Deck the walls with bowels of Hollings Fa la la la la la la la la
Engage in DMCA maulings Fa la la la la la la la la
Go to EFF fundraiser Fa la la la la la la la la
Zap Valenti with a taser Fa la la la la la la la la
If the show Lexx, with it's concept of time existing in cycles that happen over and over again, is proven to be the most scientifically realistic sci-fi show ever, imagine what other stuff from the show could be true...(shiver!)
And while we're at it, let's go ahead and copy the blue screens of death, crashes, and security holes since windows users are so used to those and we're trying to give them an environment as familiar as possible.
There are two different standards for linux software: a standard for technical/kernel stuff, and a standard for interface design. The double standard for linux development: Microsoft's bad technical designs are eschewed, while their horrendous UI designs are embraced. This is largely due to the fact that the linux development community has enough technical saavy to avoid repeating microsoft's dumb technical decisions, but they are so incredibly ignorant of UI design theory that they cheat off the most popular kid in class, who also happens to be the stupidest kid in class(which you can see for yourself at the Interface Hall of Shame)
It would not surpise me if in the next year we'll start to see linux interfaces with window-in-window MDI, multi-row tabs, and talking paperclips.
What's to keep mimes from capturing the music stream, burning mp3's of it, and then sharing it on KaZaA? Until we can eliminate piracy of silence, I seriously doubt we'll get the record industry to shut up.
The problem with designing "idiot-proof" software is that usually the first idiot brought into the process is usually the idiot who knows nothing about designing clear, concise and usable user interfaces and who proceeds to do so anyway(this is usually the programmer). When this happens, any idiot-proofing is compromised. If an idiot designs an "idiot-proof" car with the lighter by the gas tank, even someone with a PhD in engineering could blow it up.
All platforms have these types of idiots, but in varying quantities. Linux (and really much of the unix world barring OS X) has then in unthinkable, vast quantities. Not only are most of these developers ignorant in how to design usable interfaces, but they go so far as to consider the entire field of UI design B.S. (the go past the point of ignorance into total stupidity). Much of the linux community refuses to acknowledge this problem or deal with it in any way. They try to cure bad interface with increased zealotry and massive exaggeration about just how good the programs really are. Bill Gates has never had to worry about trying to kill desktop linux because so many people in the linux camp do his job for him.
Here's something that more or less reinforces what you say. About a year ago on slashdot, I was (rightly) complaining about some of the usability
problems in KDE. A user named "Duley" (guess who) had a few unintelligent things to say on the matter. I'm pretty sure it was mosfet, because of the identical "we've xmlified things so there are no usability problems" argument. If this "Duley" fellow was someone other than Mosfet, I apologize to Mosfet for the case of mistaken identity.
I used to post under the name Ukab the Great, if this illeviates any confusion over the user names
My first post:
KDE is a wanna-be (Score:2)
by Ukab the Great on Friday May 25, @12:23PM (#198349) [Alter Relationship]
(User #87152 Info)
If KDE really wanted to improve their interface, they should make those tiny little toolbar buttons a lot bigger by adding labels. When you increase the size of a target (aka control aka widget), the user can access it faster (something we in the UI industry call Fitts' law). Right now, KDE has billions of tiny buttons that aren't very forthcoming as to what they do (a problem alleviated by a label) and that have crappy access times as a result of their tinyness. Just like all those buttons in M$ office. I guarantee you that few users if any ever use the toolbar buttons in word or excel because they're esoteric and have no speed advantage. Another problem with KDE is lack of progressive disclosure, which is the concept of putting the most simple, basic options at the top-level of an interface, and then giving the user the option of digging down to a more complex level if needed. KDE doesn't do this. They throw 18 billion menu entries, buttons, and other controls straight at the user. When this happens, users will feel completely overwhelmed and won't know where to begin in using program. Just looking at Konqueror makes my head spin.
I'm not bashing KDE for adding a good advanced feature like gesturing, but this seems to be just one more instance in a trend that desktop environments have followed as of late: adding cool, trendy, buzzword-compliant technologies but then completely blowing it the most basic and fundamental UI design principles.
Mosfet response
Your a wanna-be (feature's already there) (Score:3)
by Duley on Friday May 25, @12:35PM (#198415) [Alter Relationship]
(User #455053 Info)
Erm, try right clicking on the toolbar handle and this is what you get:
Text Position->Icons Only, Text Only, Text aside icons, Text under icons.
There are your labels. Been here ever since KDE2.0 development first started. You can also select icon size and got a selection of small, medium, and large.
As for "progressive disclosure", I don't see this problem but if you do almost all of the menus and toolbars are constructed out of XML. Edit them if you think you can do better and post it to the KDE mailing lists (or the application author).
Ilan's counter response to Mosfet A problem with your arguement--sane defaults (Score:2)
by Ukab the Great on Friday May 25, @05:55PM (#198350) [Alter Relationship]
(User #87152 Info)
"But you can customize it" people say
"But if you dig deep enough into the configuration, you can change it" people say
Such are the ideas that hold linux from the desktop. Many users starting off will do neither, and shouldn't be expected to try to improve things that should have been improved to begin with. If there's something in an interface that is supposed to be done (e.g. labeling toolbar buttons) and makes an interface more usable, it should be the default.
Mosfet's counter response
What you want, I don't (Score:1)
by Duley on Friday May 25, @08:07PM (#198414) [Alter Relationship]
(User #455053 Info)
First of all, I'd hardly call right clicking on the toolbar having to "dig deep...into the configuration". It's not like KDE is making you edit text files or anything. You can also select it in the KDE Control Center under the "Style" entry. There are plenty of places to set this - have you really even used KDE?
As for what should be default, *you* think labels make toolbars easier to use, I think it wastes screen real estate (I have a lot of windows open at any given time). *I* wouldn't want it to be default, but you do. They both have good points, but it's certainly not something that you could say "this definitely should be one way". So what can we do but make them both available, choose a sensible default, and let users choose. For me, that's medium sized icons with no labels like most UI's. You feel differently. *Shrug*, KDE allows you to do whatever you like. You'll always get flamed no matter what defaults you choose... if we did it your way people would complain "KDE's toolbars are huge!" and I'd be telling them to right click on them and set what they want;-)
As for the menus, they are fine for me. If you don't like them it doesn't require any programming skill to change their order. Do things your way and suggest to people to change them. This is open development, your not stuck with anything you don't like.
Legalese is everywhere around us. You see it when you install a piece of software, you see it when you pay your taxes. It's the world that is pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth...
I'm sorry about the pun. Any sarcasm from your side is well waranted.
Seriously, though, I think you are somewhat on the money about KDE, but not in the way that you intended. KDE has more usability problems than GNOME (although both environments have quite a few of these). Among KDE's worst usability problems are the multitude of tiny, undescriptive icons whose tinyness makes them far slower to access with a mouse (via Fitts' Law) and whose action is hard to decipher because the icons are so non-descriptive and tiny. And mind you that because KDE does not have button-labelling turned on by default, the lack of a label makes button even smaller and slower to access, and the lack of a label means that the user has to basically guess what the icon does, or find out the hard way by doing something that might possibly destroy their work. Or they can wait a painful 3-5 seconds for the tooltip label to come up. The end result is that most of the buttons are going to go unused, just like what happens in programs authored by Microsoft, who KDE bases most of their designs off of. The problem with doing a carbon copy of microsoft is that many of Microsoft's designs are flawed in one way or another, and many of those flaws have found their way into KDE. Good artists create, great artists steal, bad artists steal crap.
Re aesthetics: be sure to remember that just because something is aesthetically pleasing does not mean that has greater usability, and a lot of linux geeks who've tried for the desktop (and who don't have a lot to show for it) equate usability solely with aesthetics, I once talked to a distribution installer author about the usability problems in his installer. He couldn't understand what the problem was; he assumed I thought that "it wasn't pretty enough".
You should also not place any serious bets on the Zaurus as far success with the non-geek community(unless TrollTech will get their act together with Qtopia, which I highly doubt). From what I've seen of the UI design and some of the initial reports from reviewers, Sharp has fallen into the same trap as many other linux PDA developers/manufacturers where they design the hardware/system software first, and only after they've got that all done do they design the interface and come up the user interaction model.You can't do that with a PDA. People will put up with inefficient and bad interfaces on desktops because they budget several hours a day to kludging through their task. They grow surprisingly less tolerant of ill-designed interfaces when the screen is shrunk down to 240X320 and they have only 20 seconds to get down an important phone number. You might have good marketing; you might get some people to buy the PDA, but if the interface doesn't work, those people will subconsciously try to find every excuse they can to use the PDA as little as possible.If that happens, you can forget about selling those people hardware add-ons and software after the first several months. The chance that they'll upgrade to the next latest and greatest thing, or that they'll convince a friend to buy one of the PDA's, drops down to 0% as well.
With PDA graphic toolkits based on desktop toolkits (i.e. qt & Qtopia), there's also that fatal trap of thinking "with this mobile version of this widget toolkit, I can easily port over all the desktops to the PDA and everything will be good". Again, apps with UI's that work with full sized mouse and keyboard and a 17" monitor will often not translate very well into a PDA with a small screen and a stylus. Microsoft made this mistake with WinCE, and I saw Agenda make the same mistake with FLTK. Agenda is dead, and PalmPC's only survive because PalmOS isn't yet running on equivalent hardware.
If you take nothing else from my PDA advice, understand that the most successful PDA in history, the Palm, was fashioned after a block of wood that Palm creator Jeff Hawkins carried around with him to use in pondering what a good PDA should act like. Before the dies had been tooled or the system software was finished, he designed the interaction. There has been no block of wood involved in the creation of the Zaurus.
You're welcome to either take my advice or drag it to trash and empty. But I've seen too many linux companies get splattered across the industry because they said "to hell with good design". Yes, it really is that important.
At the end of episode one, Annakin kept stumbling and each time he stumbled, he accidently (and unknowingly) destroyed more of the enemy. The force is really strong with you if you keep goofing up and kicking ass simultaneously. Jar jar was doing the same exact thing on the battlefield with his fellow gungans against the drones. He slips on a big elephant thingy, he kills the robots with the giant blue energy balls that fall out due to his clumsiness. He tries to rid himself of a piece of drone with a rifle that has latched onto his leg, he "accidently" ends up using the drone to blast its fellow drones. As scary as it seems, Jar jar has more metaclorins than the average Gungan, though he appears to have far less brain cells.
Slashdot Mirror
You have the answer of why linux user interfaces still have so many usability problems.
Deck the walls with bowels of Hollings
Fa la la la la la la la la
Engage in DMCA maulings
Fa la la la la la la la la
Go to EFF fundraiser
Fa la la la la la la la la
Zap Valenti with a taser
Fa la la la la la la la la
This is what I want for Myth IV, Mr. Jason Jones. Billyuns and Billyuns of sprites.
AOL/Time-Warner could charge people $30/month for the watching their content. Oh, wait a second....
That would explain why he was talking into a mouse in "Star Trek IV".
If the show Lexx, with it's concept of time existing in cycles that happen over and over again, is proven to be the most scientifically realistic sci-fi show ever, imagine what other stuff from the show could be true...(shiver!)
Great post, Bill. I agree completely with everything you said. You get a pat on the back at the next TriLUG meeting.
...have these things, are they going to squeeze them and ask me to cough before they can stop my house from burning down?
Blond joke
Q: How do you tell if a blonde is using a computer:
A: There's white-out on the screen
Geek joke
Q:How do you tell if a geek is writing on a piece of paper.
A:There's screen on his white-out.
And while we're at it, let's go ahead and copy the blue screens of death, crashes, and security holes since windows users are so used to those and we're trying to give them an environment as familiar as possible.
There are two different standards for linux software: a standard for technical/kernel stuff, and a standard for interface design. The double standard for linux development: Microsoft's bad technical designs are eschewed, while their horrendous UI designs are embraced. This is largely due to the fact that the linux development community has enough technical saavy to avoid repeating microsoft's dumb technical decisions, but they are so incredibly ignorant of UI design theory that they cheat off the most popular kid in class, who also happens to be the stupidest kid in class(which you can see for yourself at the Interface Hall of Shame)
It would not surpise me if in the next year we'll start to see linux interfaces with window-in-window MDI, multi-row tabs, and talking paperclips.
What's to keep mimes from capturing the music stream, burning mp3's of it, and then sharing it on KaZaA? Until we can eliminate piracy of silence, I seriously doubt we'll get the record industry to shut up.
(Good parent post, BTW)
The problem with designing "idiot-proof" software is that usually the first idiot brought into the process is usually the idiot who knows nothing about designing clear, concise and usable user interfaces and who proceeds to do so anyway(this is usually the programmer). When this happens, any idiot-proofing is compromised. If an idiot designs an "idiot-proof" car with the lighter by the gas tank, even someone with a PhD in engineering could blow it up.
All platforms have these types of idiots, but in varying quantities. Linux (and really much of the unix world barring OS X) has then in unthinkable, vast quantities. Not only are most of these developers ignorant in how to design usable interfaces, but they go so far as to consider the entire field of UI design B.S. (the go past the point of ignorance into total stupidity). Much of the linux community refuses to acknowledge this problem or deal with it in any way. They try to cure bad interface with increased zealotry and massive exaggeration about just how good the programs really are. Bill Gates has never had to worry about trying to kill desktop linux because so many people in the linux camp do his job for him.
I wish more programming books had these kinds of problems.
I bet these people will be raided very soon by the FBI.
Jordan hubbard resigns. Sounds like the work of the devil to me.
They turn into stone. Didn't you read the hobbit?
My first post:
Mosfet response
Ilan's counter response to Mosfet A problem with your arguement--sane defaults (Score:2) by Ukab the Great on Friday May 25, @05:55PM (#198350) [Alter Relationship] (User #87152 Info)
"But you can customize it" people say "But if you dig deep enough into the configuration, you can change it" people say Such are the ideas that hold linux from the desktop. Many users starting off will do neither, and shouldn't be expected to try to improve things that should have been improved to begin with. If there's something in an interface that is supposed to be done (e.g. labeling toolbar buttons) and makes an interface more usable, it should be the default.
Mosfet's counter response
They don't come pre-installed, but you can get the $666 upgrade at the apple store.
http://news.gnome.org/gnome-news/983984049/9842806 51/addPostingForm
I seriously doubt we'll notice any difference.
Legalese is everywhere around us. You see it when you install a piece of software, you see it when you pay your taxes. It's the world that is pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth...
I'm sorry about the pun. Any sarcasm from your side is well waranted.
Seriously, though, I think you are somewhat on the money about KDE, but not in the way that you intended. KDE has more usability problems than GNOME (although both environments have quite a few of these). Among KDE's worst usability problems are the multitude of tiny, undescriptive icons whose tinyness makes them far slower to access with a mouse (via Fitts' Law) and whose action is hard to decipher because the icons are so non-descriptive and tiny. And mind you that because KDE does not have button-labelling turned on by default, the lack of a label makes button even smaller and slower to access, and the lack of a label means that the user has to basically guess what the icon does, or find out the hard way by doing something that might possibly destroy their work. Or they can wait a painful 3-5 seconds for the tooltip label to come up. The end result is that most of the buttons are going to go unused, just like what happens in programs authored by Microsoft, who KDE bases most of their designs off of. The problem with doing a carbon copy of microsoft is that many of Microsoft's designs are flawed in one way or another, and many of those flaws have found their way into KDE. Good artists create, great artists steal, bad artists steal crap.
Re aesthetics: be sure to remember that just because something is aesthetically pleasing does not mean that has greater usability, and a lot of linux geeks who've tried for the desktop (and who don't have a lot to show for it) equate usability solely with aesthetics, I once talked to a distribution installer author about the usability problems in his installer. He couldn't understand what the problem was; he assumed I thought that "it wasn't pretty enough".
You should also not place any serious bets on the Zaurus as far success with the non-geek community(unless TrollTech will get their act together with Qtopia, which I highly doubt). From what I've seen of the UI design and some of the initial reports from reviewers, Sharp has fallen into the same trap as many other linux PDA developers/manufacturers where they design the hardware/system software first, and only after they've got that all done do they design the interface and come up the user interaction model.You can't do that with a PDA. People will put up with inefficient and bad interfaces on desktops because they budget several hours a day to kludging through their task. They grow surprisingly less tolerant of ill-designed interfaces when the screen is shrunk down to 240X320 and they have only 20 seconds to get down an important phone number. You might have good marketing; you might get some people to buy the PDA, but if the interface doesn't work, those people will subconsciously try to find every excuse they can to use the PDA as little as possible.If that happens, you can forget about selling those people hardware add-ons and software after the first several months. The chance that they'll upgrade to the next latest and greatest thing, or that they'll convince a friend to buy one of the PDA's, drops down to 0% as well.
With PDA graphic toolkits based on desktop toolkits (i.e. qt & Qtopia), there's also that fatal trap of thinking "with this mobile version of this widget toolkit, I can easily port over all the desktops to the PDA and everything will be good". Again, apps with UI's that work with full sized mouse and keyboard and a 17" monitor will often not translate very well into a PDA with a small screen and a stylus. Microsoft made this mistake with WinCE, and I saw Agenda make the same mistake with FLTK. Agenda is dead, and PalmPC's only survive because PalmOS isn't yet running on equivalent hardware.
If you take nothing else from my PDA advice, understand that the most successful PDA in history, the Palm, was fashioned after a block of wood that Palm creator Jeff Hawkins carried around with him to use in pondering what a good PDA should act like. Before the dies had been tooled or the system software was finished, he designed the interaction. There has been no block of wood involved in the creation of the Zaurus.
You're welcome to either take my advice or drag it to trash and empty. But I've seen too many linux companies get splattered across the industry because they said "to hell with good design". Yes, it really is that important.
If Bart Decrem fires a Hancom programmer, could you say that he Decrements their staff by one?
"Dis time wesa no be overstimatin da demanding for da episode two merchandise. Mesa now be blowin' all da movie makin."
At the end of episode one, Annakin kept stumbling and each time he stumbled, he accidently (and unknowingly) destroyed more of the enemy. The force is really strong with you if you keep goofing up and kicking ass simultaneously. Jar jar was doing the same exact thing on the battlefield with his fellow gungans against the drones. He slips on a big elephant thingy, he kills the robots with the giant blue energy balls that fall out due to his clumsiness. He tries to rid himself of a piece of drone with a rifle that has latched onto his leg, he "accidently" ends up using the drone to blast its fellow drones. As scary as it seems, Jar jar has more metaclorins than the average Gungan, though he appears to have far less brain cells.