Slashdot Mirror
Linux's Difficulty with Names
JohnTyler writes "This article at XYZ Computing takes a look at Linux's strange naming practices. When compared to their Window's equivalents, the names of many Linux programs are difficult to recognize and even tougher to remember. This may seem like splitting hairs, but it is actually an important usability issue. Just think, if you had to do a bit of graphic design which would be easier to pick out of the menu, GIMP or Photoshop? Or if you wanted to play a song, Media Player or xine?" The article is a bit thin, but it raises an excellent point.
This is really more of a software designer's issue than a strictly Linux one. As we speak, I am looking for my copy of Daemon Tools on my computer, but I can't find it because it's named in the start menu by the software's manufacturer, not the name of the program. This is the case for many windows apps and I view it as a similar problem.
I suppose Outlook Express is the ideal name for an email client...as is Outlook. Acrobat is the perfect .pdf viewer or creator. Excel instantly draws to mind spreadsheets [now, but 20 years ago?]. I could go on, but why bother.
The article is just more crap slinging between two apes vying for dominance.
Most of the command-line stuff is just shortened abbreviations of things. You can also always just make a "shortcut" that's named whatever you want if you need arbitrary names for things. It doesn't really raise a good point at all, things have names made by the people who made them.
-Jesse
Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
I realize there is tons of software out there for Windows, but *nix systems seem to have so much more that they have to resort to unique naming schemes to differentiate their products. You can only make so many iterations of the words "Media", "Writer", "Player", "Office", etc. Can it make things difficult for consumers? Sure, but I think it's a necessary evil.
History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. ~Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Photoshop" sounds like an application for buying photographs. The writer only knows it's a graphics editor because he has read or heard it somewhere. Contrary to a myth promoted by Microsoft and others, you simply can't use a computer without having to learn anything.
Also, FWIW, and unlike any version of Windows I've ever seen, the GNOME "start" menu breaks things down by category, so you can look in the "Graphics" or "Sound and Video" submenus if you have a general idea about what you're looking for. The last Windows I sat down in front of offered me an almost flat menu of two complete columns on a high-resolution screen, and since I rarely use Windows I didn't know what more than a handful of the applications were.
Worse, in those rare instances where things were put into sub-menus, you had to look under the vendor's name to find the product. So you not only had to know that "Photoshop" means "graphics editor", you also had to know that it's published by someone named "Adobe".
Idiot-level apologetics.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
These aren't Linux names, they're part of GNU. Linux is just the kernel.
To someone who knows nothing, PhtoShop sounds like a place to buy/print photos. And Windows Medial Player sounds like a game of newpaper/TV congomerates :)
To the Unix cogniscenti, cp, du are nothing more than CoPy, Disk Usage, etc. It is a question of something learned.
If you wanted to play a video, would it be easier to pick out RealPlayer or the Videolan Client? If you wanted to browse your personal directory, would it be easier to pick out C:\Documents and settings\username or /home/username? If you wanted to send/receive some email - Outlook Express or KMail? Hell, if you wanted to shut down your computer - Start->Shutdown or /sbin/poweroff?
See? It kinda swings both ways...
Furthermore, I realise that this is aimed at people who have absolutely no experience in either computers in general and at least linux specifically, but a name like "xine" should not be an impediment to progress. For instance, any distro worth anything ought to be set up with some useful file associations. Most people play a movie or mp3 by clicking on /it/ rather than opening a player and then opening the file within it.
Names don't matter, it is all about training and then familiarity.
What's more intuitive, "Matt", or "Coffee Boy"?
Oh, and what does Exel and Outlook do? Does Outlook Express do it any faster?
As a technical discussion, names as handles to objects or ideas don't matter (excluding downright misleading names, like a boy named Sue): it gets down to user training. To write that "Whatever the reason, desktop Linux's usability is hindered by its naming practices" is just silly: in a work enviornment, users will use what they are trained on. At home, Grandma is going to use whatever will let her get her polaroids out of her new camera.
And Windows isn't particularly easy to use; rather, everybody has had some exposure to it.
As for your examples... once you know what they stand for ("list","remove","disk free", etc.), those commands are a hell of a lot quicker to type (and less prone to error) than spelling the words out.
You realize they had short names because every byte of storage was precious?
When introducing new users to the linux systems at work I always end up explaining that the programs are named by clueless geeks who *think* they are funny (gnu, less, etc.). Please just ignore the stupid names and enjoy the power of the tools.
I don't know about that. I have been a touch-typist since I was 12 but I still alias the names of commonly used programs to a couple of letters. Even if you're a touch typist, it is faster to type two letters than more than two letters.
Although it could be debated as to which platform has confusing names, i.e. what is Excel, what is Visio, what is Access, what is Outlook, ad nauseam, I actualy have a contrarian view for you.
Why give applications boring vanilla names like photoshop, media player, etc.?
With the names that are given to many linux applications it could be argued that someone new to the platform would be lost, but I say they will be lost anyway and when they do learn about the applications that meet their needs the interesting names will leave an impression which will differentiate them from the applications on competing platforms that have common names.
I would also argue that vanilla naming creates its own confusion. How many people think Internet Explorer IS the internet?
I say we stick with the fun names.
burnin
The examples given are from different companies and design teams, so it's hard to generalize them. Overall, however, popular Windows software tends to be made by companies who put a lot of thought into the naming of their product, since it will help determine how popular that product is. Many linux programming teams either go too general or try getting clever with the name ("Which greek god relates to what this program is doing?").
The problem with getting too clever is that without a strong advertising push or word-of-mouth push (Firefox), people really don't know what your program does. The problem with going too generic is that the program isn't memorable.
There's a few programs that get it right by choosing a name that's both descriptive and clever (Photoshop, Winamp, OpenOffice, etc). Point is, either get a big ad budget or take some extra time choosing a name. Of course, if your target audience isn't the general public (read: ethereal), then it doesn't really matter since computer experts will recognize software based on how good it is.
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
http://www.openoffice.org/FAQs/faq-other.html#4
The trademark for "OpenOffice" belongs to someone else. Therefore we must use "OpenOffice.org" when referring to this open source project and its software.
It wasn't em-dollar-sign that forced the name change; it was "someone else." hope this helps.
For more information, click here.
You're right that many people will probably regard this as splitting hairs, and this in itself is a pretty big issue. Names (from "top-level" names like application titles down to the names of lowly index variables) are critically important in usability, as is documentation.
Yet try as I might, with the notable exception of Python, I've never been able to pick up an open-source product of any complexity that I'm not familiar with, without buying an O'Reilly book or something of the like. Flame me if you will for "not trying hard enough," but it seems to me like having to try hard goes against the definition of usability in some ways. This makes for a pretty big hidden cost.
Open-source projects are the products of engineers working on something they feel is personally important, and it's perhaps unsurprising that communication with the end user (at least on the level of completeness and polish that larger companies need to demonstrate) is not given much priority. But the end users are what will drive the victory or loss of Linux on the desktop, and I think they are already voting with their mice.
And say what you want about Microsoft - but the level of effort they put into this front (from the easy-to-understand language in setup to the MSDN) is way ahead of what I've seen from the Linux world. I think they are the ones to be applauded in this case.
Now lets see all the Windows users look at processes running, and let them all go
"Ah! alg.exe csrss.exe ctfmon.exe dllhost.exe explorer.exe internat.exe kernel32.dll lsass.exe mdm.exe msmsgs.exe mstask.exe regsvc.exe rundll32.exe services.exe smss.exe spoolsv.exe svchost.exe system winlogon.exe winmgmt.exe wisptis.exe wmiexe.exe wmiprvse.exe wscntfy.exe wuauclt.exe are running - I know EXACTLY what all that is doing."
Linux processes/apps are named from convention and are all documented. The less said about the alternative (and comparing with) the better.
What is this I see? Open-source community thinking about why they aren't taken more seriously? Me thinks that if tomorrow I should spot a post admitting that Linux developers also don't know a thing about designing a usable GUI, the end of the world is definitely near.
I realize that this will likely be modded down to hell, but I could really care less if it makes even one developer stop and think. The real problem with the entire Linux movement is a total lack of even the basic understanding of human psychology. Just like they still think that a file is the solution to everything.
We're not machines with RAM and hard drives. Our memory is highly associative, meaning that most of the things we remember are associated to other things. The only "hard-wired" things are those which are used on continuous basis, which I suppose explains why the developers don't notice these problems. For everything else, the less links there are, the harder it is to recall something, which is why naming software using names that say absolutely nothing about what the software is for creates such a mess.
No it doesn't. Is it saying 'Linux' (?) should start giving things super-generic names? Well that's a great idea. Let's call things 'Media Player'. But who gets to decide which media player gets named the definitive 'Media Player'? And they may not realise that most obvious super generic names are already trademarked by someone.
I don't see anything wrong with Gnu (General?) Image Manipulation Program. Rather effective description if you ask me.
It's not like the windows world isn't full of stupid Win* names is it? Winamp? WTF? It's a pretty tenuous link that you're supposed to guess that 'Amp' means an MP3 player.
Malike Bamiyi wanted my assistance.
Outlook, Access, Excel...real intuitive names there. If you want to throw in third party vendors like the original did with Photoshop, you have a whole host of products that do different things with similar names - i.e., Quicken or Quick Time.
Linux names are acronyms. Acronyms are easier to type and remember. Just as a wouldn't want Linux to be renamed Runs Computer, I do not want software to be renamed from a four letter command such as gimp to Image Manipulator because someone cannot be bothered to learn its name. If they cannot be bothered to learn the name, then they are welcome to go use the programs that are named something they can remember.
The whole world does not revolve around the lowest common denominator. Let's stop pretending that it does, shall we?
The KDE guys need to Kut the Krap with the names already.
sulli
RTFJ.
Call it flamebait if you will, but for the average user Linux doesn't even exist. It doesn't matter if it is called Linux "Alterna-OS" or some other crap, they know what shipped on the computer and don't have the time or inclination to learn anything else. Sure, the geeks love it, but why would the average person like it? Does it do more than already-installed (windows/media player/office/etc) or does it just do the same thing? See, if all it does is the same thing then Linux has NO VALUE preposition whatsover to the average joe they will only switch when alternative software has more usefulness and is not merely a clone.
I ask you, why should you care about vi when you have notepad (which does the same job with less confusing commands)? Making Xine or Helix useable requires setup and configuration of codecs, whereas it just works under windows!
For Linux to gain ground it needs to add utility without adding futility. No one is going to accept that it more trouble to get the thing to work the same way, and they would barely consider it if the improvements are only marginal. As far as features, Windows is better to average joe. It reasonably works out of the box, and there is nothing to screw up in the configuration. When Linux works like that then it will compete with Windows, but if the software included with Linux surpassed it that would be the end for Redmond. There is no way a "normal" user is going to put up with the bullshit involved with setting a Linux box up, so these Linux people should shut up about their desktop until it works or even happens and stay on the servers.
All that being said, I love Linux as far as the performance... It turns "dated" machines into useable machines, and for those that are running on a budget it may still have a place. For servers, I don't think there is a better choice you can make. But again, the Linux people need to stop thinking they have a desktop offering -- they have a toolbox of many tools but they do not have a leatherman. Desktops need to be useable by the computer challenged to qualify as an offering, and anything too complex is just missing the mark. Do you think the normal person would know much about partitions, screen mode depth and resolution, or even the goofy device names for mice or screens? These things make the whole proposition unrealistic.
-Mind
the time a fellow employee with root access decided to see if the 'del' command had any help.
Well there's your problem, right there. Someone who tries to use DOS command syntax at a Unix prompt shouldn't have root access.
But your attitude is EXACTLY what is holding Linux apps back from popular adoption.
.pdf viewer or creator. Excel instantly draws to mind spreadsheets [now, but 20 years ago?]. I could go on, but why bother.
I suppose Outlook Express is the ideal name for an email client...as is Outlook. Acrobat is the perfect
The name of an app is not meant to be Literal!! It's meant to make you want to own it! If you had a choice between two toilets, the Open GNUFeces gtkSepticPort, or a CrapThrasher 3000, is there any question which you would select? Calling a graphics program The GIMP (yeah, I know it's meant to be a snarky acronym; newsflash: after the age of 16, nobody cares.) is like naming your son Susan. In fact, I've introduced the GIMP to new users (all of whom look like they'd rather be anyplace in the world than in that room at the time) with a, "Hey, look, with a name like The GIMP, it's got to be good, right? Right??"
For serious 'flagship' Linux applications, allowing the "coding community" to name them is right in line with allowing the "marketing community" to write them. It screams "Hobbyist," which is fine, if that's all you want it to be. In the early '90's, when nobody knew any better, it was not unusual for an organization's HTML jockey to also be responsible for creating the site's look and writing its content. Then, the medium matured, rapidly. When I see the names for a lot of these (very, very fine and well-coded) linux apps, I get the urge to crank Nine Inch Nails, order a double-mocha-latte, and re-read SnowCrash...
I, for one, appreciate the shorthand, and I do touch-type.
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
I'd have to agree with the court on this one. Are you suggesting that geeks lack the imagination to think of any words other than "illustrator"? C'mon, there are plenty of words and ideas to associate with vector image editing. "Freehand," for starters.
You have to get away from the idea that there's one "best" name for any concept. Even if they were, the featureset and audience of Adobe Illustrator (the product) isn't the same as those of Killustrator; thus, the concepts differ, and so should the name. Nuance is everything.
Linux naming conventions are the hardest thing for any new person to get used to, and it halters many from getting involved in the open source community because they don't understand the conventions. Personally I think it's one of the things holding back the linux OS from being widely recognized. Honestly Linux will never get past the small percentage until the developers start looking at how people remember names, and realize that it requires at least two sylables to do that. All of this goes into my argue why Open Source has thusl been a failure this far. Naming conventions are the biggest difficulty. Have no real standard is the second one. If the Linux community really wants to have any real significant part of the world of software, it needs to stop pandering to the geeks, because the geeks will use anything that is done properly, and done well. Linux already has that advantage over Windows, and thusly needs the rest of my argument to clear up before it's a viable alternative for everyone else. It's time Linux started growing up, and developed some standard developers. Who's going to be the one to start the process? Before anyone gets their panties in a bundle over my comments, I've used Slackware since 7.2, and now currently have Slackware in the form of Vector Linux. I'm and avid Mac user, and have also used FreeBSD. So I do know a little bit about this topic, as I had the same difficulties when I first started with stupid naming conventions, and non-sylable names.
Yes, I said it.
I have been harping on this for years. For some reason software devs love to encode the names of their apps in some archaic symbology. I still do not understand this. While Excel and Premier do not give you an automatic clue as to what they are, at least they "sound" user friendly. I there is an honest interest into getting linux into more homes, this has got to stop. Same with the terrible documentation that surrounds many of these same packages. We have got to stop writing this stuff with the geek brain in mind, but others as well. Asking a non-tech user what libconf is, is just like asking them what a dll is. It just happens that Windows shields the user as much as possible from this. And before you all go flame me, remember that geeks like us buy much less of this compared to average Joe home user.
My
"even if you're the only one who uses the computer"
:P
Which ironically is the complete opposite of Windows where you don't have to login with a password and you ASSUME you are the only one using the computer when in reality there are probably several script kiddies who are also using the computer, with no password.
burnin
It has a lot to do with the fact that open source geeks can't afford trademark lawyers. A name like "gwksprt" may be horrible, but at least you're unlikely to be sued over it.
IMO I believe that your basic inexperienced user will focus more on how the menu is organized and icon placement rather than the name.
GNOME organizes programs by subject, and can be customized to a more organized set. Windows simply lists the programs (sometimes in order of when it was installed, not by alphabet). At times you just can't find it because it's rarely used - you have to do a little more work to find it. Other than the increased memory usage and wasted "graphic effects" on the xp start menu I do have to applaud about the browser and mail location, along with the list of most commonly used programs.
I'm not going to go into the names issue. If an computer illiterate user had a choice between "Outlook" and "Thunderbird" or "Excel" and "Calc" which would they choose? I'm sure it would be different for different people, but you get what i'm saying.
(and wtf is with the name eXPerience? i'd find "Windows Excel" an OS that goes beyond bounaries - by definition - more appealing.)
Since i've given enough examples - i shall shut up.
This article is based (near as I can tell) on one person's comment about stupid names. Great, so there's one idiot in the world who doesn't realize that Firefox on Linux is the same as Firefox on Windows.
Personally (yes, I am a geek) I've never had any problems with the names. apropos normally gets the job done nice and quick. Ok, that'll ellicit "But you're a geek, think of the normal people !!!1!!" Let me rephrase.
Having sucessfully installed Linux on a few (non-geek's) systems, I can say they've never had any problems. They're not the stupidest, I'll give you that, teaching someone in college might be harder then teaching Grandma Jane, but they were just regular users of their Windows machine, not really utilizing them to their full potential. They took to it rather quick. Yes, these weren't full command line only machines (as I prefer), so the similarities between Windows and Gnome/KDE did all the work.
No one uses any computer with non learning, much as Bill would like to have you think otherwise. So I showed them the basics. "Ok, you know the Start button? That's now here, the picture of the hat." Then I'd explain the most used programs (come on, who didn't have to say "Grandma, click here for the internet"?). "We use Firefox for the web, and thunderbird for email. Gaim is there for IM, and OpenOffice (click here) is just like Microsoft Office." Next came the Linux-specific crap. "To figure out a command, use 'man '. And to find what you're looking for, try apropos and grep."
Some of you may say "oh, they're a geek if they understood that", but I assure you, if you stay, and talk with them about the change they just made in their lifestyle, everyone can pick it up. Just sit, and answer any questions they have, its that simple. Oh, gee, exactly like what I do when I install Windows for someone for the first time. Hmm... perhaps because each are different operating systems, with their own learning curve and commands? Just... might... be...
Now, to say that Linux commands/programs are confusing, where Windows commands/programs aren't... boggles me. Linux breaks things down into nice categories by default. So my friend wanted a cd player, went to sound and video, and found, miracle of miracles, a cd player. Didn't have to ask me. People new to Windows have to figure out to use Windows Media Player.
Windows, assuming you didn't use it in the last ten programs, makes you search through a list of everything installed on the start menu. Which, since the programmer decides what to put it under (ok, no flaming, I know you can change it, but would a 80-year old woman who just clicks "next"?) it could be the name of the software suite, the company name, the program name, even the programmer's dog's name!
Who's to say "Illustrator" and "Photoshop" are such good names? The former literally would be something to illustrate books, and the latter would be software to buy pictures. Hold on, notepad AND wordpad for text editing? I guess one must be for notes, and the other for individual words. AOL Instant Messanger... interesting, that won't work with my Yahoo account, how do I get that to work? WinAmp to play music (ok, some of my favorite windows software, granted) that should be an amplifier of the Win? No... software to amplify sounds for windows? Sorta... but no... Wait a SEC! Windows Media Player to rip CDs?! I thought it played music, not copied it. Roxio blah blah blah for CD burning. The odds of someone having that specific program on their computer depend on who they bought the computer from. I have problems saying that's something on a typical installation. Nero, that program should squander my money in lavish parties, have sex with young boys and ruin the empire, erm, my system.
Hey, the guy turns around on page two (if you got that far) to say that "Linux names may seem confusing but actually are not." Good he points out what GIMP stands for. Not a program to beat up handicapped children by Rockstar, but a sensibly named image editing program. Ho
Want to find other gamers to play board and role playing game
And while we're at it can we get Windows to stop referring to drives as C:, D:, etc.? Oh wait, that might bust a few legacy apps. Now imagine applying this principle to the doubtless billions of lines of shell script out there. Imagine the nightmare of having to replace all those mneumonic-style commands with "sensible" ones. For better or worse, some aspects of technologies are retained even if they don't make immediate sense to the initiate.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Let's do the comparison one more time using the names in my Ubuntu Breezy menus vs. the EXE names on Windows. Fair is fair, right?
Web Browser
Windows: iexpore, Opera, Mozilla, Firefox
Linux: Opera Web Browser, Mozilla Web Browser, Firefox Web Browser
Graphics Editing
Windows: photoshop (a place to buy photos?), illustrator
Linux: GIMP Image Editor
Movie Playback
Windows: wmp
Linux: Totem Movie Player, MPlayer, Xine, VLC Media Player
DVD Playback:
Windows: WinDVD (what titles can I win?), wmp
Linux: Totem Movie Player, Xine, VLC Media Player
Simple Text Editing
Windows: Notepad, Wordpad, TextPad
Linux: Text Editor
Instant Messaging
Windows: AIM
Linux: Gaim Internet Messenger
Music Playback:
Windows: wmp, Itunes (you tunes we all tunes to Itunes), WinAmp (I don't want Windows louder)
Linux: Beep Media Player, Rhythmbox Music Player
CD Ripping:
Windows: Itunes, wmp
Linux: Sound Juicer CD Ripper
CD Burning
Windows: Roxio, Nero
Linux: Gnome Toaster, Serpentine Audio CD Creator, Nero
It's pretty clear that Windows needs some consistency work before it will reach the level of polish and ease of use found in today's modern Linux distros. Anybody can write a story that manipulates the details in their favor.
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. -- William James
Regarding the thought that "Names arent important," I suggest everyone try to think about this from the point of view of a mere mortal, a.k.a. an end user. Most of the people I know who aren't geeks don't think of themselves as using Internet Explorer. They open the Internet. In that past, that tended to refer to AOL. These days, it's generally IE, but with customizations from Earthlink, SBC, or whoever else their ISP may be. They also don't use Outlook or Outlook Express. They just read their email. For a lot of people, that's done using a web browser and Yahoo or Gmail. In any case, it doesn't matter much, as long as people understand how to compose, read, and reply. The name of the application is irrelevant. From their point of view, most people I know don't even use Word and Excel. Instead, they write letters and create spreadsheets. Pretty much the only application I hear friends and relatives referring to by name is iTunes. But, let's face it, none of us are likely to be manually launching iexplore.exe, winword.exe, or ./firefox. Even geeks typically use a GUI for launching applications. And the nature of a GUI is that people get used to the icon they click or the steps they take, not the labels on things.
In a GUI-based paradigm, names really aren't important.
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other word would smell as sweet." -- Shakespear
Actually, there was also sibling post complaining about kde using 'k' to prefix everything; yours was the more reasonably worded comment, so I replied to it.
...)
I'm not really a fanboy of GNOME or KDE; I use both interchangably (and I like the occasional change of pace). I find it interesting how... rabid each side's fanboys can be towards the other.
It's interesting how often GNOME fanboys complain about the 'k' prefix for KDE programs, yet seem entirely oblivious to the fact that GNOME does the same thing. The famous telescope effect -- the other guys problems seem much larger than your own.
KDE users complain about similar nonsense about GNOME, all the while blissfully ignorant that KDE usually does the same things.
All in all, it's remarkable how similar the two environments are, and how many good ideas are passed between each other. (As well as how many bad ideas get dropped because the other project did the same thing in a better way).
To be honest, I don't see using the 'k' or 'g' as a prefix much different from Apple's use of 'i' (iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD,
It's interesting how the article also selects Linux programs that don't have a descriptive name, yet completely ignores unhelpful Windwos names.
Cases in point:
Simple Text Editing
Listed:
Windows: NotePad, WordPad, TextPad
Linux: gedit, kate
Unlisted:
Linux: kwrite, kedit (only listed because they're quite obvious)
On the Windows side, how about:
PowerPoint: (a powerful pointer? a SUPER laser pointer? WTF!?!)
Excel: (Excel... excel at what?)
Nero: (what is a dead Roman emperor doing on my hard disk?)
WinAMP: (Apparently this amplifies windows; so it must make it better or more powerful somehow)
PhotoShop: (Must be a photo printing service...)
Basically, the article takes what brand recognition Windows has for granted, while completely discounting the same effect for Linux. More astounding, is when you have a brand that exists on both platforms (GIMP, FireFox, Opera).
You see the same problem for people who move between a Mac and a Windows box; Mac users have such obscure program names as QuickTime, Pages, Keynote, Preview, Safari, BBEdit, Text Wrangler. iMovie... does this mean it plays or makes movies?
Basically, he's complaining because different platforms have their tools named differently. It happens everywhere; if I walk into a bar and ask for a screwdriver, I'm going to get something entirely different than I would if I were to ask for a screwdriver at the hardware store. Differences in the dialects of English spoken in Australia, the US, and England are good examples. The bottom line is you have to take the time to use the proper dialect, at leeast some of your meaning will get lost in translation.
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
I lost all respect for Mac usability, when I tried to eject a disc on Mac OS 9.
I spent like 10 minutes looking for a menu. In the end, I discovered that you have to drag the disc to the trash. I guess it is intuitive (as it ocurred to me, eventually), but it is just an idiotic way of doing things.
What was so bad about a menu, or option on the disc icon?
Also, Quicktime for Windows doesn't make a good case for the usability expertise of the Apple developers.
I think that something that this article seriously misses is that FOSS groups usually do not have the money/ resources to check for existing name trademarks (especially in multiple countries) and they also lack the money/ resources to purchase used names. There are plenty of marketing/ product companies that hold on to names until a buyer comes along. Companies like Microsoft, Adobe, etc have the people and resources to check for existing trademarks, copyrights, etc or buy exixting ones off of other companies. Just look at the troubles FireFox had and that was with the backing of a major FOSS player like Mozilla. Add on top of that the cost of purchasing the domain name for a popular/ more intuitive product name and it becomes obvious why so many FOSS groups choose unusual names. These people are programmers and technophiles, not lawyers and marketroids and most projects have no budget at all.
JM2C
Huh?
Statements such as these:
Names don't matter, it is all about training and then familiarity
it gets down to user training
are not just "not insightful", they are so 180 degrees, 100% wrong the fact that they would even be modded as anything close to "insightful" brings more disrepute than usual to slashdot.
Ok, now that I've raised the alarm, let me justify it.
First of all, USABILITY MATTERS. This is no longer 1986, or 1994 for that matter. We know now that the usability of a system is a key to its successful deployment.
Second, the opposite of usability is "that which needs training or re-learning when it shouldn't."
A pilot needs training to fly a 747. However, Boeing works damned hard and invests millions of dollars to make the systems as intuitive and usable as possible nevertheless, as this will lead to:
- fewer accidents
- fewer training and re-training costs for the airlines, their customers
- better day to day operation
Nobody at boeing says "the pilots are professionals. let's name the #3 engine Hi pressure bleed air valve malfunction switch "Xooomer". for that matter, let's give their FMS a CLI, since a well trained pilot can be faster with this than with a modal, menu-based FMS."These basic, BASIC principles of design are well known in virtually all fields of engineering. And, I (following in the footsteps of tongue-in-cheek works like the unix haters handbook) have been banging this drum in the linux world since at least 1995. And yet, just as it seems that a little light is shining through, in the form of a slashdot headline that actually says (gasp) intelligent things about usability, we open up the comments to find the same old nonsense from users that "it's not a usability problem, it's a training issue" being modded +5 insightful, which basically tells me that a lot of people still aren't getting it.
Pity.
Mark parent down. Severely down. Please.
First of all, USABILITY MATTERS. This is no longer 1986, or 1994 for that matter. We know now that the usability of a system is a key to its successful deployment.
AMEN. I would go a step further and say that most technological revolutions are effectuated more so by usability breakthroughs than pure technology. The rise of the Internet was precipitated by the web browser. The widespread availibility of a graphical interface drove the adoption of personal computers. MP3's weren't even on the RIAA's radar before Napster made finding and downloading them easy.
Usability and accessibility are FAR more important that most geeks realize, probably because most of them want to use their knowledge of technology as a social lever, rather than as a boon to others.
You know, none of this naming nonsense has to matter to end users. In Sun's JDS3 (GNOME on Solaris 10), GIMP is called "Image Editor", Eye of Gnome is "Image Viewer", Netscape is "Web Browser", Nautilus is "Email and Calendar", etc.
All possible political correctness is averted!
The mere fact that you have to have "tool tips" to even figure out what the programs do in the first point for your most commonly used apps is pretty silly, if you ask me. For most all of my apps in KDE, it says right before the programs name what it does, such as "CD/DVD Burning (K3b)". I didn't have to hover over it to jog my memory as to what it was. Also, my "Start" menu doesn't organize my programs in the most impossible to find ways like Windows does (by company name), it organizes them by what they do in the first place, so I can spend less time searching through crap and more time getting done what I want to do. I get all of that simplicity, AND I don't have to clean buttloads of spyware and viruses off my system like most of you Windoze users do. Oh, yeah...thats 2 more programs that I don't have to remember the names or functions to. See how easy it is :)
PS: My girlfriend recently install SuSE 10 Linux on her laptop without any help, and she's the most computer illiterate person I know.