The way the hope will surface is that one of the way-too-many distributions will finally figure out how to deliver a good experience to an end-user who is not a geek. And then, one by one, all the end users who are the target market for that product will install it over their broken windows installs.
I'd bet for Ubuntu on that one. If Mark doesn't run out of cash, that's it.
Actually, I think that having a weapon myself would increase the risk that someone would threaten my life and that of my family. Not having a weapon, only my property would be at risk, and that can be prevented with an alarm system or a "panic room".
del.icio.us seems to be doing a good work on its own, though. Pretty impresive, according to the little time it has been working. Without Google, I could use del.icio.us any day.
release something worthwhile under an open source license, like the backend stuff for Acrobat or something...
So what about the backend stuff for Photoshop? 'cos that's what they've released:
Eve (the name is derived from Express View Engine) is a layout engine and declarative language for constructing a human interface (HI) layout. Eve was developed originally for Photoshop (a prototype version was used in Photoshop 5) and has since seen gradual evolution and integration into other Adobe applications.
Both an I/O architecture and a specification for the transmission of data between processors and I/O devices that has been gradually replacing the PCI bus in high-end servers and PCs. Instead of sending data in parallel, which is what PCI does, InfiniBand sends data in serial and can carry multiple channels of data at the same time in a multiplexing signal. The principles of InfiniBand mirror those of mainframe computer systems that are inherently channel-based systems. InfiniBand channels are created by attaching host channel adapters (HCAs) and target channel adapters (TCAs) through InfiniBand switches. HCAs are I/O engines located within a server. TCAs enable remote storage and network connectivity into the InfiniBand interconnect infrastructure, called a fabric. InfiniBand architecure is capable of supporting tens of thousands of nodes in a single subnet.
InfiniBand is a trademarked term. The technology is a result of the merger of two competing designs -- Future I/O, which was developed by Compaq, IBM and Hewlett-Packard, and Next Generation I/O, which was developed by Intel, Microsoft and Sun Microsystems. InfiniBand was previously called System I/O.
Yes, we really ought to build new kinds of interactive systems, but every new proposed widget toolkit is based on the same 30-year-old XEROX principles (except for The Humane Interface) perhaps?.
XUL and XAML allow for separation of content and presentation and thus are well suited to automatically building new interfaces on the desktop - the same that is already being done in web content management systems. This would be possible with widget toolkits, but more difficult as they're not declarative.
Also mobile gadgets will drive this area forward, since the same content needs to be presented to very different screens and input devices.
Interesting. Can you point for me where is the mailing list for talking about the new KDE Human Interface Guidelines? (Did you notice that finding the right communication channel in a Open Source project website is often an impossible task?)
I've seen people ditching the Gnome preferences approach, but then the idea of having advanced preferences separate from the common ones is a very good idea that could be used by every user interface.
Interface configurability is sometimes closer to allowing you to change the inner pieces of the faucet than to painting the wall. There are places where it's simply better to call an expert to build a subsystem for you, tailored to your needs, than to build it yourself.
The choice doesn't need to be accesible through the user interface. If you want configurability and you have the source code available, you'd be better hiring a programmer to fine-tune the interface rather than forcing the user to learn the meanings of 1 zillion configuration options.
Yes, I've heard of the KDE usability labs as asociated to some kind of FOSS conference? I'm glad that they will keep going regularly. It's one of the best news for Open Source usability since Gnome published it's HIG.
I checked OpenUsability some months ago, and it wasn't very active then. If the usability tests for KDE are being published in that website, then it's time to check it again!
I wouldn't care to call most KDE apps 'newbie friendly'; in fact they tend to be just the opposite. Many KDE apps when open the first time consist of a single, empty square with just one button in the toolbar and no text labels. These apps MUST be 'konfigured' in order to access the most common functionality, with buttons that are hidden in the 'configure toolbar' dialog.
Ditched as it is by KDE users, the Gnome approach is really much better for newbie users. It has simple applications that do only one thing, but does it well. Yes, you can't tune it to the finest level, but you shouldn't need to. If you are an expert who needs a lot more, you should be using a complex application for that task, not the default that the desktop provides.
The KDE approach is great for power users that want to build their own desktop environments from pieces. Think of KDE as the "LEGO" desktop.
What you describe is a whole field of academic research, running at least since the early 90s. They're called User Interface Manager Sytems and yes, it's difficult; that's why you haven't seen it in any new commercial interface.
The closer you can get in non-academic world are the XUL and XAML architectures, which could be a basis for this kind of system to be built on top of them.
the Control Center is one of the things that will be massively reworked for KDE 4.0.
I hope that you actually sit some real users (of different skills) in front of real keyboards to test the new design, put them to try some common tasks, and then take note of every problem they have finding the right control for the proposed task.
Do you realize that ratpoison is the worst possible interface in terms of learnability? (it doesn't have any). "When ratpoison starts you should see an empty X server". It's even harder than Window Maker. Kudos if it works for you; I just don't have time to learn to use a whole new environment without a training program. Sad, since managed frames is an idea I would love to explore, only if it had a good usable interface.
Also I'm a visual person and I need hints to know where my 20 or 40 open windows are located; don't think that ratpoison is good at doing that. I usually don't care of eyecandy, though, past the point where is easy to spot where a widget ends and the next one starts, it has good text contrast, etc.
Maybe ratpoison has a wonderful workflow once you get used to it (they say the same for Emacs and I just can't cope with it), but the process to get to that level is a pain. It even hasn't a tutorial, so you seem to have to read the whole manual even to begin with the very basic task of just opening two windows and switching through them. And have you heard of direct manipulation? I just hate having to change my environment by editing text files; that's so 70s...
Enlightenment's objetive is not to be a gnome/kde equivalent, but a set of graphics libraries and a window manager - never a "complete desktop" like gnome or kde are.
And that's why I'm not using it, and why it's a different beast than the promised next generation graphic engines of G'n'K. Those i will use when/if they are sometime ready, because I want an integrated desktop environment more than I want a beautiful bells and whistles presentation. I already can use Flash for that, thanks.
Slashdot Mirror
The way the hope will surface is that one of the way-too-many distributions will finally figure out how to deliver a good experience to an end-user who is not a geek. And then, one by one, all the end users who are the target market for that product will install it over their broken windows installs.
I'd bet for Ubuntu on that one. If Mark doesn't run out of cash, that's it.
Maybe you ought to check out FireSomething
So, if I install that extension I will have new features added like crazy every week?
The Netscape brandname will still be relevant at the server side. Many websites will be content as long as they support Explorer & Netscape.
Unfortunately, this means that they can program for the IE engine only and still be confident that they "support the web standard".
Yes, but does it run Linux?
Actually, I think that having a weapon myself would increase the risk that someone would threaten my life and that of my family. Not having a weapon, only my property would be at risk, and that can be prevented with an alarm system or a "panic room".
Yes, i use it that way too (not a bad thing at all). But check out the possibilities as a search engine.
del.icio.us seems to be doing a good work on its own, though. Pretty impresive, according to the little time it has been working. Without Google, I could use del.icio.us any day.
"patches" are considered "modifications", but since they're not distributing the code they're not forced to provide the source.
Just for curiosity, which are the non-murdering uses for a gun?
release something worthwhile under an open source license, like the backend stuff for Acrobat or something...
So what about the backend stuff for Photoshop? 'cos that's what they've released:
Eve (the name is derived from Express View Engine) is a layout engine and declarative language for constructing a human interface (HI) layout. Eve was developed originally for Photoshop (a prototype version was used in Photoshop 5) and has since seen gradual evolution and integration into other Adobe applications.
Linked from the article:
Infiniband (define)
Both an I/O architecture and a specification for the transmission of data between processors and I/O devices that has been gradually replacing the PCI bus in high-end servers and PCs. Instead of sending data in parallel, which is what PCI does, InfiniBand sends data in serial and can carry multiple channels of data at the same time in a multiplexing signal. The principles of InfiniBand mirror those of mainframe computer systems that are inherently channel-based systems. InfiniBand channels are created by attaching host channel adapters (HCAs) and target channel adapters (TCAs) through InfiniBand switches. HCAs are I/O engines located within a server. TCAs enable remote storage and network connectivity into the InfiniBand interconnect infrastructure, called a fabric. InfiniBand architecure is capable of supporting tens of thousands of nodes in a single subnet.
InfiniBand is a trademarked term. The technology is a result of the merger of two competing designs -- Future I/O, which was developed by Compaq, IBM and Hewlett-Packard, and Next Generation I/O, which was developed by Intel, Microsoft and Sun Microsystems. InfiniBand was previously called System I/O.
InfiniBand transmission rates begin at 2.5GBps.
Yes, we really ought to build new kinds of interactive systems, but every new proposed widget toolkit is based on the same 30-year-old XEROX principles (except for The Humane Interface) perhaps?.
XUL and XAML allow for separation of content and presentation and thus are well suited to automatically building new interfaces on the desktop - the same that is already being done in web content management systems. This would be possible with widget toolkits, but more difficult as they're not declarative.
Also mobile gadgets will drive this area forward, since the same content needs to be presented to very different screens and input devices.
Interesting. Can you point for me where is the mailing list for talking about the new KDE Human Interface Guidelines? (Did you notice that finding the right communication channel in a Open Source project website is often an impossible task?)
So do you think that OpenUsability will NEVER achieve success?
Always is such a long time...
Also with screenshots.
I've seen people ditching the Gnome preferences approach, but then the idea of having advanced preferences separate from the common ones is a very good idea that could be used by every user interface.
There may be an even better way to do this than the button/etc method.
Do you mean, something like this?
Interface configurability is sometimes closer to allowing you to change the inner pieces of the faucet than to painting the wall. There are places where it's simply better to call an expert to build a subsystem for you, tailored to your needs, than to build it yourself.
The choice doesn't need to be accesible through the user interface. If you want configurability and you have the source code available, you'd be better hiring a programmer to fine-tune the interface rather than forcing the user to learn the meanings of 1 zillion configuration options.
Yes, I've heard of the KDE usability labs as asociated to some kind of FOSS conference? I'm glad that they will keep going regularly. It's one of the best news for Open Source usability since Gnome published it's HIG.
I checked OpenUsability some months ago, and it wasn't very active then. If the usability tests for KDE are being published in that website, then it's time to check it again!
I wouldn't care to call most KDE apps 'newbie friendly'; in fact they tend to be just the opposite. Many KDE apps when open the first time consist of a single, empty square with just one button in the toolbar and no text labels. These apps MUST be 'konfigured' in order to access the most common functionality, with buttons that are hidden in the 'configure toolbar' dialog.
Ditched as it is by KDE users, the Gnome approach is really much better for newbie users. It has simple applications that do only one thing, but does it well. Yes, you can't tune it to the finest level, but you shouldn't need to. If you are an expert who needs a lot more, you should be using a complex application for that task, not the default that the desktop provides.
The KDE approach is great for power users that want to build their own desktop environments from pieces. Think of KDE as the "LEGO" desktop.
What you describe is a whole field of academic research, running at least since the early 90s. They're called User Interface Manager Sytems and yes, it's difficult; that's why you haven't seen it in any new commercial interface.
The closer you can get in non-academic world are the XUL and XAML architectures, which could be a basis for this kind of system to be built on top of them.
No problem! You still can use it on Undead Linux!
the Control Center is one of the things that will be massively reworked for KDE 4.0.
I hope that you actually sit some real users (of different skills) in front of real keyboards to test the new design, put them to try some common tasks, and then take note of every problem they have finding the right control for the proposed task.
Do you realize that ratpoison is the worst possible interface in terms of learnability? (it doesn't have any). "When ratpoison starts you should see an empty X server". It's even harder than Window Maker. Kudos if it works for you; I just don't have time to learn to use a whole new environment without a training program. Sad, since managed frames is an idea I would love to explore, only if it had a good usable interface.
Also I'm a visual person and I need hints to know where my 20 or 40 open windows are located; don't think that ratpoison is good at doing that. I usually don't care of eyecandy, though, past the point where is easy to spot where a widget ends and the next one starts, it has good text contrast, etc.
Maybe ratpoison has a wonderful workflow once you get used to it (they say the same for Emacs and I just can't cope with it), but the process to get to that level is a pain. It even hasn't a tutorial, so you seem to have to read the whole manual even to begin with the very basic task of just opening two windows and switching through them. And have you heard of direct manipulation? I just hate having to change my environment by editing text files; that's so 70s...
Hmmmmm.... I'd love to see the wxWidgets toolkit ported to Enlightment. Don't know if it has been done, or if it is possible at all.
Enlightenment's objetive is not to be a gnome/kde equivalent, but a set of graphics libraries and a window manager - never a "complete desktop" like gnome or kde are.
And that's why I'm not using it, and why it's a different beast than the promised next generation graphic engines of G'n'K. Those i will use when/if they are sometime ready, because I want an integrated desktop environment more than I want a beautiful bells and whistles presentation. I already can use Flash for that, thanks.