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.'"

23 of 757 comments (clear)

  1. We are our own problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Users always ruin the best software.

    1. Re:We are our own problem. by siloko · · Score: 5, Funny

      I always employ the 'Shut the fuck up' protocol. Unfortunately for my testing team it is usually me who is shouting it . . .

    2. Re:We are our own problem. by Romancer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      User satisfaction with software is inversely proportional to how much work they must do - how many separate actions they must take - to accomplish something.

      Yes.

      I.e., competently designed software obsoletes the user, making user acceptance testing extraneous.

      No.

      Competently designed software allows users to do the tasks they have to do without unnecessarily complicated actions and time wasting steps. That's why we don't code in MS Word and do excel spreadsheets in machine language within emacs. We could use those methods but the software has been written that allows us to do them better. The software does not do it for us and it cannot create as varied an output as is capable from humans yet. So the software should not get in the way of the user and should help perform tasks. The STFU method tells us that if a group of users strugled to find a simple or easy feature to perform a task, the software may need to be adjusted. Perhaps just the GUI color or menu label, but if the people out there cannot find something or have trouble doing a task that the software can perform if they just new how. There is a problem. More training is easy to prescribe but it can be avoided for good promotion of user experiences. How many times have people fixed a linux distro to make it easier to do a task. Cat, Grep, etc. Rather than programming in perl all the time to get basic features, these tools have been added to make it easier. Same thing in the GUI world. Make it easier and it is more useful.

      --


      ) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
      ) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
  2. Kudos to him! by jackharrer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Kudos to him! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah! Ideals are for losers!

      FFS.

      Did it ever occur to you that without RMS there would be no Shuttleworth?

    2. Re:Kudos to him! by ceoyoyo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yup, just like BSD. Er....

    3. Re:Kudos to him! by node+3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is Linux, we can have, and need to have, both.

      There will be free Linuxes, like Debian. There will be "pragmatic" Linuxes, like Ubuntu. There will be all sorts of Linuxes in between.

      Linux requires both the RMS types and the Shuttleworth types in order to both survive (RMS) and grow out of its niche (Shuttleworth).

    4. Re:Kudos to him! by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People who forget the lessons of the past are bound to repeat them. RMS is right, and it is only upon the foundation that he started that Mark Shuttleworth has anything to stand.

      Not saying Mark Shuttleworth is doing a bad job, but when you start saying things like, "It's either Richard or Mark! One or the other!" you've kind of gotten off base. They both have good things to say and actually for the most part are in agreement.

      --
      Qxe4
    5. Re:Kudos to him! by node+3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It was opposition to binary-only drivers that kicked off the formal free software movement in the first place, and it has helped. Greatly.

      In the short-term, binary drivers are often a better choice. Some driver is better than no driver, right? But in the long run, free/open source drivers are usually better. Just look at how crashy and difficult to work with the Nvidia drivers have been. Or how severely limited the ATI drivers were.

      What's more, the fact that the binary Nvidia drivers are treated as a sort of pariah helps Linux overall in that there are probably numerous other drivers that might have been released as binary-only drivers, but for fear of being rejected by the Linux community. Nvidia can get away with it because they are so large, they can say "my way, or the high way". Up to a point. But if binary-only drivers were treated as completely legitimate, every other hardware maker would be motivated to release binary drivers instead of open source drivers.

      They may make life difficult sometimes, but you should thank those "rabid" idealists, because they also make life better for you. Without them, there wouldn't have even been a Linux in the first place.

    6. Re:Kudos to him! by yurtinus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The take-away lesson from this discussion is that we need both types. Idealists like RMS push the boundaries and generally ensure we don't get stuck in any proprietary ruts. Pragmatics compromise with what is still a largely proprietary industry and try to get things to working right now. Some push and pull is healthy-- it means both types are doing their jobs. I'm big on free software, but it sure as hell means a lot to download an ISO and have it Just Work.

      The binary drivers are an excellent example as Parent noted-- the manufacturers aren't yet comfortable enough to release free and open drivers-- but at least we get something that works. If the idealists don't give up, someday we'll see a change of heart from the manufacturers.

      --
      +1 Disagree
  3. STFU needs to be heard. by B5_geek · · Score: 5, Funny

    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)
    1. Re:STFU needs to be heard. by dstar · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

  4. grawlix fail by Nick+Number · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  5. To be so lucky... by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:To be so lucky... by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is a good point - if software doesn't explain itself, then it is broken. I believe this holds all the way from the top level to the basics. If the architecture of the system isn't well signposted and comprehensible, it fails. If an icon meaning is murky and there are no tooltips, it fails. Now you always have to assume some basic level competence on the part of the user (eg. knowing to type man to get program info, or knowing how to click with a mouse) but once you're part that, there is no reason why programs can't be self-explanatory, or at the very least self-documenting. I don't know how many times I've torn my hair out because the 'Help' menu's only item was "About".

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
  6. Re:Inherrent charateristic of Open Source by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Funny

    Because so many developers develop Open Source applications for personal satisfaction, they tend to focus on scratching their own itches.

    Note to self. Stop shaking hands with Open Source developers...

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  7. Re:Not the issue.... by maccodemonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Would you buy a car that didn't have a steering wheel? Sure, certain software vendors have set certain standards for software interfaces. But the user is king. It doesn't matter who trained the user what to expect, if the user expects something, you should tailor your software to their expectations. If you think it's the users job to learn your interface, the user is just going to keep using Windows because they don't want to spend time learning the Linux way of doing things. Respect your users time.

  8. Re:We don't need another desktop OS. by noundi · · Score: 5, Funny

    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!
  9. Re:We DO need another desktop OS. by Darkness404 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  10. I've participated in usability testing at MSFT by melted · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... 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.

  11. Re:Not the issue.... by MiniMike · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is easy:

    Step 1- Get two identical rooms. Fill one with computers with your favorite Linux installed, the other with computers with Windows installed.

    Step 2- Put a sign on the door reading "Mac Lab". Use large letters.

    Step 3- Observe resulting behavior. Write paper. Profit!

    (Before anyone gets offended, I think Macs are ok and used them a lot in the past, but think this would be an interesting experiment even though different than the op suggested.)

  12. Re:We DO need another desktop OS. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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
  13. Re:We DO need another desktop OS. by mpeskett · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.