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.'"
Users always ruin the best software.
He knows what he's talking about. We don't need more RMS but more people like Shuttleworth. Pragmatically minded, not focused only on ideals. If somebody wants follow only ideas I suggest Green Peace or monastery.
"an experienced, industrious, ambitious, and often, quite often, picturesque liar" - Mark Twain
Ok, sounds like a cool idea. I would LOVE the Amarok2.x devs to sit in on that session.
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
and oh yeah, a dose of 'shut the f*uck up' too.
Wow, it's a good thing that asterisk was there. Somebody might have seen something profane.
Promote proofreading. Don't mod up sloppy posts.
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.
The problem is, we have this odd expectation that any software, from a compiler, to a game, to an office suite to a browser should be instinctive by use of other software. That is, they think Word processor == Word. So when you take another word processor such as Open Office, they expect it to work -exactly- like Word. Any differences are seen as "faults". Take someone fully new to computers and have them learn Linux or Windows and chances are they will figure out Linux faster. Take someone who has used Windows all their life and give them Linux they complain because things aren't exactly the same.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Because so many developers develop Open Source applications for personal satisfaction, they tend to focus on scratching their own itches.
A characteristic of usability testing is that your goal is to scratch the itch of your customers; your preferences have very little significance in the context of the test.
It doesn't take a genius to see a potential conflict in the two goals; on the other hand, a developer likes to see his code in actual use by actual human beings. To maximize this use, a developer must at least pay lip service to documentation and UI testing.
Many developers never make this conceptual leap, however.
"Man is nothing without the works of man" -- Helvetius
But, I'm afraid that these "experts" will be handpicked, for one set of characteristics or another.
Hopefully it's for UI design ability.
Ironically, Linux is a far better desktop OS than a Workstation OS. Microsoft is just too far ahead on making it easy to manage thousands of workstations with minimal setup.
Perhaps, but I don't think botnets really count as an example of superiority over Linux.
Desktop, workstation and server OS are obsolete ideas. In 20 years we probably won't even have these things or at least not worry about them. I can't say for certain what will replace the desktop, but I think it is going away in our lifetimes. Or perhaps we'll just have one platform that runs the same OS and same applications on our laptops, servers and phones.
They've been predicting the death of the desktop and a return to centralized computing for 20 years.
"Frequently wrong, never in doubt."
Sorry, the simple fact is there is no need for another desktop OS. Windows and Mac are fine. I don't know why people think Linux will _ever_ make headway in that space when there's no conceivable way it ever will.
Instead, how about focusing on being a workstation OS and a server OS?
Mr. RightSaidFred99, I think it's time for a big dose of, as Mr. Shuttleworth himself so elaborately expressed, shut the fuck up.
I am the lawn!
Your fears are unfounded. If they were valid, we wouldn't have GNOME & KDE & the hundreds of other desktop environments and window managers.
In fact, this will make things even better. KDE will still be KDE, but it will be more usable. Same with GNOME. Some of the more esoteric systems will not change, because they aren't aimed at regular people.
There is no single Linux OS that can be bettered/ruined by a single person. There are literally *hundreds* of Linux OSs. And even if there were just one single Linux OS, how can you argue *against* usability testing? If there's just one OS, and it goes through testing, it will almost certainly be made better, but if you *don't* test, it will still be the single Linux OS that everyone has to use, it just won't be as good.
My biggest complaint about Linux on the desktop is the lack of a true universal UI
Not much of a problem though, for most people, Linux isn't Linux but a Linux distro, that is if you have Ubuntu, you get GNOME, if you have Kubuntu you get KDE. Similar to how you can either get Windows XP or Windows Vista/7 with different UIs.
and the difficulty in user software (a user should be able to run every application without tweaking text files)
Most user-level applications don't require you to tweak text files unless you need some obscure setting. A few "pro" level applications (as in, your going to be programming or know something about computers) use text files because they are easier to edit, debug and generally give support for a knowledgeable user.
and ease of administration
Compared to Windows, Linux administration is a breeze. A Linux system ran by a normal user who doesn't screw around as root, will remain stable. Simply going to a site can get you a virus in Windows. Because of this and the -large- amount of viruses on Windows, it is pretty much required to run a virus scan pretty often. With Linux, even if you are running a vulnerable everything, chances are you simply won't get a virus.
Plus, with Windows update you never know what you are going to get, "features" constantly creep in (remember the search bar that was a "critical update"?) and large changes are considered updates. It takes a lot more work administrating a small amount of Windows boxes compared to Linux.
When it achieves the same level or better of intuitiveness as Windows, then it can compete.
Windows has not intuitiveness. The only reason why we think it has is because most people have been using it for 20 some odd years. A lot of the Windows conventions have been -proven- to be counter intuitive and plain confusing (anyone else wonder why Add/Remove programs is called that even though you really can't add in any programs from there). Windows is terribly unfriendly, we just have gotten used to it.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Yeah... You don't know a lot about managing Windows, do you. Or Linux for that matter, you'd using something like Cfengine to achieve this, not god damned "gsh". What is this, 1986. Jesus Christ dude.
The idea that an interface can be entirely judged by how well a user handles it in the first few minutes of exposure is, in my opinion, one of the bigger *problems* with UI design of late. A quality interface should both be immediately accessible, and SCALE WELL TO MORE ADVANCED USE CASES. In my experience, Gnome, OS X, and the bundled native applications that come with each currently fail miserably at the latter. The former head of Apple's UI team makes a pretty good case for this being a problem here, although the article focuses specifically on a facet of the OS X design philosophy which causes scalability issues, rather than the problem in general. To borrow a line from the article: "The beginner today will be the expert of tomorrow. The user with 200 photos today will be the user with 2000 a year from now. The user with 10 songs today will be the user with 100 songs six months from now. The user with one or two extra apps on the iPhone will be the user with 100 apps three months from now."
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
"Windows has not intuitiveness. The only reason why we think it has is because most people have been using it for 20 some odd years."
Exactly. Those old exclusivity agreements that MS insisted on are still paying off. People are used to MS, and anything different is "wrong".
Not to mention - Dell, Compaq, and other OEMS basically did all of MS hardware compatibility for them. Linux is still struggling to make some hardware work that was "designed for Windows".
Just a few years of unfair advantage can translate into decades of revenues.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Windows has no touch screen support out of the box either.
Vista does. You're either full of shit, or talking about an ancient Windows version. Given, Vista doesn't have *multi-touch* screen support, but neither does Linux or OS X. And Windows 7 will. So... yah.
Please do the world a favor and stop spouting bullshit. If you don't know for sure, don't write the fucking post.
Comment of the year
It is 100% worthless.
I have a job to do, it involves many facets. I need to be able to do all of them. It isn't an option to say "No I am not going to do this part of my job." Well, my Windows system does 100% of what I need. It runs all the different kinds of software I need to do the various parts of my job. Ok, great. Now if Linux doesn't, it is worthless. Why? Because there's no point in running a different OS, if I still have to have Windows. If Linux does 80% of what I need, and Windows does 100%, then I might as well always be booted in to Windows. Why would I boot to a different OS, if it can't do everything?
Also, in terms of switching, it isn't good enough to say "You can do everything you need." It most certainly isn't worth a switch if you can do everything you need, but it is harder or more complicated to do. It isn't even good enough to say "You can do everything you need just as easy." Even if everything works as smooth as it does with what you currently have, it isn't worth switching because there's no advantage.
To be worth switching, you have to show how things are going to be BETTER. You have to show that you can do 100% of your job, and that it'll be better. Otherwise, it really isn't worth it.
I think that is part of the problem that often when people say "Well you can do what you need to do in Linux," they haven't really looked at what the person does. What the truth can be is "You can technically do what you need to do, but it'll be a whole lot of work, a good deal of retraining, and not nearly as smooth as what you have now."
Well Linux has "support" as well. In both cases additional drivers may or may not be needed. Since the parent was not in any way specific as to the type of touchscreen I was being as general as possible. Most Linux distributions provide support for a variety of touchscreens and drawing tablets out of the box. I know for a fact that Vista on one of the tablets I use needs a driver installed manually for the Wacom tablet. Ubuntu does not. It really depends on the hardware.
My comment was aimed at the people who rip on Linux because they have to install drivers (it really doesn't matter what type.) I was pointing out that you need to do that in other OS's as well.
"Frequently wrong, never in doubt."
Whatever. I had to explain disk images to a fucking Ivy League professor (a young one, not some doddering 80-year-old). People are fucking stupid. Especially Christians.
Was that before or after he told you how much money he makes, how he gets a year off after 6 years of work, and the awesome retirement plan? Not to mention the fact that he's paid to do jack-all.
I suppose I'd rather be uninformed (not stupid, as you imply) and on easy street, than whining about people like that on slashdot.
So what?
Look, your wife is well served by Windows. My father is well served by MacOS. Great. There are operating systems for them.
I use desktop Linux. I've used desktop Linux since 1996. I use it because it's well suited to my needs, and I do not care who else does or does not use it. If it fits their needs, they can use it. If something else fits their needs, they can use that. As long as there are enough users to keep development going, why would I care about more people adopting Linux?
In fact, changing Linux to make it appeal to your grandmother is just likely to make it less useful to me, because your grandmother and I have different needs. Which is why we just might need to use different operating systems.
So long as the data on the wire are standard, the end node operating system doesn't matter. Use what works for you. Shuttleworth cares about market share because he's in it for a buck. What's in it for the rest of us?
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.
Go do volunteer basic computer literacy session for your local senior center. Don't try to convert them to linux or get them using Firefox or anything dumb like that. Just ask what their problems are, and how you can help. You will quickly understand how broken and unintuitive computer software is.
this is the same Mark Shuttleworth who removed update-notifier and then when hundreds of beta-testers said 'please put that back' on the infamous https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/update-notifier/+bug/332945 he personally said 'no, I'm not listening to you'.
He said it politely:
"I'm marking the bug wontfix on the basis that we are confident the behaviour as at 9.04 release is a good one. I wouldn't be surprised for the conversation to continue though I do ask that it continue in a good spirit. If significant data shows this to be a suboptimal choice in future, we will revisit the point, but for now the question is settled."
but it was still a WONTFIX in the face of overwhelming public opinion to the contrary.
I'll believe he listens to users when he actually listens to the users.
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
Well you then continue to use ur XP and have 1 antivirus for 1/4 the internet and another antivirus for 2/4 of the internet and then use some spyware removal program to take care of 3/4 internet and you are safe and when you spit all that money for antiviruses there goes Vista and spit money there and then comes out Win7 then again same thing and around and around we go or you will just buy Win7 cause Vista was such an epic win for M$.
"Jim! I'm on the Lynooks now, and I printed off 500 envelopes for the newsletter, but they're all rotated! I put the envelopes in this way, but they come out all wrong!"
You seriously overestimate the ability of a standard plebe to adjust to any change.
I have a bunch of clients that I've switched to Linux that would undoubtedly take great umbrage at this characterization. People aren't stupid by nature. But when you pound it into their heads that they are stupid, they'll internalize it. Most people have heard nothing but "computers are too complicated for you to understand," so that's what they believe. But it's bullshit. And it's usually being fed to them by bad people who are trying to pick their pockets. Which I guess is capitalism in action and probably won't change. But what I'm fucking sick of is this attitude coming from the geek community that "the proletariat just will never be as smart as us." It's obnoxious, it's offensive, and most of all it's fucking wrong. I bet you can't skydive. But if someone taught you you could.
Humans are great at adapting, but only when forced.
You might be on to something with this. Damn good thing for my business that Microsoft is great at forcing people's hands.
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
Well, last time I did it, it went like this.
One of the grad students in the lab decided he needed to use Linux, but he only had experience with Windows. No problem, a good first step is to install Linux at home so he gets lots of exposure to it.
Okay, install Ubuntu. Not bad (the install process has come a LONG way - proof that UI improvements can be made). Okay, everything is going fine, but how come the second monitor doesn't work? Now there's a good question: Windows and OS X both would have autodetected the monitor and just made it work. Strike 1.
But sure, let's just open up the System->Preference->Display. Oops. Second monitor isn't there. Hm. Strike 2.
All right, Google it. Here's a utility that's supposed to do the job. Install, run. Wants to install a driver. No problem, do it. Which one? The latest one. Fine. Uh oh, X won't even start. Strike 3.
Okay, fine, it's been a while since I've edited an Xorg.conf file, but let's dive into it.... That's the point where the guy decided to wipe Linux and reinstall Windows, and I can't really blame him. It turns out later that after two strikes we almost had it, except you had to pick the next to latest driver because the most recent one dies a horrible death when used with more than one monitor.
By the way, I'm not at all sure you know what you're talking about. If you type "multiple monitors" into the Ubuntu help webpage you don't get "just go to System>Preference->Display. You get this:
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/XineramaHowTo
So either you're wrong, or the Ubuntu help web site is crap. Either way, strike 4.
I hope Shuttleworth's emphasis on usability pays off. There's no reason why Linux CAN'T deal with the myriad little problems like this one, and Ubuntu has not only fixed a bunch of them in the distro but also spurred other distros into fixing long standing, stupid issues.
For the benefit of those not familiar with this... the old behaviour of displaying updates was to display an icon next to the clock. The new behaviour is:
Friends' Ubuntu installations were rarely updated due to the limited attention received by the little icon. With the new [minimised] update window, the machines updated weekly.
It all comes down to visibility.
Cheers.
Yet Socrates himself is particularly missed.
A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed.
This was a new product, in a new (for Microsoft) market. We were starting from zero marketshare against firmly entrenched competitors. It took that product about five years to even start breaking even and now it brings in a healthy profit.
People at MSFT by and large try really hard to put out the best product they can. Unfortunately, in a company the size of Microsoft it's not as straightforward as it perhaps should be. If you work on a product that's already shipped a few versions, you end up having to convince too many people to get anything changed, so unless something is truly horribly broken people tend to pick their fights and argue for the cases where have a greater probability of success.
Fortunately, this is not an issue with new, v1 products, since you're building from the ground up. Hence, in our case, we've made fairly dramatic changes as we went along.
This has to win an award for the longest sentence ever posted on Slashdot, with a special mention for incoherence.
I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.
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!
I really doubt that could even come close to being the longest sentence ever posted on Slashdot, although it might possibly be the longest sentence put together without including any punctuation or obvious structure - the trick really to building an excessively, almost absurdly, long sentence is to first ensure that it contains plenty of subclauses to pad out the length, adding extra detail without becoming complete sentences in their own right, which allows you to keep adding words without bringing the sentence to an end, followed by the addition of plenty of un-necessary, redundant and absolutely preposterously worthless adjectives and further extra description, and then the final stage is to replace natural sentence breaks with connective words, commas and semi-colons to paper over the gaps between what would otherwise be separate sentences and keep the run-on flowing so that the sentence can just keep on growing and growing without any real limit or inhibition to further growth, save for the limiting factor of the author's patience with the endeavour.