... an actually-decent thread on Slashot about GUIs/usability without loads of "keep the clueless idiots out of Linux" or "hey, it's usable enough for me" posts.
If you still don't think Linux should appeal to the mass market, think about this: 1) Which OS would you prefer to use at work? 2) Which OS would you prefer to administer on other people's machines, either in or out of work?
The whole "Clueless users are bad for Debian" thing was incredibly depressing, but some great stuff came out of it, such as Andrew Pimlott's comments, especially where he said "Real usability isn't about reducing functionality and presenting a pretty face to beginners. Done right, it will make all of our lives easier. Even, eventually, beginners."
Open-source software is also highly customer-driven, because customers directly contribute to and control its development.
This makes the assumption that those who develop or are able to develop for an OSS app are the best to provide feedback. This is often not the case, especially with usability issues - developers are often blind to usability problems and they don't often affect early-adopters/power-users, but it's a different story with the average, non-developer users that most user-interfaces are aimed at. The "average" user will only start using an app once it's in a post 1.0 stage, and if there are major usability problems they'll choose to stick with a commercial equivalent from a company that's funded proper user testing. As a result, many OSS apps suffer from major user-interface problems - even the ones whose primary purpose is usability (I'm thinking of GNOME here). I'm not saying it's an insurmountable problem, but it's one that is easily overlooked, and statements like the one above perpetuate that.
Slashdot readers usually use the traditional cypherpunks login to get at registration-required sites. This ruling seems to imply that since something of value is required from the user, the information/access received by the user is similarly valuable. Would this mean that setting up or using a cypherpunk account would be equivalent to stealing?
Well done! You've really put me off installing Linux now. 30 hours just to get the *basics*? I've been using Windows for years and have never had to look at the manual. Plus, I've dived into the Registry, on average, once every six months, and only because I was doing advanced stuff. And it was easy, too. I've never written a batch file, either.
Thing is, I'm a Linux user, I enjoy developing on it and I really really want it to succeed. But it's never going to succeed if it doesn't get easier to move to, and the way you're talking, it never will.
The sooner that a load of ignorant flamers get off their "It was easy enough for me to install, so it doesn't need any more work" horses, the better it'll be for everyone.
COM's in Mozilla. Netscape liked it so much they did their own version, called XPCOM. Hey, do you actually know *anything* about COM? Any proper arguments as to why you think it's garbage? Thought not.
Could someone tell me what major UI features the Mac has had over Windows since Win95? MacOS still doesn't even have proportional scrollbars, for god's sake. And the way people talk here, you'd think MS didn't spend millions on R&D and usability testing.
... it's a basic rule of UI. If all your programs look different and use different UI rules it's totally confusing to most users. The fact that Windows (and most other GUI-driven OSes) tries to stick to a single UI language is a major point in its favour.
Governments paying for free software? Er, yeah, there's been talk of a couple of small schemes, but why the hell should the govt. WANT to fund free software? Some of the biggest US companies are software companies, and they pay a load of taxes.
And as for free software usability, that usually comes with good testing, something that you need money to do properly. It's a major problem that we've discussed here before.
I can't remember what it's called, but it's scheduled for about 3 or 4 years' time, i.e. the successor to the successor to Win2000. I think the name may be GDI, but I'm probably wrong.
Chrome is the codename for special web effects that were due to appear in IE 5.
I think that'd be pretty good, actually - as long as there was a dialog beforehand explaining what it was about to do, and giving the option of going down the more complex (but not as selfish) route.
Linux installers have ways to go for other reasons too... at our office we just installed RH5.2 using a SCSI CD-ROM drive, and when it booted after install it couldn't see the CD-ROM drive, due to no SCSI support in the installed kernel. That's pretty bad.
There are some good efforts being made towards simpler Linux: check out www.seul.org.
Where can I find the arguments in favour of one cross-platform widget look'n'feel? I can see the arguments for a consistent API, but native widgets will surely be faster (unless native widgets can't do what's needed), and changing the look'n'feel from the hosting OS is inconsistent and confusing to users. And I can't see it being much of a boon to web developers, because all their advantages disappear when their pages are viewed on other browsers. However, I'm sure this has already been discussed to death - can someone summarise the arguments?
(BTW, please don't bring themes into it... I don't want to have to alter something to ensure Mozilla looks and acts like every other app on my OS, and that's probably the case for most people)
Okay, I'm getting annoyed now. I'm trying to use lt and gt entities so that y'all can see the XML tags I'm talking about and I DID hit Preview and they DID show up and I hit Submit and now they're not there.
Pants.
I'm going to have one more go at this and if it doesn't work you'll just have to view source to get what I'm talking about.
+ The XML tags and attributes could do with being a bit more apt to the data. (e.g. "<group name='main'>jenny</group>" would be better put as "<user name='main'>jenny</user>" - at least, that's how it appears)
+ All the links in the "Users" column go to the Overview, which claims it's for users but quickly bangs on about distributed servers, XML protocols and other techie stuff.
+ XML sounds very nice for simple messages, but how does it deal with live chat and file transfer?
+ The XML tags and attributes could do with being a bit more apt to the data. (e.g. "jenny" would be better put as "jenny" - at least, that's how it appears)
+ Come to think of it, why use XML rather than something a bit leaner? I wouldn't have thought that the client-server communications had to be human-readable, especially since it sounds like the only things Jabber clients will be talking to are Jabber servers.
+ Do you know why Mirabilis chose UDP for the ICQ transport?
+ Running a spellchecker on your site wouldn't hurt, either...
Otherwise, very nice, very commendable, good luck with it, etc. etc...
Slashdot Mirror
... an actually-decent thread on Slashot about GUIs/usability without loads of "keep the clueless idiots out of Linux" or "hey, it's usable enough for me" posts.
If you still don't think Linux should appeal to the mass market, think about this:
1) Which OS would you prefer to use at work?
2) Which OS would you prefer to administer on other people's machines, either in or out of work?
The whole "Clueless users are bad for Debian" thing was incredibly depressing, but some great stuff came out of it, such as Andrew Pimlott's comments, especially where he said "Real usability isn't about reducing functionality and presenting a pretty face to beginners. Done right, it will make all of our lives easier. Even, eventually, beginners."
... that someone devoted a project to Linux Usability issues. (Looks great, too) Good luck!
**huge round of applause***
Open-source software is also highly customer-driven, because customers directly contribute to and control its development.
This makes the assumption that those who develop or are able to develop for an OSS app are the best to provide feedback. This is often not the case, especially with usability issues - developers are often blind to usability problems and they don't often affect early-adopters/power-users, but it's a different story with the average, non-developer users that most user-interfaces are aimed at. The "average" user will only start using an app once it's in a post 1.0 stage, and if there are major usability problems they'll choose to stick with a commercial equivalent from a company that's funded proper user testing. As a result, many OSS apps suffer from major user-interface problems - even the ones whose primary purpose is usability (I'm thinking of GNOME here). I'm not saying it's an insurmountable problem, but it's one that is easily overlooked, and statements like the one above perpetuate that.Slashdot readers usually use the traditional cypherpunks login to get at registration-required sites. This ruling seems to imply that since something of value is required from the user, the information/access received by the user is similarly valuable. Would this mean that setting up or using a cypherpunk account would be equivalent to stealing?
Well done! You've really put me off installing Linux now. 30 hours just to get the *basics*? I've been using Windows for years and have never had to look at the manual. Plus, I've dived into the Registry, on average, once every six months, and only because I was doing advanced stuff. And it was easy, too. I've never written a batch file, either.
Thing is, I'm a Linux user, I enjoy developing on it and I really really want it to succeed. But it's never going to succeed if it doesn't get easier to move to, and the way you're talking, it never will.
The sooner that a load of ignorant flamers get off their "It was easy enough for me to install, so it doesn't need any more work" horses, the better it'll be for everyone.
COM's in Mozilla. Netscape liked it so much they did their own version, called XPCOM.
Hey, do you actually know *anything* about COM? Any proper arguments as to why you think it's garbage? Thought not.
Could someone tell me what major UI features the Mac has had over Windows since Win95? MacOS still doesn't even have proportional scrollbars, for god's sake. And the way people talk here, you'd think MS didn't spend millions on R&D and usability testing.
... it's a basic rule of UI. If all your programs look different and use different UI rules it's totally confusing to most users. The fact that Windows (and most other GUI-driven OSes) tries to stick to a single UI language is a major point in its favour.
Governments paying for free software? Er, yeah, there's been talk of a couple of small schemes, but why the hell should the govt. WANT to fund free software? Some of the biggest US companies are software companies, and they pay a load of taxes.
And as for free software usability, that usually comes with good testing, something that you need money to do properly. It's a major problem that we've discussed here before.
I can't remember what it's called, but it's scheduled for about 3 or 4 years' time, i.e. the successor to the successor to Win2000. I think the name may be GDI, but I'm probably wrong.
Chrome is the codename for special web effects that were due to appear in IE 5.
No wonder you never found it, the truck/trailer didn't exist. A hoax, I'm afraid!
I think that'd be pretty good, actually - as long as there was a dialog beforehand explaining what it was about to do, and giving the option of going down the more complex (but not as selfish) route.
Linux installers have ways to go for other reasons too... at our office we just installed RH5.2 using a SCSI CD-ROM drive, and when it booted after install it couldn't see the CD-ROM drive, due to no SCSI support in the installed kernel. That's pretty bad.
There are some good efforts being made towards simpler Linux: check out www.seul.org.
Where can I find the arguments in favour of one cross-platform widget look'n'feel? I can see the arguments for a consistent API, but native widgets will surely be faster (unless native widgets can't do what's needed), and changing the look'n'feel from the hosting OS is inconsistent and confusing to users. And I can't see it being much of a boon to web developers, because all their advantages disappear when their pages are viewed on other browsers. However, I'm sure this has already been discussed to death - can someone summarise the arguments?
(BTW, please don't bring themes into it... I don't want to have to alter something to ensure Mozilla looks and acts like every other app on my OS, and that's probably the case for most people)
Take a look at jwz's posting on the subject in Mozilla.org's "Blue Sky" section.
Pants.
I'm going to have one more go at this and if it doesn't work you'll just have to view source to get what I'm talking about.
+ The XML tags and attributes could do with being a bit more apt to the data. (e.g. "<group name='main'>jenny</group>" would be better put as "<user name='main'>jenny</user>" - at least, that's how it appears)
NOW WORK, YOU BASTARD!
(hey, if you want feedback, here it is...)
+ All the links in the "Users" column go to the Overview, which claims it's for users but quickly bangs on about distributed servers, XML protocols and other techie stuff.
+ XML sounds very nice for simple messages, but how does it deal with live chat and file transfer?
+ The XML tags and attributes could do with being a bit more apt to the data. (e.g. "jenny" would be better put as "jenny" - at least, that's how it appears)
+ Come to think of it, why use XML rather than something a bit leaner? I wouldn't have thought that the client-server communications had to be human-readable, especially since it sounds like the only things Jabber clients will be talking to are Jabber servers.
+ Do you know why Mirabilis chose UDP for the ICQ transport?
+ Running a spellchecker on your site wouldn't hurt, either...
Otherwise, very nice, very commendable, good luck with it, etc. etc...