I'll give credit to the idea that pre-installation means not having to futz around with disk partitioning, and this gives windows an advantage over linux.
However, all the linux installers that I have ever seen have had terrible interface designs. I keep seeing GUI widget layouts and terminology that are often ambiguous and do not effectively communicate to the user what choices there are, what choices will lead to what actions, and what consequences will result from making a choice. Or to translate from HCI-ese to something a linux geek can understand, the linux installers have terrible usability.
Now we can sweep these bad designs under the carpet and pretend there's no problem with usability by pre-installing. But unfortunately, the exact same usability problems we keep finding in all these installers we can also find in a myriad of other linux software, including configuration utilities and productivity suites. Ultimately this type of software will be far more important in the non-technical user in getting valuable work done with linux.
Just becaues you've chopped off the tip of the iceberg that everyone first sees does not mean people won't still get wrecked on the other 99% of it.
"Why Linux isn't ready for the desktop" by Ilan Volow
Case in point:
I was at a restaurant with some of my lug members. I won't name names, the city, or any specifics (so I don't have to pay the price of my criticism at next week's meeting). In my home town, there is a very, very big linux distribution company. Everyone has heard of its distribution and many, many people use it. There are a number of programmers who work at this company who are also lug members, and at the restaurant, I got into a discussion with one of them about the distribution's installer and why I thought its UI was so poorly designed (after the conversation, I found out he wrote most of it. Boy, I felt stupid). Now, this installer is revered by many to be easy enough for your grandmother to use, but I counted a good 15 or 20 usability errors.
As a little bit of background, I as studying to be a UI designer (and a damned good one at that). I can give you the professional opinion that many of these errors involve simple, "duh" kind of stuff. The problems were things like ambiguously labeled check boxes and radio buttons. Or widgets laid out in ways that users do not naturally progress in. In some of the worst cases, the widget layout conveyed information so badly that it could confuse a user into not being able to start up in X (very important for newbies and secretaries). The most annoying error was a modal dialog that obscured information outside the dialog that was pertinant to making choices inside the dialog. The only way to refer to the information outside the dialog was to close the dialog, look at the information, and then re-enter it. All these problems are things that would be easy to change (just modifying/adding 300 lines of code at max). And making these changes would not involve creating stupid talking paperclip avatars or wizards that insult the intelligence of power-users and inhibit their progress. Making these changes would simply add greater clarity to performing the procedures involved in installation, and would allow both power user and grandma to navigate more efficiently and effectively. Real Ease-Of-Use (as opposed to Microsoft Ease-of-Use) is not about wiping the user's ass, it's about not kicking it. But despite the ease of changing the UI code and the benefits it would bring, I seriously doubt this linux distribution company will ever see these problems as problems and make the necessary changes. And I'm certain the programmer I talked to probably wouldn't, either. And probably no one in the linux community will step forward and make the changes, since they all think this distribution's installer is the greatest thing since sliced bread just because it's graphical. And because they can use their linux expertise to get around the most confusing parts of this installer's UI.
Back to my conversation with the guy who wrote the installer, when I mentioned several of the problems I listed above, he still couldn't understand what was wrong with it. "You don't think it's pretty enough?" he asked. I think that moment, more than anything else, defines why Linux just isn't making as much progress on the desktop as it should be.
If I can't trust a company to preserve the sanctity of my browser's back button, there is no way in hell that I am trusting them with my schedule and most important phone numbers.
"Why Linux isn't ready for the desktop" by Ilan Volow
Case in point:
I was at a restaurant with some of my lug members. I won't name names, the city, or any specifics (so I don't have to pay the price of my criticism at next week's meeting). In my home town, there is a very, very big linux distribution company. Everyone has heard of its distribution and many, many people use it. There are a number of programmers who work at this company who are also lug members, and at the restaurant, I got into a discussion with one of them about the distribution's installer and why I thought its UI was so poorly designed (after the conversation, I found out he wrote most of it. Boy, I felt stupid). Now, this installer is revered by many to be easy enough for your grandmother to use, but I counted a good 15 or 20 usability errors.
As a little bit of background, I as studying to be a UI designer (and a damned good one at that). I can give you the professional opinion that many of these errors involve simple, "duh" kind of stuff. The problems were things like ambiguously labeled check boxes and radio buttons. Or widgets laid out in ways that users do not naturally progress in. In some of the worst cases, the widget layout conveyed information so badly that it could confuse a user into not being able to start up in X (very important for newbies and secretaries). The most annoying error was a modal dialog that obscured information outside the dialog that was pertinant to making choices inside the dialog. The only way to refer to the information outside the dialog was to close the dialog, look at the information, and then re-enter it. All these problems are things that would be easy to change (just modifying/adding 300 lines of code at max). And making these changes would not involve creating stupid talking paperclip avatars or wizards that insult the intelligence of power-users and inhibit their progress. Making these changes would simply add greater clarity to performing the procedures involved in installation, and would allow both power user and grandma to navigate more efficiently and effectively. Real Ease-Of-Use (as opposed to Microsoft Ease-of-Use) is not about wiping the user's ass, it's about not kicking it. But despite the ease of changing the UI code and the benefits it would bring, I seriously doubt this linux distribution company will ever see these problems as problems and make the necessary changes. And I'm certain the programmer I talked to probably wouldn't, either. And probably no one in the linux community will step forward and make the changes, since they all think this distribution's installer is the greatest thing since sliced bread just because it's graphical. And because they can use their linux expertise to get around the most confusing parts of this installer's UI.
Back to my conversation with the guy who wrote the installer, when I mentioned several of the problems I listed above, he still couldn't understand what was wrong with it. "You don't think it's pretty enough?" he asked. I think that moment, more than anything else, defines why Linux just isn't making as much progress on the desktop as it should be.
Here's something I posted on Slashdot around a year and a half ago that pretty much explains why linux has been having such a hard time getting on the desktop. This is an actual experience of mine and I haven't made it up. While a few things about the installer's UI were changed, the changes have not in any way made the installer any less user-hostile, and a couple of changes has increased it's difficulty.
"Why Linux isn't ready for the desktop"
Case in point:
I was at a restaurant with some of my lug members. I won't name names, the city, or any specifics (so I don't have to pay the price of my criticism at next week's meeting). In my home town, there is a very, very big linux distribution company. Everyone has heard of its distribution and many, many people use it. There are a number of programmers who work at this company who are also lug members, and at the restaurant, I got into a discussion with one of them about the distribution's installer and why I thought its UI was so poorly designed (after the conversation, I found out he wrote most of it. Boy, I felt stupid). Now, this installer is revered by many to be easy enough for your grandmother to use, but I counted a good 15 or 20 usability errors.
As a little bit of background, I am studying to be a UI designer (and a damned good one at that). I can give you the professional opinion that many of these errors involve simple, "duh" kind of stuff. The problems were things like ambiguously labeled check boxes and radio buttons. Or widgets laid out in ways that users do not naturally progress in. In some of the worst cases, the widget layout conveyed information so badly that it could confuse a user into not being able to start up in X (very important for newbies and secretaries). The most annoying error was a modal dialog that obscured information outside the dialog that was pertinant to making choices inside the dialog. The only way to refer to the information outside the dialog was to close the dialog, look at the information, and then re-enter it. All these problems are things that would be easy to change (just modifying/adding 300 lines of code at max). And making these changes would not involve creating stupid talking paperclip avatars or wizards that insult the intelligence of power-users and inhibit their progress. Making these changes would simply add greater clarity to performing the procedures involved in installation, and would allow both power user and grandma to navigate more efficiently and effectively. Real Ease-Of-Use (as opposed to Microsoft Ease-of-Use) is not about wiping the user's ass, it's about not kicking it . But despite the ease of changing the UI code and the benefits it would bring, I seriously doubt this linux distribution company will ever see these problems as problems and make the necessary changes. And I'm certain the programmer I talked to probably wouldn't, either. And probably no one in the linux community will step forward and make the changes, since they all think this distribution's installer is the greatest thing since sliced bread just because it's graphical. And because they can use their linux expertise to get around the most confusing parts of this installer's UI.
Back to my conversation with the guy who wrote the installer, when I mentioned several of the problems I listed above, he still couldn't understand what was wrong with it. "You don't think it's pretty enough?" he asked. I think that moment, more than anything else, defines why Linux just isn't making as much progress on the desktop as it should be.
Maybe a bunch of enterprising OS/Desktop folks should sell versions of their software along with useful web/net services.
Take, for example, Gentoo. They could create a Gentoo counterpart of Apple's iTools called "GenTools". GenTools would offer maybe 30MB of network storage for backup (sort of like iDisk), and they would offer web hosting that could integrate in with Mozilla (it shouldn't be too hard to do with the rendering engine + XUL) or if the target is developers (which I think Gentoo is gunning for, from what little I know about the distro) they could offer 100M of CVS storage space. And of course, they could do the whole RedHat/Ximian thing like up2date/red carpet and sell software updating services.
The worst thing about ads is not that they annoy the user but that they show such a lack of creative thinking. Be less Juno and more TiVO.
And all the time I thought those tales of some fanatical cult saving Grace Hopper's brain were just urban legends.
Do I hear 1.5 billion? Going once, twice...
on
Ebay buys PayPal
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Ebay took the "Buy now" option. I'd have always figured they would have opted for a fierce bidding war with billg@microsoft.com. Assuming Paypal is guaranteed against DOA, the sellers of Paypal should get positive feedback.
The 80 year old grandfather's problems with the TiVO can be attributed to the fact that as people age, they experience a decline in Fluid Intelligence (their ability to deal with novel problems that do not draw upon previous experiences). It's not that the grandfather was stupid, or that he didn't read the fine manual. It was that his brain's ability to deal with a new situation that didn't draw on his past experiences was not what it used to be. When you also consider the decline in performance of short-term memory that the average 80 year-old experiences, it is really no surpise the grandfather had so much trouble.
To design something for someone of that age, you have to draw upon their Crystallized Intelligence(the store of knowledge or information that a given society has accumulated over time). You might (if you're *really* a geek) be able to do something like rig up an analog alarm clock to the TiVO and expoit the grandfather's 30 years of experience setting alarm clocks to get him to successfully set the TiVO. Yes, he'll probably still need a TV Guide to look up the time so he can set it in the alarm clock, but the point is that the show will be recorded. It sounds crazy, but older adults often exploit their crystallized intelligence to create strategies that work around deficiencies in fluid intelligence.
If people hack network interface cards into their TiVO's, why not hack Grandpa interface alarm clocks into them as well?
Actually, even Red Hat's installers have some really bad usability problems. I once mentioned these problems to one of the lead developers of the anaconda installer, and he thought that I thought the problem was that anaconda wasn't "pretty" enough. Not to just single out Red Hat, many open source projects make the mistake of thing usability == eye candy. And we get these beautifully anti-aliased menus with beautifully rendered font that still confuse the hell out of end-users just as much as the previous versions did two years ago. But I digress.
Actually, usability tests have repeatedly shown that the mouse is faster (especially if the menus are located at the top of the screen like on a mac. Fitts' Law and whatnot) but the keyboard feels faster (while actually being slower)
And to think for years I thought the background noise of space was complete and total silence interspersed with Strauss' Blue Danube Waltz. Damn you, Stanley Kubrick!
Japan has a much higher population density than the US, so it's easier for the providers. You don't need to erect as many towers to cover the same number of people.
So in other words, Americans have far more erections than the Japanese, but when they have an erection they do it with more people.
Actually, I think Apple's decision to go with BSD is based on the fact that the NeXT system that OS X was built on was already using BSD + Mach Kernel (Apple's lead programmer, Avie Tevanian, created the Mach Kernel, so there's probably some bias on his part, too).
"GUI design is a BS field of study, people who point out usability flaws that make UI's confusing are whining, the fine manual is perfectly understandable, the problem is people don't want to learn, and saying that fill-in-the-blank free software interface isn't ready for joe end-user is merely spreading M$ FUD."
And that's okay. They are welcome to feel this way.
As I am more than welcome to come up with new types of public licenses that enforce usability. For right now, take this as nothing more than a silly rant written by some random poster on slashdot. Take it with a grain of salt and a Big Gulp-sized jar of Malox. But, if my licenses ever do make slashdot and people starting yelling and bitching about "Anti User-Hostility Public Licenses", then those people need to understand that their attitudes created the necessity for such licenses.
While the java-script popups are annoying as hell and they try to lock you into their sites, most porn sites do a good job of actually displaying content on their main page (once you get past the warning section), and they make it very obvious how to buy their services. The consumer spends more time spanking the monkey and less time trying to punch it.
How programmers stole the web
on
Built For Use
·
· Score: 2
I've always found this article a thoughtful commentary on the role techies have had in shaping the internet.
Re:I'm helping a Liberal Arts major design a websi
on
Built For Use
·
· Score: 2
If it gets rid of the Enya midi's, it would be worth it.
In a year from now, we'll probably see many former Salon employees installing microwave ovens, doing custom kitchens deliveries, and moving refrigerators and colour TV's.
I agree that high-powered hand-helds (especially linux hand-helds) have development going in the directions that really doesn't fit the needs of most mobile users. If I had a dime for every idiot that screwed up a mobile device UI by ignorantly trying to carbon-copy a desktop UI, I'd have a lot of dimes I could use to start my own hand-held company that did things right.
However, I do think that in the hands of a developer who truly understands the human computer interaction consequences of 240x320 screen, lots of RAM and CPU allow that developer to make a far better organizer. Two examples of how RAM + CPU can make for a better mobile computing experience
Hand Writing Recognition. A lot of non-geeks are turned off by having to learn a different style of writing (a la grafitti). More CPU cycles would allow for more complex and powerful HWR algorithms while maintaining a real-time feel. Which allows for HWR that is better tailored to a person's natural style of hand-writing. Even if you still stick with grafitti, more CPU cycles would allow for fewer grafitti mistakes. As a side note, one of my biggest grievances with Palm is that they have made their devices have color screens and wireless capability, but Grafitti now is still as inaccurate and makes just as many mistakes as it did four years ago.
Second example: I'm trying to lose weight, so I wrote a stupid little program for my Sharp Zaurus that I can use to record everything I eat and how many calories it is. I needed to get the program done quickly because my ass was getting too fat for it's own good. I really wanted to save information about my eating habits in an XML format so it would be open, portable, and easily manipulatable and parsable on a desktop system. My need for quick application development time and XML capability was met by writing the program in python and making use of python's XML capability as well as the Qt bindings for python (which allow me to create a decent UI for the program). Python + XML + UI capability would tax the living hell out of a Palm. A 33mhz Dragonball processor, 8MB of RAM, and a 4k limit on stack size does not facilitate a python interpreter, a large XML DOM tree, and a responsive user interface. While an end user wouldn't care about any of that technical jargon, they do care about having lots of simple, useful, and usable programs that don't do a lot but get the job done. A setup like the kind I used that allows people who are not embedded-development gurus to quickly create such programs, which is A Good Thing.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll give credit to the idea that pre-installation means not having to futz around with disk partitioning, and this gives windows an advantage over linux.
However, all the linux installers that I have ever seen have had terrible interface designs. I keep seeing GUI widget layouts and terminology that are often ambiguous and do not effectively communicate to the user what choices there are, what choices will lead to what actions, and what consequences will result from making a choice. Or to translate from HCI-ese to something a linux geek can understand, the linux installers have terrible usability.
Now we can sweep these bad designs under the carpet and pretend there's no problem with usability by pre-installing. But unfortunately, the exact same usability problems we keep finding in all these installers we can also find in a myriad of other linux software, including configuration utilities and productivity suites.
Ultimately this type of software will be far more important in the non-technical user in getting valuable work done with linux.
Just becaues you've chopped off the tip of the iceberg that everyone first sees does not mean people won't still get wrecked on the other 99% of it.
"Why Linux isn't ready for the desktop" by Ilan Volow
Case in point:
I was at a restaurant with some of my lug members. I won't name names, the city, or any specifics (so I don't have to pay the price of my criticism at next week's meeting). In my home town, there is a very, very big linux distribution company. Everyone has heard of its distribution and many, many people use it. There are a number of programmers who work at this company who are also lug members, and at the restaurant, I got into a discussion with one of them about the distribution's installer and why I thought its UI was so poorly designed (after the conversation, I found out he wrote most of it. Boy, I felt stupid). Now, this installer is revered by many to be easy enough for your grandmother to use, but I counted a good 15 or 20 usability errors.
As a little bit of background, I as studying to be a UI designer (and a damned good one at that). I can give you the professional opinion that many of these errors involve simple, "duh" kind of stuff. The problems were things like ambiguously labeled check boxes and radio buttons. Or widgets laid out in ways that users do not naturally progress in. In some of the worst cases, the widget layout conveyed information so badly that it could confuse a user into not being able to start up in X (very important for newbies and secretaries). The most annoying error was a modal dialog that obscured information outside the dialog that was pertinant to making choices inside the dialog. The only way to refer to the information outside the dialog was to close the dialog, look at the information, and then re-enter it. All these problems are things that would be easy to change (just modifying/adding 300 lines of code at max). And making these changes would not involve creating stupid talking paperclip avatars or wizards that insult the intelligence of power-users and inhibit their progress. Making these changes would simply add greater clarity to performing the procedures involved in installation, and would allow both power user and grandma to navigate more efficiently and effectively. Real Ease-Of-Use (as opposed to Microsoft Ease-of-Use) is not about wiping the user's ass, it's about not kicking it. But despite the ease of changing the UI code and the benefits it would bring, I seriously doubt this linux distribution company will ever see these problems as problems and make the necessary changes. And I'm certain the programmer I talked to probably wouldn't, either. And probably no one in the linux community will step forward and make the changes, since they all think this distribution's installer is the greatest thing since sliced bread just because it's graphical. And because they can use their linux expertise to get around the most confusing parts of this installer's UI.
Back to my conversation with the guy who wrote the installer, when I mentioned several of the problems I listed above, he still couldn't understand what was wrong with it. "You don't think it's pretty enough?" he asked. I think that moment, more than anything else, defines why Linux just isn't making as much progress on the desktop as it should be.
My problem of having to go really badly while dealing with an overheating laptop has been solved.
If I can't trust a company to preserve the sanctity of my browser's back button, there is no way in hell that I am trusting them with my schedule and most important phone numbers.
"Why Linux isn't ready for the desktop" by Ilan Volow
Case in point:
I was at a restaurant with some of my lug members. I won't name names, the city, or any specifics (so I don't have to pay the price of my criticism at next week's meeting). In my home town, there is a very, very big linux distribution company. Everyone has heard of its distribution and many, many people use it. There are a number of programmers who work at this company who are also lug members, and at the restaurant, I got into a discussion with one of them about the distribution's installer and why I thought its UI was so poorly designed (after the conversation, I found out he wrote most of it. Boy, I felt stupid). Now, this installer is revered by many to be easy enough for your grandmother to use, but I counted a good 15 or 20 usability errors.
As a little bit of background, I as studying to be a UI designer (and a damned good one at that). I can give you the professional opinion that many of these errors involve simple, "duh" kind of stuff. The problems were things like ambiguously labeled check boxes and radio buttons. Or widgets laid out in ways that users do not naturally progress in. In some of the worst cases, the widget layout conveyed information so badly that it could confuse a user into not being able to start up in X (very important for newbies and secretaries). The most annoying error was a modal dialog that obscured information outside the dialog that was pertinant to making choices inside the dialog. The only way to refer to the information outside the dialog was to close the dialog, look at the information, and then re-enter it. All these problems are things that would be easy to change (just modifying/adding 300 lines of code at max). And making these changes would not involve creating stupid talking paperclip avatars or wizards that insult the intelligence of power-users and inhibit their progress. Making these changes would simply add greater clarity to performing the procedures involved in installation, and would allow both power user and grandma to navigate more efficiently and effectively. Real Ease-Of-Use (as opposed to Microsoft Ease-of-Use) is not about wiping the user's ass, it's about not kicking it. But despite the ease of changing the UI code and the benefits it would bring, I seriously doubt this linux distribution company will ever see these problems as problems and make the necessary changes. And I'm certain the programmer I talked to probably wouldn't, either. And probably no one in the linux community will step forward and make the changes, since they all think this distribution's installer is the greatest thing since sliced bread just because it's graphical. And because they can use their linux expertise to get around the most confusing parts of this installer's UI.
Back to my conversation with the guy who wrote the installer, when I mentioned several of the problems I listed above, he still couldn't understand what was wrong with it. "You don't think it's pretty enough?" he asked. I think that moment, more than anything else, defines why Linux just isn't making as much progress on the desktop as it should be.
Here's something I posted on Slashdot around a year and a half ago that pretty much explains why linux has been having such a hard time getting on the desktop. This is an actual experience of mine and I haven't made it up. While a few things about the installer's UI were changed, the changes have not in any way made the installer any less user-hostile, and a couple of changes has increased it's difficulty.
"Why Linux isn't ready for the desktop"
Case in point:
I was at a restaurant with some of my lug members. I won't name names, the city, or any specifics (so I don't have to pay the price of my criticism at next week's meeting). In my home town, there is a very, very big linux distribution company. Everyone has heard of its distribution and many, many people use it. There are a number of programmers who work at this company who are also lug members, and at the restaurant, I got into a discussion with one of them about the distribution's installer and why I thought its UI was so poorly designed (after the conversation, I found out he wrote most of it. Boy, I felt stupid). Now, this installer is revered by many to be easy enough for your grandmother to use, but I counted a good 15 or 20 usability errors.
As a little bit of background, I am studying to be a UI designer (and a damned good one at that). I can give you the professional opinion that many of these errors involve simple, "duh" kind of stuff. The problems were things like ambiguously labeled check boxes and radio buttons. Or widgets laid out in ways that users do not naturally progress in. In some of the worst cases, the widget layout conveyed information so badly that it could confuse a user into not being able to start up in X (very important for newbies and secretaries). The most annoying error was a modal dialog that obscured information outside the dialog that was pertinant to making choices inside the dialog. The only way to refer to the information outside the dialog was to close the dialog, look at the information, and then re-enter it. All these problems are things that would be easy to change (just modifying/adding 300 lines of code at max). And making these changes would not involve creating stupid talking paperclip avatars or wizards that insult the intelligence of power-users and inhibit their progress. Making these changes would simply add greater clarity to performing the procedures involved in installation, and would allow both power user and grandma to navigate more efficiently and effectively. Real Ease-Of-Use (as opposed to Microsoft Ease-of-Use) is not about wiping the user's ass, it's about not kicking it . But despite the ease of changing the UI code and the benefits it would bring, I seriously doubt this linux distribution company will ever see these problems as problems and make the necessary changes. And I'm certain the programmer I talked to probably wouldn't, either. And probably no one in the linux community will step forward and make the changes, since they all think this distribution's installer is the greatest thing since sliced bread just because it's graphical. And because they can use their linux expertise to get around the most confusing parts of this installer's UI.
Back to my conversation with the guy who wrote the installer, when I mentioned several of the problems I listed above, he still couldn't understand what was wrong with it. "You don't think it's pretty enough?" he asked. I think that moment, more than anything else, defines why Linux just isn't making as much progress on the desktop as it should be.
This is a repost of my post on OSNews
Maybe a bunch of enterprising OS/Desktop folks should sell versions of their software along with useful web/net services.
Take, for example, Gentoo. They could create a Gentoo counterpart of Apple's iTools called "GenTools". GenTools would offer maybe 30MB of network storage for backup (sort of like iDisk), and they would offer web hosting that could integrate in with Mozilla (it shouldn't be too hard to do with the rendering engine + XUL) or if the target is developers (which I think Gentoo is gunning for, from what little I know about the distro) they could offer 100M of CVS storage space. And of course, they could do the whole RedHat/Ximian thing like up2date/red carpet and sell software updating services.
The worst thing about ads is not that they annoy the user but that they show such a lack of creative thinking. Be less Juno and more TiVO.
And all the time I thought those tales of some fanatical cult saving Grace Hopper's brain were just urban legends.
Ebay took the "Buy now" option. I'd have always figured they would have opted for a fierce bidding war with billg@microsoft.com. Assuming Paypal is guaranteed against DOA, the sellers of Paypal should get positive feedback.
The 80 year old grandfather's problems with the TiVO can be attributed to the fact that as people age, they experience a decline in Fluid Intelligence (their ability to deal with novel problems that do not draw upon previous experiences). It's not that the grandfather was stupid, or that he didn't read the fine manual. It was that his brain's ability to deal with a new situation that didn't draw on his past experiences was not what it used to be. When you also consider the decline in performance of short-term memory that the average 80 year-old experiences, it is really no surpise the grandfather had so much trouble.
To design something for someone of that age, you have to draw upon their Crystallized Intelligence(the store of knowledge or information that a given society has accumulated over time). You might (if you're *really* a geek) be able to do something like rig up an analog alarm clock to the TiVO and expoit the grandfather's 30 years of experience setting alarm clocks to get him to successfully set the TiVO. Yes, he'll probably still need a TV Guide to look up the time so he can set it in the alarm clock, but the point is that the show will be recorded. It sounds crazy, but older adults often exploit their crystallized intelligence to create strategies that work around deficiencies in fluid intelligence.
If people hack network interface cards into their TiVO's, why not hack Grandpa interface alarm clocks into them as well?
I could not have put it better myself.
Actually, even Red Hat's installers have some really bad usability problems. I once mentioned these problems to one of the lead developers of the anaconda installer, and he thought that I thought the problem was that anaconda wasn't "pretty" enough. Not to just single out Red Hat, many open source projects make the mistake of thing usability == eye candy. And we get these beautifully anti-aliased menus with beautifully rendered font that still confuse the hell out of end-users just as much as the previous versions did two years ago. But I digress.
Actually, usability tests have repeatedly shown that the mouse is faster (especially if the menus are located at the top of the screen like on a mac. Fitts' Law and whatnot) but the keyboard feels faster (while actually being slower)
If we change the rotation of the earth, there's a very good chance we'd get a number other than 42.
Congress has always been full of lyahs and chetahs. That it's now full of schemas is really no surpise.
And to think for years I thought the background noise of space was complete and total silence interspersed with Strauss' Blue Danube Waltz. Damn you, Stanley Kubrick!
Japan has a much higher population density than the US, so it's easier for the providers. You don't need to erect as many towers to cover the same number of people.
So in other words, Americans have far more erections than the Japanese, but when they have an erection they do it with more people.
Actually, I think Apple's decision to go with BSD is based on the fact that the NeXT system that OS X was built on was already using BSD + Mach Kernel (Apple's lead programmer, Avie Tevanian, created the Mach Kernel, so there's probably some bias on his part, too).
A lot of people in the linux community say:
"GUI design is a BS field of study, people who point out usability flaws that make UI's confusing are whining, the fine manual is perfectly understandable, the problem is people don't want to learn, and saying that fill-in-the-blank free software interface isn't ready for joe end-user is merely spreading M$ FUD."
And that's okay. They are welcome to feel this way.
As I am more than welcome to come up with new types of public licenses that enforce usability. For right now, take this as nothing more than a silly rant written by some random poster on slashdot. Take it with a grain of salt and a Big Gulp-sized jar of Malox. But, if my licenses ever do make slashdot and people starting yelling and bitching about "Anti User-Hostility Public Licenses", then those people need to understand that their attitudes created the necessity for such licenses.
While the java-script popups are annoying as hell and they try to lock you into their sites, most porn sites do a good job of actually displaying content on their main page (once you get past the warning section), and they make it very obvious how to buy their services. The consumer spends more time spanking the monkey and less time trying to punch it.
I've always found this article a thoughtful commentary on the role techies have had in shaping the internet.
If it gets rid of the Enya midi's, it would be worth it.
In a year from now, we'll probably see many former Salon employees installing microwave ovens, doing custom kitchens deliveries, and moving refrigerators and colour TV's.
Isn't a Longhorn a large, dumb animal that consumes massive quantities of resources and turns most of them into shit?