Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Examining the Usability of Gnome, Unity and KDE

Posted by timothy on from the such-wimps-all-of-'em dept.

gbjbaanb writes "TechRadar has gathered a few users and subjected the 3 main Linux desktops to some usability testing for both experienced users and some new to the whole concept." I'm glad to see such ongoing comparisons; they encourage cross-pollination of the best ideas. On the other hand, it's a little bit like trying to determine the "best" dessert; even the most elaborate attempts to find statistical consensus won't answer the question of what's best for any particular user.

42 of 228 comments (clear)

  1. General usability should be one of the choices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's nothing wrong with ignoring the needs of individual users to tailor a generally good experience, _so long as power-users are still given the ability to pick the option best for them as individuals_. That last part is the important part that Apple has forgotten of late.

    1. Re:General usability should be one of the choices by InsightIn140Bytes · · Score: 4, Funny

      But Linux is open. Fork it and do it yourself! Given the ability, pffft.

    2. Re:General usability should be one of the choices by obarthelemy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Users can't fork Linux, they need something premade.
      Further, users have computers skills by now, and have no desire to re-learn from scratch.

      --
      The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    3. Re:General usability should be one of the choices by InsightIn140Bytes · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So if they want something premade, why would they choose Linux instead of OSX or Windows? What else than customization, tweakability and programming the system does Linux offer over those two? It's a good question to ask, especially for Gnome/KDE/Ubuntu/Linux developers if they want Linux to become mainstream.

    4. Re:General usability should be one of the choices by sidthegeek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, because they don't have to pay any money to obtain a copy of Linux.

    5. Re:General usability should be one of the choices by grumling · · Score: 2

      Because I didn't want a Mac and (at the time) Microsoft's 64 bit OS was too expensive and too little supported for home use. I figured I had paid for a 64 bit processor and it didn't make sense to me to not use all of it's capabilities.

      Now that I'm used to the *nix way of doing things, I won't go back.

      --
      "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
    6. Re:General usability should be one of the choices by Stormwatch · · Score: 4, Informative

      They did fork Gnome, it's called Maté.

      --
      Circumcision is child abuse.
    7. Re:General usability should be one of the choices by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2

      "What else than customization, tweakability and programming the system does Linux offer over those two?"

      You are trying to make a joke, right?

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    8. Re:General usability should be one of the choices by Coryoth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's nothing wrong with ignoring the needs of individual users to tailor a generally good experience, _so long as power-users are still given the ability to pick the option best for them as individuals_.

      The standards for people calling themselves "power users" really seems to have dropped. The people I think of as power users would have no problem hacking together a nice custom FVWM2 configuration that integrates all the GNOME3 libraries (including the internal notification and messaging systems -- they do have nice exposed interfaces after all) and applications while giving them exactly the custom experience they desire. I mean GNOME3 is pretty damn modular and broken into a myriad of different libraries and components after all; it's just the shell that they've stuck on top as gloss that lacks some customidability. But no, these days people that call themselves "power users" seem to run scared at the mere mention of hand-writing their own FVWM2 or xmonad configuration from scratch; or indeed, of bothering to actually have to get their hands dirty to create a custom environment at all. Today "power users" need to be able to "customise" their environment via pretty GUIs and checkboxes. Heck, I've heard people calling themselves power users who called GConf complicated.

      Look, there's still plenty of extensive customisation and configurability inherent in these systems, they just require you actually be a power user and know what the hell you're doing, and not be scared of getting your hands a little messy and stepping outside pretty candy coated "configuration" utilities.

      --
      Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
    9. Re:General usability should be one of the choices by realityimpaired · · Score: 2

      Users can just pick the breed of Linux that suits them and be immediately productive.

      Ignoring the 20-30 distros they may have to download to find the one that suits them, assuming they don't have somebody recommending things to them or installing it for them....

      Linux *can* be super-easy, just install it and go. But it can also be a royal pain in the ass, if the distro you've installed doesn't fit the work flow you're used to, or that you need in a computer. Finding a distro that does everything you want it to do, and that doesn't give you a migraine trying to configure is a huge part of the impediment to switching for a lot of people. Most users basically can't do it without somebody to pick a distro for them, and maybe even to show them how to use it, or at least what's different from their old system.

    10. Re:General usability should be one of the choices by Nursie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No.

      To customise Gnome Shell you need to write javascript. I do not have the time or the inclination to write code to re-add functionality that was available with a right-click in the last release.

      People who write custom FVWM2 configs in the way you talk about it were never power-users, they're obsessives.

    11. Re:General usability should be one of the choices by Nursie · · Score: 2

      How someone who shies away from writing some simple javascript against well defined and well documented interfaces can call themselves a "power user" is beyond me.

      How about someone who has some work to do?

      there was little you could do to make some things happen in GNOME2 without hacking around in the C

      Now you're just talking bullshit. There was a lot you could do in gnome (MOVE a panel, for instance, or add things to it) at the touch of a couple of buttons.

      Or is a text editor instead of a pointy-clicky interface too daunting for a "power user" like yourself?

      I use a text editor to write C. I click to customise my desktop GUI, like in every other OS.

      Are you seriously, for even a second, suggesting that GNOME Shell was designed to allow "power users" more flexibility? You're more retarded than I thought.

    12. Re:General usability should be one of the choices by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 2

      Don't under estimate the "grizzled heavily-tattooed leathery skin beer and a shot of whisky Harley rider type of biker.", they are usually much smarter than they look. The same can be said of professional truck drivers. Its just their sense of taste and style that's questionable.

      --
      If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
    13. Re:General usability should be one of the choices by drsmithy · · Score: 2

      Windows does not come free on new desktops. I find you saying that misleading.

      You might find it misleading, but it's nevertheless true. The small cost of OEM Windows ($0-40 or so, depending on what other kickbacks the reseller gets) is part of the purchase cost of "the computer". Ie: it's not considered an additional cost by anyone who doesn't have an axe to grind. Ie: it's "free".

      The simple fact is that there's rarely a price difference between a PC that comes with Windows and a PC that comes with Linux, from the sellers most people buy from. Ergo, Windows is "free" in any meaningful sense of the word.

      Microsoft gets paid for every copy of Windows. The OEMs pay Microsoft and mark it up to you via the price of the whole computer.

      Yes. And ?

      The cost of the hardware comes down but the cost of Windows never does. It will continue to remain $50 or more for OEM preinstalls and $120 for the lowest upgrade retail copy.

      OEMs probably pay more like $20 for their copy of Windows. Many effectively get it free thanks to kickbacks from vendors bundling other software on their PCs.

      Keep in mind that Microsoft just put out a public reminder that you do not own that copy installed on your computer.

      You don't "own" your copy of Linux, either. If you think you do, I suggest trying to modify and redistribute it on terms not compliant with the GPL.

    14. Re:General usability should be one of the choices by HermMunster · · Score: 2

      That is another ludicrous statement.

      You can immediately start using quality software under Linux the moment you have the desktop after your first install. The same goes for just about any OS. The moment you get to the desktop you can bring up a word processor and start writing a letter or you can bring up a spreadsheet and begin a budget, or you can launch your browser and watch Hulu or youtube flash videos, or write an email, or chat, or make phone calls.

      In fact, it is far easier and faster to begin a productive day with a new install of Linux than it is with the other OSes. With a default install most productivity software is installed with it. They also include music and video playback, web browsers, email, task and contact management, flash, etc. And let's not forget that all of it is free with a plethora of other software that can be installed from a simple GUI. It is rare that you need to deal with installing anything on a Linux desktop unless you want extras or alternatives. Even customization of the desktop is easily achieved through browsing online repos of things such as wallpapers, icons, fonts, sound themes.

      And, technically there really are very few Linux variants (the underpinnings may be varied but they are all based on the same things). Technically what differentiates a distro isn't what one has over the other but what one distro chooses to implement (AS DEFAULT) that the others chose not to. Meaning, it's all the same, it's all in the choices the distribution made, but it's all the same. KDE for this and that distro, yet not maybe not for the third. Mate for everyone except this one. Unity on just a single distro, but all the other choices for this feature are readily available--just pick something else. Gnome 3 for about 50% and readily available for 100% of distributions. And it's ALL FREE.

      So, please, it sounds as if some around here are relying on old perceptions and they are happy to spread those old false perceptions believing no one knows better or will check on them and hold them to task.

      --
      You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
  2. Configurability by NoobixCube · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You know what's best for everyone? Configurability. When the developers can't decide how something should work, when they have two what seem like equally good or equally bad ideas, why should they force one particular decision on the user? Why not just put an option on a big scary controll panel somewhere made just for that? Of course, for usabilitiy's sake, there'd be the normal slick and easy to read control panel, but Gnome used to have GConf (does Gnome 3 have it? I don't know). You could use GConf to configure ANY aspect of the interface, anything at all. It was a very powerful tool if you knew what you were doing with it. So set the defaults to the lowest common denominator, to the grandma standard, but at least leave the powertools where we can reach them! Put up a warning that it may break the interface, sour the milk or bring the rapture to scare off the grandma users, and only those who really know what they're doing need concern themselves with it.

    --
    Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
    1. Re:Configurability by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 2

      Given the flexibility and options available for Linux, anybody who bitches about Linux UI configurability should be forced to manually edit config files without a reference, for all eternity.

    2. Re:Configurability by obarthelemy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not really. OOBE is more important for the 95+% of users who are not hackers.

      --
      The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    3. Re:Configurability by TheLink · · Score: 5, Informative

      Configurability is nice, but defaults are very important. A good GUI has good defaults.

      You could use GConf to configure ANY aspect of the interface, anything at all.

      Not helpful to most users. And in theory you could use the source code to configure any aspect of the interface too.

      1) Most people instead of making 1000 decisions to get a GUI that's 99% suitable for them, will make one decision to get a GUI that has defaults that are 80% suitable for them.
      2) If you deviate too much from the defaults, you may have difficulty getting support. This may not be a problem for slashdotters but it is a problem for the rest of the world.

      --
    4. Re:Configurability by rubycodez · · Score: 3, Informative

      one little problem with that, smarty pants, you can't configure GNOME 3 in many cases with or without config file editing. instead, you have to write a fucking app or hire a developer to do simple things that used to be GNOME user configuration actions

    5. Re:Configurability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's kind of the route taken by KDE. It's *hugely* configurable. Want a stock ticker widget in your task bar? Fine, just unlock it and drag one in there. Want the task bar on the right side? Just drag it over. Want to make caps an additional control? It's just a checkbox in the preferences. By and large, you don't even have to use obscure registry-style editors either.

      KDE 4.7 FTW.

    6. Re:Configurability by bug1 · · Score: 2

      "Not really. Out Of Box Experience is more important for the 95+% of users who are not hackers." (fixed it for you)

      And as software developers we should be incredibly ashamed about that.

      The problem is when its more annoying to try and workout how change something than it is to put up with annoying features.

      Giving users the ability to control their software should always be very important, its really arrogant for developers to always expect they know whats best for users.

    7. Re:Configurability by Forever+Wondering · · Score: 2

      You know what's best for everyone? Configurability. but Gnome used to have GConf (does Gnome 3 have it? I don't know).

      Gnome 3 does have GConf but it's probably not installed by default. I had to go look for it.

      In Gnome 2, you could create an icon on your toolbar for your highly used shortcuts.

      In Gnome 2, you could put a terminal icon on the toolbar and a single click brought up a new instance. To do this in Gnome 3, well, you can't ... To get a new terminal window, you click on "Activities", find the terminal icon (assuming of course, you've already added it to "Favorites"), then right click on it, slide right to the menu, and right click on "New Window"

      So, something that used to be a single click operation is now a three step process. This is an improvement???

      It's perfectly fine to make the starting configuration a simple one for the average user. But, it should be configurable enough for those that want more sophistication to have it as well. Gnome 3 developers have decided to dumb things down and then lock down that decision by removing as much configurability as they could.

      --
      Like a good neighbor, fsck is there ...
    8. Re:Configurability by Ruie · · Score: 3, Informative

      I disagree completely. KDE's configurability is asinine. When KDE apps run under another WM, they use their own KDE defaults like click-to-activate vs. click-to-select, double-click-to-activate. It's annoying as hell to run K3B under Gnome 2, because it does not behave like anything else on my desktop. The only reason I put up with it is that they did the best job of a burning utility I've seen since Nero, and maybe even better than Nero (note I'm talking the old "advanced" Nero tools, not the shiny crapware wrappers they install be default with the new releases.)

      With the way KDE is structured on top of Qt, it should be possible for a KDE app running under Gnome to detect that fact and "import" it's settings and defaults from Gnome's environment. The reverse should also be true.

      It's almost to the point of frustration that I prefer applications that just ignore any standards at all and do their own thing entirely. At least they're consistently screwed up, following their programmer's diabolical visions of UI hell imposed on the user community. :p

      Heh.. KDE has a checkbox (enabled under Kubuntu, for example) to make Gnome apps behave and look more like KDE ones. I would expect that Gnome users should extend Gnome settings application to just export their settings to KDE, should not be that hard.

      Btw, what really annoys me about running Gnome apps (anywhere) is the stupid file selection dialog. It's like somebodies design goal was to prevent users from accessing files, but they did it incompetently.

  3. From the website that looks like this by Superken7 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Techradar wants to talk and judge usability of the all-time favourite linux desktops, and yet their own website looks like THIS: http://i.imgur.com/IOyKu.png

    I know other browsers render it centered, but that's not the (only) point, it's that their web looks awful: about 1/4 is margins, which is OK, and of those 3/4 1/4 is the content, which is split into 7 tiny sections (just give me the whole article and don't make me page every 3 paragraphs, it's almost 2012, for christ sakes!), tiny text, tiny images, and 3/4 of crap (related content, ads, menus, more related content, more related content).

    It's not like they can't provide a very valid examination of linux desktops, but their site does not inspire very much credibility when they themselves get it so wrong, IMHO.

    1. Re:From the website that looks like this by Osty · · Score: 4, Informative

      I know other browsers render it centered, but that's not the (only) point

      The site's punishing you for using an ad blocker. I just tested Chrome with adblock, Chrome without adblock, Aurora with adblock, Aurora without adblock, IE9, Opera 11, Safari 5 with adblock, and Safari without adblock. In every case, when adblock was turned off (or not available), the page rendered correctly*. When adlbock was turned on, it rendered like a steaming pile of shit.

      The remainder of your points are completely valid. Fixed-width, fixed-font size, ad-spattered, split-for-the-sake-of-page-views "design" doesn't really inspire confidence about their ability to validate usability testing. At least they don't have an always-on-top floating toolbar like so many other sites are doing. But I probably shouldn't be giving them any ideas ...

      * It's worth noting that the page is still a steaming pile of shit when rendered "correctly". The only difference is that it's centered.

  4. What "usability testing"? by Animats · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Where's the "usability testing"? The linked article is just typical blogger blithering, spread over multiple pages for maximum ad insertion. They write "Since usability is a personal experience, we invited a bunch of people, from newbies to power users, to share their experiences with 3.2.". Which probably means "we asked for comments on a blog".

    Real usability testing is not market research. It's measuring how well people did on tasks, not what they said they liked.

    1. Re:What "usability testing"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And in the computer industry it's almost always done horribly. I've participated in such studies, and they mistake "ease of learning for a complete newbie" with "usability". They are not the same. You're only a newbie on some application for a few days or weeks, but you might be using it for the next 10 years. What makes a package *usable* is not something you can learn by watching me come up to speed on the damn thing for a few hours. Let me use it day in and day out and talk to me in 6 months. I'll have suggestions about whatever scriptability you have exposed, about keyboard shortcuts, about integration with this or that... none of which I will be able to tell you in your three hour usability focus session.

    2. Re:What "usability testing"? by swillden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've participated in such studies, and they mistake "ease of learning for a complete newbie" with "usability". They are not the same.

      But neither are they completely different.

      Usability encompasses not just newbie experience and not just expert experience, but the whole range.

      Because of that, I found this particular article's conclusions very interesting: KDE has long held the position of most scriptable, most configurable, most integrable, etc. In short, it's been a power-user's desktop (well, out of the major options, anyway). Now it is apparently the most newbie-friendy desktop as well.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  5. The real wtf by ysth · · Score: 4, Funny

    Statements in the article reveal it was written, or at least researched, 2 months ago.

    There has been a lot of churn since then, including in the Gnome 2 fork MATE and the variety of Gnome shell extensions making Gnome 3 more usable.

  6. Re:Determining the best turd by artor3 · · Score: 2

    I spent twenty minutes yesterday trying to get Red Hat to recognize my flash drive. Complain about Windows all you like. It is still orders of magnitude more usable than Linux.

  7. Never mind the usability tests by rbrander · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...how do I get in on these scientific experiments to determine the best dessert?

  8. Unity is one of 3 Main Linux Desktops? by Glasswire · · Score: 3, Insightful

    KDE and Gnome obviously yes, but Unity is one of the top 3? Just because most recent Ubuntus foist this on users (and most feedback I've seen has been negative) - is there any data to show that Unity has even 10% of Linux desktops? While Ubuntu is popular, that just means it's bigger than any other. My totally unsubstantiated guess would be that Ubuntu is less than 30% of all desktop Linuxes installed and of that, not all are 11.x gen and many of those users have installed another desktop. So...
    I would be SHOCKED if Unity is running on 5% of Linux desktops - does anyone have any hard evidence to counter this?
    I wouldn't be surprised if Enlightenment or Fluxbox had bigger install base.
    (I can't believe no one else has pointed this out)

    1. Re:Unity is one of 3 Main Linux Desktops? by westlake · · Score: 2

      Just because most recent Ubuntus foist this on users (and most feedback I've seen has been negative) - is there any data to show that Unity has even 10% of Linux desktops?

      I would not be in the least surprised if the majority of Ubuntu users never change the default UI

      or do any significant customization whatever.

      The problem with "feedback" to tech sites like Slashdot is that the ordinary user is unrepresented and strong negative opinions draw an instant response.

  9. KDE the replacement for Gnome 2? by Duncan+J+Murray · · Score: 2

    I'm not one for shunning the new, and certainly kept an open mind when I switched from WinXP to Gnome 2 those years ago. I appreciated the quick and direct access to various folders, and the multiple desktops, not to mention all the other benefits of using linux apart from gnome 2 (repositories, updating, stability etc..)

    However, I've given quite a bit of time to gnome 3 and unity, and I really think these two desktops have lost a lot of the functionality I originally enjoyed when I switched to gnome 2 - that loss of functionality combined with the increased graphics requirements of gnome 3 is a real setback.

    Specifically, try dragging and dropping files from a file browser on one workspace to a program on another workspace. In gnome 2 it is easy to use the workspace switcher to perform this task, but in gnome 3 it requires something like twice the time and fuss. The other problem I have with gnome 3 is the lack of 'places'. Unity's problem is I just don't get on with the slide-out dock - I find it interferes with any content I'm working with on the left side of the screen.

    I haven't given KDE4 a proper test, but it looks like it might be worth my while!

    1. Re:KDE the replacement for Gnome 2? by Bambi+Dee · · Score: 2

      KDE does have a lot of options I don't need or that don't quite satisfy. But it also has more of those I do need (or want) than any other desktop I've tried...

    2. Re:KDE the replacement for Gnome 2? by KugelKurt · · Score: 3, Interesting

      KDE still feels overly complicated whenever I go to configure things.

      If there is anything that's hard to configure, it's GNOME. GNOME has lots of options -- most of them hidden somewhere in GConf. It's hard to get more complicated than that. ;-)

      As for "KDE"... you're both wrong and right. What you described is the KDE3 attitude. In the 4.x series many config options have been cleaned up. See Dophin (compared to Konqueror 3.x), Gwenview, or Okular. In fact, I'd argue that new applications and components written for the 4.x series are among the most clean and usable applications available for Linux -- including Plasma Desktop itself.
      However, there are a few black sheep: Usually applications simply ported over from 3.x like KMail whose GUI barely changed over the years because the developers were busy with back-end renovation.
      That said, that article is about the desktop environments themselves, not applications usually used together with them.

  10. Re:Determining the best turd by bmo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You can talk about many shortcomings of Windows, but they pretty much have usability figured out, right?

    No, no they do not. And to talk to any typical Windows user, Windows is confusing to many users.

    I can't wait for a fully-enabled Metro desktop to be unleashed by Microsoft. It caters to the absolute lowest common denominator of user. The rage it induces in power users is hilarious.

    Why does Linux live in a separate world?

    Because imitating the Windows UI is stupid and possibly lawsuit-bait. And I didn't go to Linux to just move to a cheap version of Windows.

    --
    BMO

  11. Usability of the Article? by froggymana · · Score: 5, Funny

    Resizes automatically to fit my screen? No.
    Has everything on one neat page? No.
    Allows you to click on the small pictures to get a higher resolution picture? No.
    Is uncluttered by random links and pictures not relating to the article? No.
    Is completely free of annoying social networking buttons that track pages you view? No.

    Verdict
    The article is annoying and not very usable.

    --
    "To prevent this day from getting any worse, I'll just read ERROR as GOOD THING" 1GJU8xLuDKDxEs4KLf8fAGyptoDsqvEsBT
  12. Re:Determining the best turd by 0123456 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Contrast it with me having problems (on SuSe) mounting a drive last week. Yes - it recognized the drive, but "unable to mount". Yes - eventually I got it to work. But if the solution required opening a shell, calling mount command, figuring out where in command line to say "ntfs" and guessing which /dev/sd? matches the actual flash drive, then I say Linux lost already!

    Oh, right. Because Windows will just oh so happily mount an ext4-formatted USB drive?

    No-one who cares about interoperability would use a proprietary filesystem like NTFS on a USB drive. Or, at least, they wouldn't go whining about how no other computer can read it.

  13. Re:Question by KugelKurt · · Score: 2

    KDE's Dolphin does since ages.

  14. Re:Article is crap. by perryizgr8 · · Score: 2

    Explain, in as few words necessary, how KDE is crippled.

    The article came down on the side of KDE, the most configurable desktop with the most tools. KDE has the opposite philosophy that Gnome and Unity have - expose all options to the user.

    And if you're going to rage about dumbing down of interfaces, I suggest that you aim your rage at Metro.

    --
    BMO

    hey! don't be hating metro! there is a rumor that they will probably allow users to change the wallpaper!

    --
    Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.