one app running constantly, like some MRI-scan analysers).
This sig does not contain any SCO code.
No. All she is "testing" there is how closely the desktop they're being "tested" on resembles the one they're used to.
Novell did this already.
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/11
So, to send email
KDE vs Gnome? hey dude, you missed Mac OS X, the perhaps the best operating system based on UNIX http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/unix/
Boring....
Just have a set of tasks, like configure email client or download and install said software. Then, ask them how hard it was to do this. Give them no more instructions than the very simple sentances I gave earlier and make sure to have a group of people doing the testing that is pretty representative of the public (read not all Ph D. students in CS). You might want to come up with a list of questions that get you the comments you desire for each activity, but that should be a short list and let the testers know that they don't have to answer all questions, but they questions are suggested questions. They could be something like:
....
1.) About how long did this task take you?
2.) How was the experience?
3.) Any room for improvement?
Also, make sure they alternate which system they test first, so maybe the first task, they run it on Gnome first, then second on KDE first.
No Sigs!
Use a commercially successful UNIX desktop as a reference point.
While OS X doesn't occupy the majority of desktops it is
a commercial success.
One thing I tend to find is that Windows users react differently to Linux desktops than do, say, Mac users. Windows has a rather peculier UI (from a strict usability theory standpoint), so not accounting for whether your test subjects are Windows or Mac users can make the results pointless.
One thing might be to get longtime Mac users, longtime Windows users, and complete novices (though, this might be hard, because most people have used a computer at some point, and usually it was a Windows machine), and see how they react to different desktops.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
I've installed many systems over the years and chosen between many window managers. In my personal experience, if I see a bunch of software to choose from and don't recognize any of it, then I just pick at random. The only time I reverse that decision is if the choice I made is absolutely horrible. Seriously, how many users are going to do a careful investigation before choosing between KDE and Gnome? Why can't both groups do their own usability study and improve both products? Doing a VS study between two products that most people have never seen or heard of prior to choosing one is the most useless thing I've ever heard of. The only outcome of this is to validate that coin-toss you performed while installing Linux the first time.
Neither the participants nor the study coordinator should know what operating system the test subjects are using! You might laugh, but all you need are people who have only used Windows or Mac!
Also, make sure to use more than Gnome or KDE! Use XFCE, Fluxbox, and other XWindows managers.
And don't forget to make sure that the study has the appropriate "power"!
And make sure that everyone is using the same system configuration (motherboard, processor, underlying flavor of linux)
a benchmark.
Using the OOMA method, let's say it takes a user on one system 2 minutes to figure out how to send an email, and 1.95 min on anther system. What the hell does that mean?
If you use other items as some sort of bench mark, people might begin to get a feel for the numbers.
Lets say it take 45 seconds to figure out a new blender, 5 minutes to use a new remote, 20+years to set the clock on the VCR. Now people reading your study have a reference they can relate to.
It would also help companies trying to make applience computer to know where they stand in relation to appliances.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
A simple usability study consist of a series of steps:
1. Make a list of tasks to be performed (this can be done with the subject if you would like an objective list).
2. Think about the range of problems that can occur during the performing of the task. Make a subtask for every possible system failure.
3. Confirm that your subject is in total control.
4. Tell your subject that he or she is not to be judged according to his/her skills, but that the program (or in this case, distribution) is being judged. Faults are not the subjects fault, but the fault of the programmers.
5. Perform every task that has been determined above.
6. During the performance, don't listen to the projected voice of the subject alone, but also look at facial expressions, movemends of body and mouse gestures. Write everything down you see. Don't make any conclusions at this point.
7. Do the same as you did above with at least 15 other subjects to come close at being objective (being objective requires a vastly larger set of subjects and a good process of choosing these at random).
8. Aggregate conclusions using the marks you made before. It is a good idea to have an idea what to test for before commencing so you can quantifice everything better.
Success!
This is a replacement signature.
If this chick is doing a PhD on usability, then she probably knows tons about how to do an objective usability study. If she doesn't then people on Slashdot definitely won't :)
I still exclusively use xfce. Simply because it is *everything* I need and am sure it is also everything 95% of desktop users out there need. Without any eye candy, screen clutter and unnecessary junk. Small is beautiful.
deep and objective study
Only one of those two adjectives is possible at any given time.
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
First you have to decide if the study should be quantitative or qualtitative. For the first option you have to decie if you want to watch users use these DEs or if you want to give them questions to answer. In addition for this approach you need tasks, and people to perform these tasks. They should have no knowledge of KDE or GNOME desktops at all and should be a representative group of users (e.g. not more than 3% MacOS X users and 1.3% Linux Users)
In your conclusion. Don't say A is better than B, because your study is realtiv to the set of task you designed.
For more about empirical studies, read some books about it (e.g. Karl Poppers books).
... take her out, get her drunk and then bang her. Your deep and objective method is way too complicated.
1) Coming here to ask your question is a bad idea. Not necessarily because of the quality of most answers, but rather because /. readers represent such a miniscule portion of the real population.
2) Which brings me to my next point. Hire HCI experts, or take some classes on HCI. Testing OSS interfaces isn't any different than testing those of commercial software. You can do either user evaluations or predictive evaluations (w/o users). In fact, doing the latter first AND then the former is [usually] the best option. A cognitive walkthrough or heuristic evaluation can eliminate ~75% of the problems if done by around 4-6 evaluators. Then design an evaluation plan to be executed w/ users. Decide on benchmark tasks. Since you're comparing KDE with Gnome, and I bet those with Windows and/or Mac, you'll want benchmark numbers for all. Look for # of errors, time to completion, etc. These are easily quantifiable and thus comparable metrics.
Just off the top of my head, make sure to study these basic principles (not exhaustive): Learnability, Retainability, Predictability, Familiarity, Consistency, Dialog Initiative, Customizability, Generalizability, Observability, Responsiveness, Efficiency, Error Prevention, Error Recovery, Feedback.
Jakob Nielson and Don Norman are 2 of the most popular experts on HCI. Read Norman's "Design of Everyday Things" and Nielson's Usability Engineering.
Why ? I just do not know for sure, but my guess it that the brain begins to think about a lot of things from 300ms on (this is the average duration of a Tex Avery gag : just about 7 or 8 cells) and that you therefore get deconcentrated by a lot of parasitical ideas.
And conversely, anything that gives you sub-200ms response time, you are going to get accustomed too rather fast, because probably only the low-level functions of the brain (or mind, whatever you please) will be neeeded to coordinate between what sou see and what you do. Just my two cents.
Signature omitted in order to save space. Thanks for your understanding.
Difficult task...
* take one or three courses in experimental design
* take a number of courses in statistics
* now consider doing a study...otherwise it will be another useless HCI project.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
- Decide where you are going to be broad and where you are going to be deep.
You might do a broad overview of the interface but then look at more comprehensively at some very specific areas.
One good one might be copy, paste and cut. It is obvious, intuitive, and consistent. Text, icons, programs, files every way you might use copy, paste and cut.
- Is it obvious what some control widgets are for?
Can you tell what is an on off button and if it is on or off.
Is it clear what a radio button is, which is selected, what is does, that it is a radio button etc.
Some examples of this:
On the Nokia 6010 cell phone the power button is a strange bump on some rubber on the top edge of the phone. It doesn't look like a power button nor does it sit where you would expect a power button to be.
In Office 2003 turning on track changes can be done on a toolbar or a drop down menu. In older versions there was a definite checkbox that showed if it was turned on or not. With the new version it isn't even obvious that there is any way to turn it on and off. I thought that MS often did usability studies but buy did they fall down o the job on this one.
- Consider looking at best of breed or idealized methods as compared to what exists for GNOME/KDE.
For specific items does, Windows, MS Office, Apple, NexT, OS/2 or some other product have a much better (best of breed) way of doing the same thing? Is there some research project or lab that came up with a better method that isn't in any real product?
- Can the user interface be used with primarily just a mouse?
- Can the user interface be used with primarily (or only) the keyboard?
- Is it possible to learn the keyboard methods (or mouse) methods of doing things by using the interface. I'm thinking of drop down menus that tell you what the keyboard shortcut is for that item. If you find yourself doing the action a bunch you start noticing the keyboard shortcut and start using that (which is likely faster).
- Similarly if you don't know what things in the interface are for is there an easy way to learn? Tooltip popups when you hover over a button are an example. Do the methods used actually work for real people.
- Think about or segregate your target users. Is this new computer users, light users transitioning from windows, power users moving from Mac, keyboard windows admins, mouse only windows admins etc. Either pick a specific group or make a definite distinction between the different classifications.
Linux loses hands down. Period.
"What do you mean go to the shell and enter sudo usermount what?"
"Er..."
They can eye candy up Linux all they want on the desktop. The OS itself still has structural problems that boil down to bass ackwards techie goonery in thinking. Desktop end users DO NOT and SHOULD NOT have to understand abstractions and specifics about mounting drives, runlevels, reinstalling video drivers every single time they update the kernel by clicking a desktop icon telling them to...
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
one _very_ interesting test to do is to disconnect _all_ machines from the internet;
1 27637
windows, gnome, kde - and see whether people find it useable or even useful.
another:
http://kde-look.org/ and http://gnome-look.org/ (when they're back up/online)
set something up that is MAC-like. see how much it takes to set up a MAC look-alike
(use kroller.sez - search for it on kde-look.org or even just kroller)
use the MAC kde theme (baghira i think it is).
try to do the same thing on gnome (which is near impossible).
but most importantly, take note - over time - how long it takes people to
_adapt_ to using linux.
compare the bitch-awful time that people have with windows viruses and
spyware to _not_ having to deal with viruses and spyware at all.
compare the bitch-awful time that people have with printing, on windows,
to printing on linux (both kde and gnome). don't tell them how to set
up a printer.
plug in a scanner, see what happens.
plug in a USB memory stick, see what happens. if you install debian or
any debian-based distro, remember to read this:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=169444&cid=14
including the follow-up comments i added.
yes - basically: the advice about doing a "long-term" study is a very
good one.
if at all possible, set up a four-way (actually 8-way or maybe more!) matrix,
all using "dumb users":
* windows or kde or gnome
* access or with no access to the internet
* access or with no access to a "geek" who can provide advice
the internet access on will test your "dumb users" ability to seek out
advice for themselves, and the quality of that advice - including
posting on mailing lists and getting useful replies, and being able
to action them.
the "geek" access will provide a reasonable guide to what happens
when you have an "IT department".
i bet you that the failures will occur in windows when there's
internet access but no geeks, because of spyware, virus and adware
attacks.
that, depending on your users, the failures will occur in linux
when you have no internet access or geek access [unless you drop
them in front of ubuntu or kubuntu].
that, when you put users in touch with geeks, that linux wins hands-down.
that, overall, your "intelligent" users who just want to get on with
stuff, when in touch with geeks, find KDE _much_ easier to live with.
that, overall, your "stupid" users, when in touch with geeks, find
gnome fits their level of stupidity _just_ fine.
But there are lots of countries with people who still haven't used computers.
Not to mention that an interface with settings 1-10 (1=brand new user, 10=expert) would make a lot of non-experts more comfortable with their computers.
An ideal interface would evolve with the user's experience level. Not trap an experienced user with a pre-school interface nor confuse a new user with expert-level options.
Tailor the choices available to the level of the user and let the USER choose how complex the interface he uses is. Just like books. When you started reading, you didn't read the books you read today. Those books followed very careful patterns on what words were used and how often they were repeated.
But since none of the interfaces out there are doing that yet, it really doesn't matter for this discussion.
An important part of any Linux desktop review *must* include the ability to standardized the desktop settings across an enterprise similiar to the features provided in a Windows Domain. Right now, I do not see an easy way to apply, configure, and enforce security and desktop settings across all desktops. Is there a "group policy editor" for Linux desktops?
your girlfriend needs to become an expert in _all_ systems,
in order to make a comparison.
she needs to _locate_ suitable dumb-idiots who haven't been thingied.
biased. and intelligent people. etc.
but she needs to _become_ a geek - to know the pitfalls and
advantages of the various setups - in order to not _accidentally_
introduce bias.
if she were one of the _subjects_ of the test, that would be
a different matter.
I had a nice rant all written up, because this is definitely not News for Nerds, or even Stuff that Matters. But its not worth it. Its already a lost cause when people ask slashdot to do assignments that they should be lerning from for them.
Going to the dead tree repository (you know, what we used to call a library) and doing some basic research on design in other fields completely unrelated to computers would be more useful, but lazy, unmotiviated students can't be bothered.
Nope the answer is "Teh Intar-net", some hand-waving, yadda yadda yaddda ... a powerpoint presentation or 10 (novocaine for the brain), a paper written in large fonts, wide margins, triple-spaced, to bulk up the page count, lots of screen shots that take up ink and paper but communicate nothing, a ton of links cited as references (just grab the first few pages off google and cut-and-paste the linkies, but dont bother reading the content - its not like anyone else will check it) and you've got your 100-page piece of drek. Don't forget to spiral-bind it for extra credit.
One of these days a professor is going to require that assignments be hand-written; then we'll see people actually learn to communicate with an economy of words. It'll kill off the cut-n-paste gang. Big deal. They're already a waste of space.
"Generally no. Less memory, faster, dependent on fewer packages, these are all reasons for a GEEK. Joe Average doesnt care about that."
If that is true, then the study even has less relevance. Just let people keep using XP.
I don't know who the quote is accredited to, but it is very true. Everything else has to be learned (even some babies need help w/ the nipple). Now the real question is, what GUI is most 'intuitable' given some users background. That's a tough one. But, bring that into play (and account for people's backgrounds) and you might be able to find more interesting things about your statistics you piled up.
*** Sigs are a stupid waste of bandwidth.
Well, since Unix has *NEVER* had an objective study of it's desktop done, you will make history as a pioneer. Since it's survived so many smear campaigns, yours will, unfortunately, just add to the hot air. What, exactly, is the *point* of such a study, anyway? What does it change? I have yet to read a single such study that swayed my choices one iota.
Sadly, you're off on the wrong foot already. KDE-vs-Gnome. Hey, Dr Kinsey, there's just a few other test subjects you're failing to interview: http://xwinman.org/. So actually, you're flunking already. You are not doing a "Unix desktop study". You are doing a "KDE-vs-Gnome" study, and your results will no more be applicable to Unix in general than a study of Coke-vs-Pepsi would apply to all beverages.
It does not go without saying: Don't be paid Microsoft shills. Don't be paid by *anybody* for that matter.
Now, if I studied dogs, I wouldn't start with everything I know about cats and try to fit it all around that by comparing dogs with cats at every possible point. Similarly, Unix never gets taken as an operating system on it's own right. Everything is instead stated "It is not as good as or just like or better than Microsoft." How about judging something just once based on it's own merit, the way anybody studying anything else is expected to do in any other field? Consider your subject as if other operating systems did not exist. God knows, Microsoft is talked about in this manner.
Unfortunately, the focus will of course be on KDE and Gnome, the Heckyl and Jeckyl whose sole point of contention is "I'M a perfect clone of the Windows environment!" "No, I am!" "No, me!" "NO, ME!" So in fact, you're not the least bit interested in considering even KDE or Gnome on it's own right - this will be a Windows-impersonator contest. Never mind that counting from the invention of computers: http://ei.cs.vt.edu/~history/Babbage.html, computers have been around for one hundred and eighty-two years, and only the last 20 years http://members.fortunecity.com/pcmuseum/windows.ht m has seen the existence of a desktop system known as Windows. For a ratio of 0.10989011 of computer's history, you are going to compare the one system whose sole claim is that it made a lot of money in the United States to two other desktops expressly written to mimic it.
I'm really sure the world will be enlightened.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
...your friend change majors.
If she's getting a PhD specialized HID, and she can't figure out how to work up interface usability tests, then either she's a poor student, or she had bad teachers.
What exactly are they teaching her in her HID-related classes, if not HID?
This space for rent. Call 1-800-STEAK4U
Google is your friend...
;)
HCI Bibliography with many papers and the relevant HIG (Human Interface Guidelines) prepared by GUI system designers and API builders...
http://www.hcibib.org/
people with preferences to GUIs clearly need more practice with computing
if I claimed I was emperor just because some watery tart lobbed a scimitar at me they'd put me away!
#4. I have no social life : These have seen so much different systems that they understand well the general concept and can adapt themself very quickly to whatever system you throw at them. As open to new solutions as #1, but very quickly get as agile to whatever system as #3 is.
(In fact that was my case when I started learning both KDE and Windows 95 in parallel)
The best system ever should be as easy as possible for #1 out of the box, but need to be very easily configurable to whatever complex system #3 and #4 need.
If the system is newbie-friendly but can't evolve you'll end with Clippy and this kind of stuff that gets in the user's way with pointless tips (tips that would have helped a total beginner, but sorry now I know exactly what I want). Attracts #1 users, but repels #3 and #4.
If the system is configurable to extreeme you end up with emacs or vi : the most powerfull tool around you can't ever dream of in your wildest dreams, but you can't do anything without unless you've spent the first year learning it the harsh way. #3 only are interested, #4 must ponder if they want to re-learn everything once again (albeit they do it faster), #1 will prefer to commit suicide.
#2 are pointless, they won't accept anything that isn't their original system, they're the one that will never switch to MacOSX or Linux because it's not Windows+Office, and they'll cry each time MicroSoft revamps the interface and everything is moved around (Windows 3.11 -> Windows 9x -> Windows 2k -> Windows XP -> Windows Vista and same for the Offices). Just wait until the next "GUI is completly changed one more time" period, and they'll be as good as #1 users (or #4 if it's not their first change around).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
I would also suggest that anybody that uses UNIX by choice is not primarily concerned with usability.
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
is she hot?
...both technical and theoretical -- would you give us on conducting a deep and objective study on the Unix desktop
No offense, but my advice would be: Don't ask slashdot.
Don't you have someone you'd die for?
åèLinusçsèè£æ"è¾fçåâ¦â¦
I would like to have a native (real) GUI toolkit for X11. Neither Qt nor Gtk are true X11 toolkits. They do not work within the X11 framework as was originally intended and because of that they bring incompatibility with Xt/Xlib applications. I get really tired of having to use Qt and Gtk mechanisms for setting appearance on their widgets in a manner which is different from how appearance are handled in Xt/Xlib applications (via X resources). Both toolkits also take away the full power of X11 that is available to a developer because they both employ lowest common denominator approaches to their APIs in order to seek greater portability to other platforms. It's important to point out that true X11 Gui-Toolkit/Xt/Xlib applications are entirely cross-platform as X11 is supported on many other platforms (probably more than Qt and Gtk combined). Of course color resources are only one examples. Both Qt and Gtk cut-n-paste handling is fundamentally different from X11. Lot's of other issues too. There are many things that X11 brings to the table that your are denied use of because these toolkits limit your ability to exploit X11. In X11 I can have the exact same app running on different machines displayed with entirely different color schemes based on the client they are run from. An obscure feature, yes. But one that I don't think that Qt and Gtk will permit, even when running on X11, because they fail to observe and make use of fundamental X11 mechanisms. Ooops, dinner is ready, well I guess I got to cut it short.
Consider the Apple Developer Guide
http://benroe.com/files/gui.html
-anon
I can use a CLI and write scripts to complete the tests :)
Both desktops are rather approachable, with KDE erring on the side of defaulting to more visible buttons than necessary, and Gnome making some unfortunate choices about removing functionality. But where an OS and suite of programs are provided as a "set piece", they are both eminently usable.
Its when users want to break out of that "Unix-geek-set-it-up-for-granmda" mould that FOSS usability falls down. None of the intermediate "power users" can figure out how to install a Wifi card, or even an application/game they downloaded from a vendor site... so they don't want *nix around their desktop at work and they don't speak enthusiatically about it to friends and family. They feel savy adopting Firefox and wowing people with that; But Linux? Fuggetaboudit. These people outnumber hardcore *nix admins and basement enthusiasts by orders of magnitude.
So a typical Linux distro is very usable already-- as a thin/thick client in a controlled setting.
To go beyond this, people need more technical help from the layers underneath the desktop:
1. An identifiable brand for an umbrella Linux desktop standard. Maybe LSB4 can be marketed by the various distros as LMPC "Linux Media PC" Inside.
2. LMPC will need a standard binary interface for hardware drivers. That doesn't mean more performance-critical drivers can't be handled the way they are now, it just means the ABI is available for vendors wanting to supply drivers to the customer.
3. An exhaustive and well-maintained Hardware Compatability List to help people with their hardware purchasing decisions. I am astounded that nothing better than the HCL at linuxquestions.org seems to exist. Freeform Googling for compatible hardware is not good enough.
4. LMPC will also need a standard ABI for applications, with a clear demarcation of where the OS ends and where applications begin. Withoiut this, users have to filter their whole application-shopping experience through repositories and their dependency-checking databases; Mac users don't need this tarbaby and neither do we.
5. The upshot of LSB4 and item #4 above is that we (hopefully) get a robust and stable API. Desktop Linux then finally looks like a real platform that can win the confidence of more creative types.
6. Improve documentation and context-sensitive help. This should be a natural offshoot of good programming practices: Document and collect your use-cases and make sure the team reviews them often (esp. when making decisions since they'll throw mistaken assumptions into sharp relief). Near the end of your release cycle, you already have a document that shows just how your user documentation should flow (and how to test your product).
I'll add that all levels of development need to maintain focus on their audience through documented use-cases. Even you Linus.
7. More services/daemons ought to be made responsible for persisting their own configuration data to disk. That means Xorg provides an API to alter and serialize video settings, instead of leaving it up to a vast array of outsider hacks like Yet Another Config Tool By Bucky and Stewart, all of which poorly comprehend the conf file they're dealing with.
Gnome and KDE cannot help much more than they are with mainstream adoption. Probably the best they can do now is to take advantage of #7 by providing standard config widgets as services become capable of writing their own config files. Perhaps applying some pressure to those lower layers would help. Setting up a netowrk share or adding a new peripheral should not be a CLI-bound black art, nor should it be a sometimes-candy-coated experience that shifts drastically between distros.
If you're conducting a Unix Desktop Usability Study, then you owe it to yourself to check out other GUIs that may not necessarily run on Linux.
Have a look at Mac OS X with it's very good-looking and usable
Have a look at a GUI designed for optimum usability, by recognised leaders in the field of Human Computer Interactions.
While you're at it, look at Apple's documentation on User Experience
Specialist Mac support for creative pros, Melbourne
If you want to study user interfaces, try MS Windows XP and Mac OS X and understand why they are so successful. That's what more than 90% of the computer users use in the world. You must develop from what we have, not reinvent the wheel.
I used the SuSE 10 distribution for the study, which in fact turned out quite well. It would be quite interesting to compare this to, say Gnome or just another distribution like Kubuntu. Hopefully I will get to that later.
Read the study.
I aonly see talking about KDE and Gnome. Why not throw in other things in a real test? Or is it that people can only understand differences between two things.
VI or Emacs.
Windows or Linux.
Repubicans or Democrats.
For or against the USofA's battle agains terrorism.
A serious test should be done with as many GUIs as possible. What if Blackbox, WindowMaker, XFCE or any other comes out on top?
The hard part will be to find people who are not already influenced by what they already learned and a study will most likely result in ' what is closest to what I already us'. I personally am trying out XFCE for two months and see wther I like it, no matter what any study or whomever says.
Also, what if say KDE is choosen as the best. Should we then all dump all the others and have only on true GUI, KDE, or should we rather stop deveoploping KDE and put all our efford into the other(s) to get them on the same level so we still have a choice in the end?
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Again, yep.
So the key would be having the level of complexity selectable by the user. Any functionality not at the current level or below is 100% hidden from the user.
Example: 1st level word processing options would be
Re-open something I did before.
Save what I'm working on.
Uppercase and lowercase letters.
Print.
They don't get fonts. They don't get WordArt. They don't get word count. They can't change their margins. It is the very basic functionality.
At level 2 they'd get more options, like bold and italics.
Level 3 would give introduce them to fonts. They'd get ONE optional font.
Level 4, more fonts and the option to change their size. And so on. It's easier for someone who's already learned the concepts to pick up more items so giving the user 5 new items at level 2 would be the same as giving the user 40 new items at level 5 for a total of 75 items (40+20+10+5) beyond level 1.
Then comparing "usability" becomes very, Very, VERY, VERY easy. All you would do is:
a. Determine what level the functions you want to test are at.
b. Determine what level the user is at.
c. Time them to see how fast they can advance to the necessary level and perform the function.
d. Compare the productivity of two users with the same time spent achieving the same level of expertise on two different systems.
Learning how to do it is not the same a being efficient at it.
You may find that KDE may require licenses for an OSS, whereas GTK+ is free (in the BEER and license definitions). FWIW, I use KDE on a daily basis, but program using GTK. The widgets are a bit more old school but they also save a lot on memory, which directly impacts the user experience on older computers. In a past experience that comes to mind, the GUI interface is all important for acceptance (a woman wanted eggplant colored backgrounds with burnt orange fonts). My rule of thumb: users only appreciate what their eyes see and requires the least brain cells to operate and manage. User experience out trumps features when dealing with the masses. Good luck!
I think, while interesting, doing only that will prove useless as a whole. Why? Because you are testing usability of specific applications rather than the system as a whole.
IMHO, a better approach would be to have a look at that platform's Human Interface Guidelines and see how complete their respective documentation is and how closely application developers follow them. If the Human Interface standards are incomplete, then developers are free to do whatever they want in grey areas, which leads to inconsistency and confusion.
Following that, select a few prevalent apps on each platform and grade them on conformance. HIGs are pretty useless if developers do not respect them. If developers are not following the guidelines, then that is a red flag itself. Either the guidelines suck, or developers need to be given a stronger incentive to follow them.
Finally, once you've done those two things, test users on the most HIG compliant apps you can find and see if the HIG itself is any good. If the guidelines suck, then compliant apps will suck and it will be obvious with user testing. Make suggestions for changes to whoever controls the respective HIG, wait for changes, rinse, repeat.
Problem: Unix GUI usability low for casual users.
Action: Perform UNIX GUI usability studies every few days, post repeatedly on Slashdot.
Result: UNIX GUI usability studies improve, UNIX GUI usability stays same.
For the study to work right envision an environemnts you want to test, 'home', 'work' and 'school'. From that make a list of specific tasks that people would use in those environemnts would typically perform. such as:
Home:
- Send and Recieve Emails
- Browse the Internet, play movie previews, shop on-line, etc.
- Play some games
- Create greeting cards and stuff.
- Music w/on-line sites and portable players
- Photos, Home Video
School:- Internet
- On-Line Courses
- Email
- Chat
- Word Processing large douments
- Wi-Fi
- Working on the go (live distro?) and porting documents to other machines
Work:- Email
- Word Processing
- Presentation
- Spreadsheet
- Groupware
- maybe some DTP
- Work with a PIM, sync to Palm or PocketPC, etc.
- Exchanging data with outside Windows/Mac users
Most of the above will be a breeze but parts will be a total pain, especially creating cards (no PrintShop like apps for Linux), Playing Games, On-line Coursework, music services, watching previews, etc.Depending on how much you want to face the truth you can have some geek to methodically choose and preconfigure the hardware, cards and packages to make the process all pretty or you can just present them with a computer and a distro set, and let the excitement begin. I'd go with the latter, because I DO like Linux and think we could and should do better.
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
So, people would tend to learn better if the system has a breast interface?
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
My advice is to not just look at KDE and Gnome! Many people, myself included find both of them rather annoying and cluttered. There's a lot to be said for the customizability and simplicity of not using them. It's not perfect either, but I do wish people wouldn't assume that it's no longer an option.
If I were you I would not concentrate on a comparison of the two systems, or if I did compare the two, I would do it long after the event, by looking at results. Beware of the false dichotomy.
Of most use is probably the approach that detailed the various sticking points in each interface, separately. Don't ask which is better - ask what works in each case.
If you read the whole thread..and garner the good from the bad.
Other than that, what would the average reader here know about the technicalities of such a scientific study?
It's obviouse the Linux desktop (any of its window managers actually) is better than Microsofts and comparable with Macs.
The weaknesses in both KDE and Gnome are basically the same, that is, lack of the ability of the user, to determine the 'level' of usability he wants, based on whether he is a power user, or common Joe.
Both KDE & Gnome, along with the rest of the OSS community need to help take the lead in computer technologies, by incorporating more programs and options for people to BLITZ the common enemies (M$, RIAA, MPAA, etc.), with the likes of; Tor, Kazaa, Streambox, etc.
This seemingly absurd 'frontal' attack is the only way to ensure that Bill Gates and Co. will not use 'legal' means to do 'illegal' things against OSS.
-- SlashDots moderation system is not broken, but it is Fixed.
I will gladly loose all of life's battles.. in order to win the war..
If its just KDE vs GNOME then get a bunch of Mac and Windows users to try GNOME and KDE. You might want to explain some things first, like there is no E for the Internet click on the Red Fox for Firefox things like that. If its all around useablity have people from Mac Windows GNOME and KDE try the other UIs and have them tell you what they like and dont like dont have them compare against eachother. The reason for this is people get stuck in their ways and do not like to change to something newer even if it is easier.
Too many usability analyses are done from the perspective of a computer as an appliance. What is a good analysis of, say, a dishwasher or a motorcycle is completely inappropriate for a general purpose computer.
With this in mind:
- be prepared to evaluate flexibility, both for power users and for beginners
- evaluate the quality of the commandline
- evaluate the completeness of the documentation
- evaluate the accessibility of special techniques for getting things done, rather than merely how easy it is to click on an icon
Computers can be locked down to a single application, and users can run that as an appliance (like a game console with the media taped in place). In this case, you're evaluating that particular application's interface, not the system as a whole. Be careful to distinguish when you're evaluating a given application from when you're evaluating the operating interface as a whole.
General-purpose computers need ways in which general-purpose commands can be issued. The inability to do this quickly, easily and with high reliability is a serious down-check.
It's not KDE or Gnome, both are equally bad compared to Microsoft's.... Still worse is the availablity of Drivers for Linux and some "_dick_heads_" are opposing HAL kind of architecture which is putting vendors in a tight spot(whether to open the code or not) and consumers away from linux.
Now don't moderate it as Flamebait, accept the fact and lets correct it before Redmond folks claim, Linux is history and is fit for valleys museum. I work on Linux but since I couldn't find a wireless driver for my laptop, I am using this f*** XP
Software is what it is out of the box.
Extensions, like firefox extensions, might be good, because they mark the limits of big chunks of functionality that some specific users might need.
Configuring the system is not that great. It takes too much time, and if you can't work with the default, the default is wrong.
Firefox proved that.
Control centers ae just a nice way to spend your time. I have used KDE since they started getting popular (I used Enlightenment at the time), and Gnome since the first versions, and I've had it with configuring desktops.
The desktops should just work out of the box. That way you don't pass the responsibility of choosing the right defaults to users.
And that "power user" thing is a fallacy (sp?) .
Users are experts in what they know how to do, and novices at what they don't know, along their whole experience (I think Jef Raskin said that) . There's no "expert" user, who knows what's more productive for him, specially when he can't measure his productivity objectively. That's what interface experts are for!
Ubuntu's gnome desktop is great out of the box, and it requires no tweaking.
I don't think there's a benefit in a usability comparison between KDE and gnome, though. Gnome is much better in terms of modern usability trends, and KDE is much more familiar to the former mswindows user. It comes down to a philosophical issue, rather than a technical one, if you think "usability" means "familiarity", then KDE is much better, and there are reasons to think that way, and it's measurably better, when you are talking about former mswindows users. Gnome would be better in the modern meaning of "usability", when you take into account cognitive skills and stuff, but that can make experts think that you are treating the user as if he were dumb.
KDE's multi-UNIX/Linux capable, & thus makes it as simple as it gets - especially for Windows people.
I know, I am one, & picked right up on it with EASE...
You want to make UNIX/Linux useable for the masses? You've GOT your multi-platform shell to program via its Qt API, which rides on many a Unix/Linux core-kernel.
APK
P.S.-> That's my take on it @ least... because KDE's a pretty damn good desktop (though I preferred its 2.x series looks the best perosnally)... apk
Simply, pick Windows users to do your tests, rather than people familiar with any *nix distro. Measure their startup learning curve and draw baseline eye-hand performance conclusions.
Set up a table or two and measure the time needed to do certain basic tasks, such as create a WP document, edit a simple text file and store the result, draw a simple picture, store and re-display it, send a simple email to yourself. Use an old-fashioned stop watch and clipboard, perhaps, to abstract the measures from the equipment and ensure independence of the data from extraneous factors.
Include metrics for for these baseline tasks for both the first time they try it and subsequent tries, and how many repetitions it requires before the task becomes "routine" (i.e. point of approach of low stdev between results).
Measure in parallel, different people for each distro. Do a simple typing speed check for each person and a simple mouse-activity rate check (perhaps time needed to move three simple images around in a click/drag exercise) and use these metrics to normalise the baseline capabilities of different test subjects in the above. I'd suggest doing their speed checks on a different platform (even Windows) so as not to corrupt the base test measurements with respect to their startup learning curve.
In short, do stats using fresh test subjects, and measure the results.
Bring in some cross-disciplinary talent to measure other aspects besides raw performance, such as a selection of industrial designers (draw from your student contacts) to rate the esthetics, an ergonomics researcher to measure the carpal damage potential, whatever else you can think of. (Cross-disciplinary assistance brings in a bit of professional polish, but can be academically political, YMMV.)
If it feels right, it's art. If you can measure the feel, it's science.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
Maybe you just want to compare the two, but be aware that others exist.
I have always liked FVWM, for qualities that unique to it. YMMV
UNIX Desktop Usability... well I don't think Grandma will be purchasing hardware that comes with UNIX on it... maybe hip Grandma Caryle would buy a Linux box, but not likely UNIX. Sun desktop hardware is too expensive for normal personal use. So that limits our audience to just technical folk, whether that be a designer or engineer, but some type of role that requires skills or wits (one would hope ;)).
...
/. would say its a dead interface.
Personally, I still really like CDE. It's been my primary desktop for 10 years. Writing dtksh scripts is easy, and lots of documentation on how to do it when you want to add another bell or whistle. Configuration is drag-n-drop or editing the config file, your choice. I can move my CDE desktop from my HP-UX workstation to my AIX, and to my Solaris box without having to edit anything, and it just works. I haven't tried it on my Linux box, but I will now
Of course people around
It is not just KDE vs Gnome! In my opinion, for now OS X is the Linux Desktop killer. When my Dell gave up it's ghost and it came time for me to buy a new laptop - I looked at Linux vs OS X and came to the opinion OS X was the way to go. (I mean heck - it even has vi! Might as well through in another religious war here.) I can compile damn near anything on OS X that can be compiled on Linux (or gee hum BSD!)
Nothing is more scary than the Unix/Linux community discussing UI. Scary as hell. Run.
Slowchaser-
Much of the comments I've seen on this subject are attempting to find good blank slates (test subjects) as a means determining which suite is best. Having had contact with a number of local grade schools in South Carolina that can not afford the price of a windows-based computer lab, I have an idea.
Currently a program here in Columbia, sponsored by one of the librarians, has enabled grade school students to gain access to linux based computing solutions. A very interesting usablity study would be to monitor fresh students ability to adapt to the new environments. A number of schools spanning a wide geographical region could be used for data collection. Since multiple classes exist, assign one class to use Gnome and the other to use KDE. Provide little assistance to the students (trust me if their like my 5 year old half brother they won't need it). Allow them to play with the interface and the included edutainment packages for a period. After this introductory period, introduce them to the internet facilities of the environment. Firefox or Epiphany / Konq.
During the second half of the class allow them to start using the word processing utilities and teach them typing if they have not already learned.
I do realize that this is perhapse an unrealistic scope. However, if a sponsorship from the Gnome Foundation / KDE group could support such a study, the schools, students, and OSS Desktop environment would benefit from the information & support.
If you want to do something useful, look at the stated goals of each project (GNOME seems to be about simplicity, KDE about power, but do not take my word for it!) and evaluate ways they could usefully move forward.
Too many people try to argue about which is "better" without dealing with the underlying reality that each serves a different purpose. Help each thrive on it's unique vision and strengths and we'll all be better off.
You're asking Slashdot for a way to acquire an UNBIASED opinion on GNOME vs KDE?
Have you ever asked us about vi vs emacs?
Unix Desktop? Suggest they consider the most thoroughly thought-out desktop environment in the entire Unix universe - Apple Macintosh OS X.
Problem is of course getting users who rarely or never use a computer at all - is it because they can't adapt to current systems and interfaces or are we in such a rural area that there really aren't any to have experience with? The bias torwards an operating system (largely Windows of course) will shape any direction to what users quickly adapt to.
But still, KDE and GNOME are largely on the same level as far as interfacing users - if someone wants to really hit a new paradigm the world needs, shouldn't there be more research on technology? Ie: new interfaces (Mice are so last decade), real 3D environments (the Solaris 3D demo was a step but still 2D except for window management and manipulation), and something else or two equally cutting edge that we haven't seen yet?
UNIX desktops?
Oh sorry you mean black backgrounds with white writing.
you need some other place. we only do superficial and subjective. deeply subjective. bigotted even.
You know, there are lots of people out there eager to have a XP alternative. AN ALTERNATIVE. You want to force people to either become geeks or stay with XP, which is just plain stupid. (K)Ubuntu, Mandriva, Fedora, SuSe etc. all struggle to be Joe Average-friendly and use the l4m3 DEs instead of your l33t WMs.
Linux zealots. Sigh.
This sig does not contain any SCO code.
- "Send an email"
- "Create a new email then send it"
- "Write an email"
The answer from my point of view is "I don't know", but I'd be interested to know. Of course you need a load more people and a load more tests. But this is science, it's always toughCarpe Daemon
A PhD for a usability study ? Now *that* will advance human knowledge. I have come to think that whatever useless crap you are doing you automatically get your PhD after working on it for a few years.
The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up.
That use of one does not tie you to it. Resource usage definately comes into play, but you can run Gnome apps in KDE, or I'd imagine run Konqueror happily with all the kio-slaves in Gnome - it just means more overhead depending on the resources you have available.
Heck, quite often I'm running three worlds. KDE as my primary GUI, some gnome/gtk apps such as GAIM (with kde skinning/font control using gtk2-engines-gtk-qt), and often enough when I need a windows APP (as we have mixed desktops at work and sometimes I need to play with one of those) then I pop open a handy copy of win98 running on Qemu (I've been told XP works as well but 98 is a fast start).
So in reality, the most productive/useful environment for me would be... all three of those above?
To be able to fairly compare both desktop environments, both must absolutely be allowed to show off the very best that they can do. Since there is currently no single distribution that gets both Gnome *and* KDE right, it will be necessary to run them on different distributions.
Without doubt, the best Gnome experience is currently provided by Ubuntu. I don't know which distribution is currently providing the best KDE experience.
But if you were to compare for example Gnome/Ubuntu with KDE/Mandriva, you'd be comparing more than just Gnome vs. KDE. In a modern desktop environment, it matters a lot how well the desktop integrates with the underlying operating system. For example, hardware and hotplug support, package management integration, the security update mechanism, system and hardware configuration tools, etc, are all handled differently by the distributions, but play a very important role in how much the user feels at ease in the environment.
Another thing is that not all distributions are up-to-date with respect to both environments. It's not fair comparing Gnome/DistroX vs. KDE/DistroX if one of them is out of date by 2 versions.
Take care.
Wenn ist das Nunstruck git und Slotermeyer? Ja!... Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
Exactly. On the face of it, KDE and GNOME can appear to be similar to some people. You may even dislike KDE's Qt interface for a while until you get used to it. However, KDE has amazingly powerful technology underneath. Spend a few months doing all your work on KDE, giving yourself time to discover (discovery learning is good) its hidden strengths, and you'll never look back.
I don't often agree with Linus, but what he said about GNOME and KDE was spot-on: when you take the time to try them both, you'll surely see that GNOME is clearly inferior, and KDE clearly shines as a bright technology -- perhaps the best technology -- available in Free Software.
There is a definition of usability in ISO9241. Google for it, read and learn. There are three criteria:
Effectiveness
Efficiency
User satisfaction
Did I tell you to read about this? That means NOT jumping to your own conclusions about what these things mean. Find out what they really mean by consulting reputable sources (not Slashdot readers btw).
Your friend should also know about things like GOMS analysis (Moran, Card, & Newell, 1983) which allow one to conduct a cognitive task analysis on the interface. This allows understanding of how an interface is likely to work in the real world (its results tend to correlate very strongly with actual users). There are many other methods, but many of them require experience which should be peer-reviewed to ensure you're not making fundamental errors.
Testing with users is also good - but please remember this: it takes a lot more than just sticking someone in front of a machine and asking them things. Try to design experiments with quantitative data. Attempt to validate them empirically. If your friend is coming from a psychological or educational background, then they shoudl know this already. If they are form arts or comp sci, then they might have a *lot* of reading to do - in my experience, many CS majors who migrated into HCI have less than effective skills in this area.
Get your design, results and conclusions peer reviewed. No, not at Slashdot where opinions are proposed as facts by many people who should know better, but by someone in the field, preferably with relevant publications and/or training. Sorry to say it folks, but FOSS folks who try usability stuff are also a bit lacking in the breadth of skills. You might even find that there are many of folks in the industrial side of the field who are a bit short on knowledge too. Like I said, try to rely on people who have had their skills and knowledge tested by other experts.
There is a tendency to learn about one method and use it repeatedly regardless of its fit. Your friend, as a PhD, should be learning about the range of investigative methods and when they can (and cannot!) be used. If you are not sure, ask advice from topic experts. Slashdot does not qualify.
Sorry if this seems like a rant, but I've seen a lot of studies that have made some fundamental errors and are worthless as a result.
Best of luck!
bang goes my karma... again...
...says someone who has probably never used GNOME for a long time.
It's funny how I migrated from Windows two years ago, tried both KDE and GNOME (a couple of weeks each, although sometimes I was using both on the same day) and ended up picking GNOME as the clearly superior technology. My only disapointment was when I tried SuSE 9, in which many GNOME applications appeared to be broken. But when I tested other distributions (Fedora and Ubuntu), I saw that the problem was with the way SuSE had customized the applications and not with GNOME itself.
Of course I understand that some people may have different preferences and I tend to be rather tolerant about that, but your comment sounds very much like flamebait. In fact, I am not sure that you ever tried any recent version of GNOME for more than a couple of minutes.
Usability of a desktop system is mostly defined by the available applications and by the quality of these applications. Even the most important part of each desktop, the file manager is just an ordinary application. So any Gnome versus KDE study is just another useless effort which has no relevance to the users. Just have a look at the Linux desktop survey (http://www.osdl.org/dtl/DTL_Survey_Report_Nov2005 .pdf) which clearly lists the missing applications as the top inhibitor for an adoption.
See http://wyoguide.sf.net/papers/Cross-platform.html
And don't forget WindowMaker + GNUstep combo. If only there were some more apps (e.g. web browser) written using the GNUstep framework it would actually be a very interesting environment to work with. While both Gnome and KDE are nowadays quite good systems I think their developers should learn a few things from GNUstep (or actually OpenStep) GUI (e.g. document based apps, insanely powerful menu system, clean dialogs (Gnome actually already does these almost correctly), windows (and tear-off menus) stay where you put them, etc etc etc).
If memory serves XFCE was a few years back quite similar to CDE. I think you can configure the latest version (at least the panel) to work like CDE.
I used CDE on my DEC Alpha machine quite a lot. That old desktop was indeed surprisingly simple and efficient UI (although maybe a little bit ugly).
The OS she's studying should be irrelevant when coming up with the testing plan. As soon as she considers information regarding the OS she's going to test she biases her results. It either meets various criteria she sets for usability or doesn't. The only limitations she should be considering are the method of display and interaction. I.e. there will be a monitor, keyboard and mouse in order to give her study scope.
Reading the question, I see someone talking about research done by an expert in the field of usability. Then all these people jump up giving their (well meant) advice on user profiles and how to conduct the study. While doing so most of them show they have absolutely no clue what so ever about the real issues with usability. ...
Like: The real "ease" on an interface comes down to 2 things:
I know a bit about usability, I wish it was _that_ simple.
Search for "KDE sucks": 329,000 results
Search for "Gnome sucks": 527,000 results
So Gnome sucks 60% harder than KDE.
Making and keeping a desktop usable is commonly not the job of the end-user but the IT department. In other words: your friendly neighborhood system administrator. As long as he does his job correctly your desktop will provide all that is needed, perhaps including good tips (or a short basic training for that matter). But if your IT department (/sysadmin) is flawed it will surely find its way to the desktop as well.
So my 2 cents: the desktop means nothing, its the force behind it.
Also, don't assume that KDE and GNOME are the only options. I personally run Window Maker (with various dockapps), with fspanel, and KeyLaunch, with xtrlock (invoked via keylaunch) as my screen lock. On top of that, I use various shell scripts that I've written over the years.
Desktop systems, especially for certain classes of users, are highly varied. Good luck trying to study them!
http://outcampaign.org/
I started off as a power windows user, then I tried Linux. After a couple of years, this is what my desktop now looks like: http://ask.slashdot.org/~Hackeron/journal/101301
Even if I was to emulate that on another machine it will take me 3 hours to get the automatic window placing together, etc. But you know something? I couldnt find that more intuitive and easy to use now that it does what I want it to.
I guess there are 2 things I would test:
1) Customization to get the environment to behave exactly like the power user might want. Use gentoo and go wild. Spend 6 months learning the ins and outs, painless upgrading, glsa, writing ebuilds to automate things, etc. Then look at how it comes polished with various debian and gentoo based distributions.
2) Ease of use for the complete beginner. I like how on MacOS there is a search as you type in the finder which appears all over the DE, all the typical applications are right there on the taskbar, starting to appreciate the 1 button design, you generally just dont need 2 or 3, the clever mouse wheel emulation on the trackpad, etc. Or Ubuntu's support request in most applications is just genius.
Thats quite a challenge though and I guess just mentioning random points is enough and focusing on what actually "Just Works" as apposed to requires extra security software like firewalls, antiviruses, maintenance tasks, etc. Beginners will always memorize where button x is and advanced users will always find a way to customize.
one aged nearly 2 and the other is 3. The 5 year old is fairly competent now.
One thing I perceive as a problem with both Gnome and KDE is that they are trying to be like Windows. It may be that the Windows interface has become the QWERTY of GUIs, and is so familiar to users that they are unable to learn anything new, but there have been numerous advances on various UNIX WMs that have never made it onto the Windows platform.
/var/log/syslog" so that these can be unfurled at a moment's notice-- but the gui is simply too restrictive and unwieldy in configuration.
For example:
Nextstep/Windowmaker tearoff menus. These are extremely handy because you can literally build gui applications from just these menus and collections of scripts. Also, these menus scroll if they are outside the screen. I can place menus at the bottom of the screen in a row with just their titles peeking out into the bottom of the screen. Then, when I slide my mouse down past the title, the menu scrolls up onto the screen. So depending on what I'm doing, I can build my own adhoc UI out of menus and come up with something quite functional.
Fluxbox tabbable applications are another great example of flexible functionality. I can group applications how I want them and all it takes to navigate from one to the other is to slide the mouse into the region of the desired tab at the top of an application window. This is excellent because it is a very efficient and intuitive use of screen real estate.
One reason for the huge popularity of Firefox over IE is the tabs. Tabs are so easy to use that people pick up on them right away. And the fact that they're rearrangeable in Fluxbox means that they offer adhoc functionality for the power user.
An application that I've had a great deal of success with is called 3ddesk. This is a drop-in enhancement for mousewheel workspace navigation: when switching between workspaces, the mousewheel spins an OpenGL cylinder tiled with realtime-updated views of each workspace. Seeing the workspaces laid out in this manner allows much better spacial orientation than offered by any pager, and it becomes very quick and simple to flip back and forth between desktops.
There are a number of reasons why I dislike both of the dominant windowmanagers. Gnome is simply too dumbed down. Sure, it offers things like gnome-swallow, and drawers which allow me to swallow up things like transparent xterms running "top" and "tail -f
KDE isn't quite so bad, but lacks many of the things that Gnome features. KDE does not even have drawers that I'm aware of. The separate kicker panels make up for this failing to some extent but not entirely. In both Gnome and KDE, the functionality for editing menus is not nearly as available or intuitive as it is in Fluxbox or Windowmaker. When moving over to the other light windowmanagers like XFCE, Icewm, Waimea, et cetera, there's simply not enough functionality there at all. We have a pinboard and a cute panel with cute little icons, all mostly static and without configurable function beyond a click on an icon. In Fluxbox and Blackbox, the differences between the "slit" (dock) and the panel are obscure to inexperienced users, and the lack of configurability of the panels makes these next to unusable. Yes, there's a task bar, but this isn't Windows 95, and I'm usually running up to 30 separate windows or groups of applications.
So, I use Windowmaker.
Windowmaker is small and light enough that I can export entire login sessions, and the gui is snappy and quick. If I want a taskbar, I middleclick on the desktop and drag the menu that comes up so that it becomes a tearoff; then I stash this at the bottom of the screen as I mentioned above so that it becomes a slide-up menu.
The applet dock is extensible, intuitive and powerful. Can't say the same for the clip but it's pretty good.
It's a hell of a note that I'm using a gui from 1989 and it beats the pants off of anything out there for extensibility, speed and functionality. I understand that NextStep is going to be the gui of the next A
Intolerance for ambiguity is the mark of the authoritarian personality.
Mode #1 would be a stripped down gnome like experience. (default)
Mode #2 would attempt to replicate the look and feel of the most popular current familiar environments as much as possible. such as Winxp or OS-X
Mode #3-#4 A kde like experience tweak you life away.
On system install/purchase the OS/GUI defaults to MODE #1 Maybe a wizard on first use to help #1 and #2 get going. an Icon labeled "experience" or whatever can also be referred to later to switch back and forth between modes and will allow #3 and #4 to immedately switch to their desired mode. When user#1 outgrows mode #1 they can switch to mode #3-#4.
What do you folks think ?One of the threads that comes a lot when linux usability is discussed is that it might be harder to learn, but linux makes people more productive. Another variant of this is that other systems might be best for some people (even most), but linux is adapted to certain types of users. At root is a belief by many linux users that there is no single system that works for everyone -- that some people will want different ways of doing things.
One way to look into this would be to administer a survey to the usability subjects, that went beyond the standard questions. Either one the PhD student developed, or some of the standard personality tests that psychologists use. Maybe this could provide some insight into why different people prefer different modalities, if there was any correlation between the personality tests and system usage.
-Esme
On top of that, the question doesn't really explain what you're rying to find out.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Recent linux journal article on doing usability testing on the cheap (subscription required):
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8638
Not to sound as though I'm pontificating (which I probably am) but in my humble (yet informed) opinion, desktop Linux needs these things to happen before it will have much of a hope at mainstream:
#1 Drivers
Yes, Linux obviously has drivers for most everything, and an experienced user can get that obscure USB WiFi adapter that you bought up and working in "no time." But the thing is, not everybody has a friend who is an experienced Linux user. If Linux development needs to pull together some kind of social/financial influence in order to bully manufacturers into giving up hardware specs for development, then so be it. I would be happy for even closed-source drivers. I understand some within GNU would consider that blasphemy, but closed source software isn't wrong it's just suboptimal by our standards. Your average desktop user couldn't possibly care less about whether or not the source code for their drivers is open source or not, they just want it to be easy.
#2 Unified Configuration
Control panel in Windows scares most end-users. If you tell them that they have to edit a configuration file full of nothing but cryptic (to them) text, they will want nothing to do with it and for good reason. Imagine if you had to jack up your car and unbolt the gas tank just to refuel. (Those of you who are mechanically inclined, I don't really care if you're an exception; hush) To your average end-user, hunting down a configuration file in some (again, to them) obscure location and then having to change values which may or may not be case-sensitive is just too much for them. Give them a unified location for configuration files, and some means of editing them. This could be done as an addition to the existing configuration system as opposed to a rewrite of it.
Conceptually, an application could be written that would use a simple markup language of some kind to describe what the configuation screen should look like (not a regedit/gconf sort of interface, one with checkboxes, comboboxes, etc) This would allow developers to create a configuration definition file and on install, a symlink to that file, as well as the relevant configuration files allowing the program to be extensible for new programs.
#3 Installation
I understand that everybody is up in arms about distribution and package schemes, Debian users want .deb, Red Hat wants RPM, Slackware wants .tgz. Let's all just sit down and decide already. Let's decide on a format that A. allows users to install software quickly and easily and B. is aware of what libraries it needs and C. (the most important) WILL FIND THOSE LIBRARIES. Again, an experienced user can hunt down that an elusive library and get it installed properly, but an end user cannot and, more importantly, doesn't even want to know it exists. Let's keep a central Linux package repository where these install packages can grab what they need to run automatically over an internet connection and be done with it. Simply telling a user that they need wxWidgets or libExo does them no good, in fact, it scares them more than those "Illegal Operation" errors in Windows. None of this will do away with the ability to install from source, it will just make the process of installing software easier which is what end-users need.
#4 X
X is a terribly fickle piece of software. A user could go in to simply try t
Our greatest enemy is neither a single man, nor is it a nation, it is, as it has always been, our own greed.
"Bob" says that the reason gnome sucks so hard is that it was never blessed with penguin urine. Check out ubuntu for a poop colored gnome, damn hippies.
Uhm, no. I've used both GNOME and KDE, for months. The first few years of using Linux, I switch between them from time to time. But these days, I don't want to waste time configuring silly things. I want the interface to be clean and simple and to just work. Today, I use GNOME, with an occasional KDE app (running inside GNOME).
Computers are like any product. They can be end-user oriented: programmers, occasional users, secretaries, kids, and game players. All of theses user types requires different interfaces.
Programmers: programmers are usually tools oriented. They can live with more complex and straight interfaces, like command tools, as long as it allows them to unleashed the power of their desktops.
occasional users: they like a "Single-Button-Does-It-All" type of interface. It must be obvious and not requires too much time to learn otherwise they'll quit.
secretaries: many secretaries get surprisignly competent at using a computer, even with macros programming stuff. They'll priviledge an integrated environment that will hold them to learn all over 10 different application platforms. Unlike programmers, their computer could just be a single office suite, they would still be rather well served by it. They can stand a level of complexity over the occasional user, but bellow the programmer user.
Kids: Kids like joyfull and easy interfaces. But also, they learn fast, so it should allow them to increase their skills fast. They like game, which implies colorfull interfaces, big buttons, fonts and cursors and the possibility to change easilly their preferences and wallpapers. They also need to start their programs from a single desktop folder, otherwise they will get lost in menus. Also, while getting older, they love to download clips, so they will like good and simple to use multimedia tools with powerfull embedded search tools.
Game players: those one are the most interesting, because they are between the "programmers" and the "kids" types. They love flashy graphics (remember the Enlightment window manager?) and they try to have the most powerfull computers possible, which allows them to run more heavy weight applications. They are more visually oriented when compared to the regular programmers, and love everything that's new stuff, even if it implies less stability.
So, for all theses types of users, which interface fulfills best their needs? That's what I would like to know.
Well, I've also used both frequently, and actually heavily favored GNOME for years. You're entitled to your opinion of course, but I stand by my own.
KDE vs GNOME or Gentoo or yet another Linux desktop, whatever you choose someone will always want to include there own favourite. I'd include MacOSX (I know its not Linux) in the comparison, if only because it appears to designed around the interface. As new functionality is added the way the user will interact with it seems to be part of the design process rather than an afterthought.
For goodness sake, usability is not checked in websites, mailing lists or blogs. The poster would be excused about following this path of action because he is not a human interface specialist, but I hope the PhD student is wiser about this.
Human interface usability is properly tested one way and one way only. By watching real people interacting with them. You can use muckups (drawn or computerized), storyboards, etc, but nothing beats putting the fat asses of a few users in front of a computer and collecting their impressions.
If you possibly can you tailor your investigation to a particular group of people, ideally one that would make the study useful to you (if you are testing usability for software in kindergartens you don't want to do your usability test in a bank's trading floor).
The laughable suggestions to use children only, experienced users only or unexperienced users only as the correct or more accurate way of gauging usability is, as the British say, a load of pants. People suggesting this should jump of a clift like the gerbills they are.
One would do such a think only if there is no choice or if one has particular reasons for doing so, but never as the preferred criteria for a generalized useful study, what may be good for children may be crap for old timers and viceversa, experienced users may find some things annoying that new users find useful and viceversa.
The first thing that many people fail to understand is that usability is a wholy subjective thing. Linus loving KDE (yeah, that Linus) is only probe that for Linus (yeah, that Linus) KDE is more usable. All the KDE zealots implying that this is the God given truth regarding usability in Linux should be forced to use Gnome untile the know better.
Usability should be studied only on groups with similar patterns of usage for it to be any useful. The wider you make your target group study, the more difficult it will be to find meaningful results.
If you target all Linux users, then you are in for the most subjective, meaningless, most likely useless study.
If you target Linux users with less than one year experience using Linux then you are into something. If you target Linux users with more than 10 years experience degrading penguins you would also find more useful results.
Target your audience and you will find good results for that group of people.
Make your sample too wide and be welcome to the scrapyard of useless studies.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I am assuming that your end goal is a peer-reviewed academic publication. I have three main points:
1. You can't do a usability study of "Gnome vs. KDE" - the scope is too large. To design a usability study that is conclusive and doable, you need to reduce the scope to something very specific. Focus on one aspect of the desktops at a time. Reducing your scope to one aspect of usability, like customizability, learnability, satisfaction, task performance, etc., is a good starting point.
2. You need to study techniques rather than brands. Academics really don't care if KDE is better than Gnome, but they do care if a technique used by KDE is better than a technique used by Gnome. You may want to start with an assessment of each to find where they have different techniques for similar purposes and target a set of differences.
3. Studies that look at specific, branded technologies usually do so because they want to take advantage of aspects of real-world use, like large-scale or long-term usage studies. Otherwise, it is usually better to just compare the interaction techniques using apps that you hack up yourself, as you can better isolate what you are trying to test. Make sure that your study is making use of the benefits of KDE and Gnome, which are that they have a large user group with users that have varying degrees of experience, they are used in real environments for real tasks, etc. If you are not making use of these things, then you might be wasting your time by studying existing desktops rather than making your own app that more rigorously looks at what you are trying to study.
It is certainly possible to conduct an academic usability study of KDE vs. Gnome in other ways, but it might be less of a cookie-cutter study design and might be harder to convince reviewers that it is rigorous. If you are going do to something that is out of the box, keep in mind that reviewers will be extra critical of your methodology and that your study design will have to be air-tight and your conclusions will need to be modest. Lots of really cool papers get rejected because they study too much at once, and the conclusions that follow are questionable.
As for the details, the best way to go about designing this study depends on where you are trying to publish it. Have a look at the conferences or journals that you want to publish to and see what similar work has been published before and how the studies were designed. Considering that the acceptance rates for good conferences is low (e.g. CHI is usually around 15%), it is best to tailor your work to match what has been successful in the recent (2-3 years) past.
Good luck with your study.