Most linux programmers come from a developer community that up until recently hasn't been tasked with designing user friendly interfaces or has even considered UI design very important. For almost 30 years, the target audience for unix software has been either other unix geeks or servers, and human non-geeks never really figured into the picture. We keep hearing "Linux has already gotten so far on the server, it's only a matter of time till it gets as far on the desktop". It is incredibly naive for the linux development community to think that any of its attitudes, design values, and methodologies are going to carry over from the server to the desktop. Linux got as far as it did on the server because linux programmers were the absolute best kind of people you could ever hope for to do server stuff. Unfortunately, they are the absolute worst kind of people you could ever sent to do desktop stuff.
The reason why MacOS X is currently the most successful unix desktop is that the mac development community has always been very committed to designing usable and consistent interfaces. They don't have 30 years of anti-newbie, RTFM baggage they've got to get rid of, and no one has a problem saying the word "folder" instead of "directory".
To get to the point that the mac community is at, linux developers will have to undergo a radical attitude debugging. The problem the linux development community faces is not a technological problem like the kind they've had in the past, but a people problem. Unfortunately, fixing people problems are a hell of a lot harder than fixing technological ones.
I agree totally with the idea of RPM's scheme being stupid and dangerous. I'd like to see linux adopt a feature similar to OS X application bundles, where all the stuff associated with an application is put into a single folder (*.app) that is represented as the application itself. This is a hell of a lot more sturdy than relying on a binary database to say what belongs to what application.
"when is the last time that the Elven Queen needed to use a computer?"
Come on...we all know that Galadriel's mirror is nothing more than a Mi-book (Mithril PowerBook) flat panel screen under some water and a piece of glass. And that future she showed Frodo was so totally produced with Final Cut.
Several years ago when I was hired by Radio Shack and they made me sign one of those agreements. It stated in my hiring agreement that I was forbidden in to write programs on company time (which is understandable) and in my off-work spare time (which is ridiculous). And this was not for some programming or IT position, it was for the job of sales clerk! There I was making $6 an hour selling batteries and connectors to people, doing nothing related to programming, and here they are forbidding me to program on my own spare time and claiming all rights to the program if I dared to. Not that it stopped me--Tandy corporation is the unknowing owner of the world's crappiest mac screen saver.
I can see some situation in the future where even fast food joints will claim an employee's spare time intellectual property. I can just see some poor bastard who in his spare time works on a game he hopes to eventually sell for zillions of dollars getting it taken away because of it's relevance to his sideline job as "fry technician" at McDonalds.
One way to improve the world of proprietary software would be for customers that buy proprietary software to require some form of End User License Agreements for big software companies (maybe it could be called "End User Purchase Agreement (EUPA))The EUPA would state that upon the end user opening the box of software, they is entitled to the source code for the software if the vendor ever goes bankrupt or completely discontinues the piece of software. If IT departments (and maybe governmental organizations too) would require software with EUPA's for purchases, I think there would be enough pressure and momentum for this scheme to work. I know this scheme is not as good or open as Free Software, but that's still no reason not to try to make the world of proprietary software better and make sure that far less people are screwed over.
I agree mostly--only a fool copies Microsoft UI
on
Lycoris Desktop/LX Review
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
It's not so much whether beginners find it initially easier to use, but that once the users learn the basics of how to use the overall system interface, how much can they apply those basics to quickly learning the interface of a new application.
That being said, there's a lot of bad decisions that one can make in interface design that are just plain stupid from a cognitive psychology standpoint and shouldn't be done in any interface on any platform in any circumstance. And microsoft is a frequent practitioner of this stupidity. Windows' Multi-row tabs are a perfect example, because they do not conform to the user expectation about how folder tabs are laid out: in a file cabinet, you do not have one folder tab above another and the visual search you do for a desired tab strictly on a horizontal plane. The even more confusing part about the multi-row tabs were that the widgets (i.e. the tabs) actually switch locations on screen, where the bottom tabs come to the top and vice-versa. Having widgets radically change their location on screen is a big no-no. In all fairness, Microsoft has recently been getting rid of the multi-row tabs, but why did it take them so long?
For years, usability experts have criticized Microsoft's UI shennanigans like multi-row tabs and Window-in-Window MDI, and Microsoft often does not make needed changes until 3-4 years later, if at all. Even if Microsoft gets rid of the bad design, 3rd party Windows application are by no means required to do this, and they often take even longer to purge their applications of Microsoft's bad UI than Microsoft.
There really is a double standard of design in the linux development community. If someone who knows nothing about OS design were to copy into the linux kernel a really stupid microsoft design that seriously compromised security and stability, something that OS development gurus and security experts have said for years should never be done, and do it all in the name of providing windows users with the same Blue Screens of Death and intrusions they're used to, they'd get burned at the stake with all the flames they'd get. If someone in the linux development community who knows almost nothing about interface design (which is really most of the linux development community) copies a microsoft design that seriously compromises usability and has been criticized for years by experts in the UI design field, they'd get a hearty pat by many in the linux community for "easing the migration for windows users".
I bet some enterprising 15 year-old nicknamed "Captain Furby" will find that the 8156khz sound of a Furby's voice produces the perfect pitch to crack the "Crunch Box".
Copy a flawed Microsoft systems design that many security experts say is stupid, linux geeks burn you at the stake.
Copy an equally flawed UI design that many usability experts say is stupid, get praised by the same exact linux geeks for creating "a familiar interface that can help with the migration of windows users to linux".
Bad UI design is Bad UI design. It doesn't matter what kernel you're running it under.
Now that they're sponsoring a Cease and Desist Clearing House, the EFF should change their motto to "You might be a winner" and hire Ed MacMahon as a spokesperson.
It's bad enough that there are some great foreign films that will be probably never viewed in the United States because they are a different region (which negates travelling and legally buying the DVD and brining it back) and distributors do not consider the films worthy enough to port over to region 1. But to think that one day people might be denied exposure to music from the world's many cultures for the same reason is barbaric.
Your post is one of the most truest in the "Linux on the desktop" slashdot forums I have ever seen, and I agree with it completely. Here's my own personal experience with the prettyness silliness
I think that the only way that desktops running under a linux kernel will succeed is if people like us who understand the need for desktops based on true HCI principles band together and create our own linux desktop environment. One day, that will happen.
Slashdot Mirror
Most linux programmers come from a developer community that up until recently hasn't been tasked with designing user friendly interfaces or has even considered UI design very important. For almost 30 years, the target audience for unix software has been either other unix geeks or servers, and human non-geeks never really figured into the picture. We keep hearing "Linux has already gotten so far on the server, it's only a matter of time till it gets as far on the desktop". It is incredibly naive for the linux development community to think that any of its attitudes, design values, and methodologies are going to carry over from the server to the desktop. Linux got as far as it did on the server because linux programmers were the absolute best kind of people you could ever hope for to do server stuff. Unfortunately, they are the absolute worst kind of people you could ever sent to do desktop stuff.
The reason why MacOS X is currently the most successful unix desktop is that the mac development community has always been very committed to designing usable and consistent interfaces. They don't have 30 years of anti-newbie, RTFM baggage they've got to get rid of, and no one has a problem saying the word "folder" instead of "directory".
To get to the point that the mac community is at, linux developers will have to undergo a radical attitude debugging. The problem the linux development community faces is not a technological problem like the kind they've had in the past, but a people problem. Unfortunately, fixing people problems are a hell of a lot harder than fixing technological ones.
I agree totally with the idea of RPM's scheme being stupid and dangerous. I'd like to see linux adopt a feature similar to OS X application bundles, where all the stuff associated with an application is put into a single folder (*.app) that is represented as the application itself. This is a hell of a lot more sturdy than relying on a binary database to say what belongs to what application.
"when is the last time that the Elven Queen needed to use a computer?"
Come on...we all know that Galadriel's mirror is nothing more than a Mi-book (Mithril PowerBook) flat panel screen under some water and a piece of glass. And that future she showed Frodo was so totally produced with Final Cut.
I hope he understands that his simulation is BS; real astronauts on mars would never be able to survive without alcohol.
They could have just wrecked a second ship that happened to contain several hundred cats.
Wouldn't be easier just to redesign Unix users?
Several years ago when I was hired by Radio Shack and they made me sign one of those agreements. It stated in my hiring agreement that I was forbidden in to write programs on company time (which is understandable) and in my off-work spare time (which is ridiculous). And this was not for some programming or IT position, it was for the job of sales clerk! There I was making $6 an hour selling batteries and connectors to people, doing nothing related to programming, and here they are forbidding me to program on my own spare time and claiming all rights to the program if I dared to. Not that it stopped me--Tandy corporation is the unknowing owner of the world's crappiest mac screen saver.
I can see some situation in the future where even fast food joints will claim an employee's spare time intellectual property. I can just see some poor bastard who in his spare time works on a game he hopes to eventually sell for zillions of dollars getting it taken away because of it's relevance to his sideline job as "fry technician" at McDonalds.
Too true. Somone once did a study showing that every $1 spent on usability design saved $100 in tech support costs.
One way to improve the world of proprietary software would be for customers that buy proprietary software to require some form of End User License Agreements for big software companies (maybe it could be called "End User Purchase Agreement (EUPA))The EUPA would state that upon the end user opening the box of software, they is entitled to the source code for the software if the vendor ever goes bankrupt or completely discontinues the piece of software. If IT departments (and maybe governmental organizations too) would require software with EUPA's for purchases, I think there would be enough pressure and momentum for this scheme to work. I know this scheme is not as good or open as Free Software, but that's still no reason not to try to make the world of proprietary software better and make sure that far less people are screwed over.
It's not so much whether beginners find it initially easier to use, but that once the users learn the basics of how to use the overall system interface, how much can they apply those basics to quickly learning the interface of a new application.
That being said, there's a lot of bad decisions that one can make in interface design that are just plain stupid from a cognitive psychology standpoint and shouldn't be done in any interface on any platform in any circumstance. And microsoft is a frequent practitioner of this stupidity. Windows' Multi-row tabs are a perfect example, because they do not conform to the user expectation about how folder tabs are laid out: in a file cabinet, you do not have one folder tab above another and the visual search you do for a desired tab strictly on a horizontal plane. The even more confusing part about the multi-row tabs were that the widgets (i.e. the tabs) actually switch locations on screen, where the bottom tabs come to the top and vice-versa. Having widgets radically change their location on screen is a big no-no. In all fairness, Microsoft has recently been getting rid of the multi-row tabs, but why did it take them so long?
For years, usability experts have criticized Microsoft's UI shennanigans like multi-row tabs and Window-in-Window MDI, and Microsoft often does not make needed changes until 3-4 years later, if at all. Even if Microsoft gets rid of the bad design, 3rd party Windows application are by no means required to do this, and they often take even longer to purge their applications of Microsoft's bad UI than Microsoft.
There really is a double standard of design in the linux development community. If someone who knows nothing about OS design were to copy into the linux kernel a really stupid microsoft design that seriously compromised security and stability, something that OS development gurus and security experts have said for years should never be done, and do it all in the name of providing windows users with the same Blue Screens of Death and intrusions they're used to, they'd get burned at the stake with all the flames they'd get. If someone in the linux development community who knows almost nothing about interface design (which is really most of the linux development community) copies a microsoft design that seriously compromises usability and has been criticized for years by experts in the UI design field, they'd get a hearty pat by many in the linux community for "easing the migration for windows users".
Don't prejudge; some people might want to be remembered for "hours of unstoppable, hot blazing action".
"My love is like a roller coaster..baby, baby, you wanna ride?"
Newbies to GUI design making interfaces for newbies to linux. Until you have far less of the former, you'll never get much of the latter.
It's scary to think you could be sued for violating the copyright on such song titles as "get milk at store" and "Dental appointment Tuesday."
public class Be throws inTowel
( );
{
public void businessModel()
{
try
{
boolean works = toCoexistPeacefullyWithMicrosoft();
if(!works)
{
throw inTowel;
}
}
catch(FlakFromUsers e)
{
open.BeOS();
}
finally
{
BeEmulatedOnOtherOsesRunningBeVMsFiveYearsFromNow
}
}
}
"Developers need to commercialize" is so lame. I personally think that "Linux causes acne" would sound so much more cool and original.
They prefer the term "a few wrinkles here and there"
I bet some enterprising 15 year-old nicknamed "Captain Furby" will find that the 8156khz sound of a Furby's voice produces the perfect pitch to crack the "Crunch Box".
When I first read the title of the article, my mind misread it as "Disney acquires Sen. Chihiro".
It sounds crazy, but Disney buying out a member of Congress seems somehow plausible.
- Copy a flawed Microsoft systems design that many security experts say is stupid, linux geeks burn you at the stake.
- Copy an equally flawed UI design that many usability experts say is stupid, get praised by the same exact linux geeks for creating "a familiar interface that can help with the migration of windows users to linux".
Bad UI design is Bad UI design. It doesn't matter what kernel you're running it under.Now that they're sponsoring a Cease and Desist Clearing House, the EFF should change their motto to "You might be a winner" and hire Ed MacMahon as a spokesperson.
It's bad enough that there are some great foreign films that will be probably never viewed in the United States because they are a different region (which negates travelling and legally buying the DVD and brining it back) and distributors do not consider the films worthy enough to port over to region 1. But to think that one day people might be denied exposure to music from the world's many cultures for the same reason is barbaric.
Your post is one of the most truest in the "Linux on the desktop" slashdot forums I have ever seen, and I agree with it completely. Here's my own personal experience with the prettyness silliness I think that the only way that desktops running under a linux kernel will succeed is if people like us who understand the need for desktops based on true HCI principles band together and create our own linux desktop environment. One day, that will happen.
Several months before Attack of the Clones comes out, we're probably going to see massive shortages of duct tape and LCD panels.
Screw Barry White. We all know that Chef is the one true master of getting sharks to get down.