Slashdot Mirror
Shuttleworth Suggests 1-Way Valve For User Experience Testing
darthcamaro writes "No surprise but Ubuntu's Mark Shuttleworth has come out swinging in favor of the Linux desktop. Speaking at Linuxcon yesterday he detailed the things that he thinks Linux requires in order to win the desktop wars. Those include: co-ordinated software releases, better quality and design, some user experience testing and oh yeah, a dose of 'shut the f*** up' too. During his keynote, he extended an invitation to any open source application to submit their software for testing by user-experience experts. The sessions would be recorded for posterity, and the developer would not be able to interact with the user. "'If the developer is in the room, they have to say nothing. It's the shut the f*** up protocol,' Shuttleworth said. 'You sit and watch someone struggle with the software that you've so lovingly produced.'"
I've done a bit of software dev here and there, and I've never had the luxury of being near the users when they first prop it open.
For that reason, I've developed a habit of showing a beta to a nearby co-worker, or a friend, and ask them "Check this out."
And when they say "What is it?" - I haven't done my job right.
We -need- RMS though. Without RMS we just have a bunch of people wanting to get stuff for free. Heck, without RMS and the GPL, Linux would not exist, Linux as in the kernel itself. Chances are it would have been licensed under an obscure license and died due to a non-commercial or other clause. It was only due to the GPL that the kernel was released under a typical license.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
I'm a coder, gamer, and all-around power-user. I've been using Linux for years, including 2-3 years of using Gentoo exclusively, back before it had any sort of gui installer.
In all that time, I've only had Gnome not let me do something (or make it overly difficult) twice: once was when they went to "spacial" (I think they called it) handling of folder-opening in Nautilus, which was only a slight pain to fix and which, AFAIK, has been switched back to a not-retarded default anyway, and setting each virtual desktop to a different background, which I'd still like to be able to do but which really isn't that big a damn deal.
What exactly do all these "Gnome won't let you configure anything! KDE 4Evar!" people want to be able to do with Gnome that they can't?
I wanted to tell NetworkManager to do something specific (IIRC, use a specific DNS server rather than the one handed out by the DHCP server on my DSL gateway, but it's been a year or so) and couldn't. When I opened a ticket about it, it was closed WONTFIX with the notation that the idea behind it was zero-configuration and adding the ability to configure it to do this was therefore unacceptable.
I want gnome-terminal not to eat my right-clicks. People have been asking for that for *years* and are constantly told that the Gnome developers know better than they do about what they need.
True story here: dad's computer had OpenOffice, not MS Office. My sister's experience with OpenOffice's Impress was terrible: she needed to print all slides from a .ppt file, and couldn't find this option. As she had a tight deadline, and I had nearly zero experience with presentation software anyway, I shrugged and installed MS Office. She ran Powerpoint and found her way very easily.
Just a bit later, I tried to find out how one prints all slides from a presentation.
Guess what? It's done EXACTLY the same way in Impress and Powerpoint. Same function, same name, same location. See, this is not a "Photoshop versus Gimp" style comparison; interface-wise, they were nearly identical (that was before the "ribbon" thing). If she found her way in Powerpoint, she should have found her way in Impress. Yet, she somehow panicked with the new program.
What can a developer do about users that won't even TRY?!
Circumcision is child abuse.
... as a developer.
They basically have labs with one-way mirror. User is left alone in a sound-proof room and given a set of tasks to perform. Everything is recorded (including facial expressions and sound), and any developer can take a look at the test either from the adjacent room or from his/her workstation (using Windows Media Player). The only input the user gets is when he gets so confused he can't accomplish the task from the list. In which case the person conducting the test just says "next task" and that's it.
The experience is really humbling. You just realize that people out there are FAR, FAR less experienced with computers than you thought, and even working their email client is a challenge for most.
You make your assumptions on the basis of what's convenient for you. Guess what, people out there are not you, and what's good for you is torture for them (the inverse is often true, too).
We ended up redesigning the entire chunks of the UI sometimes, some features got cut, some scenarios overhauled. And in the end we still didn't do enough of usability testing (IMO), but such is life in commercial software development - you work against an arbitrary schedule.
Why should software go through Ubuntu to get validated by UI Experts?
I'm guessing the *primary goal* is to get developers to have UI experts look at their software, PERIOD. I'm sure Shuttleworth would be happy if it were someone else's UI experts.
The sad but true fact is that today, the vast majority of open source software *never* has any usability testing done.
Read it like this: "Linux software needs usability testing done. The Ubuntu project can provide resources to help accomplish that."
If he wants to make Ubuntu financially self-sustaining, Linux desktops that play well with media conglomerates aren't going to get anywhere.
Huh? What the hell are you talking about?
Bottom line, I get the feeling he sees himself as the great entrepreneurial hope for all of Free Software and that it, in general, will be successful when his company is successful. Well, Mr. Shuttleworth, they were doing fine without you.
Not in the realm of developing usable applications and OSes, they weren't.
*A consistent user interface doesn't exist. Mac's Finder UI looks remarkably similar to the Disk Utility, it doesn't help you work with either one! If anything, one builds expectations the other fails to deliver.
So, since a 100% consistent user interface doesn't currently exist, we should therefore give up and not even attempt to make one? If everybody thought like you, nothing would ever happen.
Comment of the year
Well if a million users expect a certain UI widget at a certain spot doing certain things, what's there to stop someone from fulfilling this expectation?
If the goal is mass appeal to Microsoft fanbois, well, make it appealing then. It's much easier to change a bit of code than try to evangelize some million users. Improving any one's deep ingrained wrongness can backfire when everyone is used to it and has to adapt to everything new at once, that's life, always has been.
Car analogy: all car makers seem to have different layout of their reverse gear in stick shifts. We can't rip out all stick shifts, we cannot standardize, because people who've always driven a particular will lament for weeks when something changed. So we have a status quo for decades which nobody quite wants to change.
Microsoft got heavy flak, no, nuclear artillery, for every single change they did to the Windows UI in the last 10 years. People actually seem to like the "Windows standard"-mode of XP and all users at my company fought tooth and nails to keep that when we migrated to new terminal servers - they like it so much that people constantly ask if they could somehow revert Vista or Windows 7 to that look.
So Microsoft get's their own dose, really. Since XP, GUIs (and their userbase) have come to a point of maturity where progress can now only move forward very good reasons. We may use other window managers, different layouts or whatever, but to the general public, the Windows XP non-kiddy GUI mode has been the definitive gold standard for most regular people - for now more than half a decade.
When Microsoft could copy over the descriptive buttons from MacOS ("Overwrite:" [yes|no] and "Keep this setting [yes|no]" to File exists: [overwrite|don't overwrite] and "[Keep setting|abandon setting]" etc.), we're actually finished building a UI metaphor.
STFUnix
Saying "I'll probably get modded down for this" in a post is the best way to get it modded up.
It seems reasonable to expect gnome-terminal to pass to ncurses applications all the mouse events described in curs_mouse(3x), including BUTTON3_PRESSED, etc.
But why spend time and money teaching when continuing on with what you have works?
It doesn't work. There's an entire industry built on the fact that it doesn't work. There are entire job classifications based upon the premise that it doesn't work. And we (The People) are no longer in a position where we have the luxury of continuing to throw money at this woefully broken piece of shit.
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
You've gotta be joking. Every windows install I've ever done comes with a generic driver and even a nifty message along the lines "Your display settings are at a lower resolution ....." it won't give you directx (sililar to compiz) and the is gives you no help installing the manufacturers web site. You still have to know the manufacter and model of the card. On the other hand Linux just give you a story about how evil the industry is and still do it all for you. So with the ever popular time = money ratio Linux has the best ROI.
A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
For me, "successful" in regards to my own code means it has benefited me in some way, and that is:
A. Getting paid for it
B. Getting code contributions
Since I see it that way, I GPL my code. I consider it successful when somebody comes to me to pay for an improvement, or when somebody takes my code and improves it (since they have to release the changes).
Getting my code used by millions but not getting anything back is of no value to me.