"The difference (to me) is largely a question of literacy or illiteracy. I believe that the definitions of "usable or user-friendly" are quite different when one is literate or illiterate"
Yes, and in doing so you make the same error as the original post. As I said in response to that, usability is not just determined from (in)ability to use the interface, but by a number of equally important other factors.
For example, so if you need to constantly use several keystrokes and/or mouse movements and clicks to perform some common function or reveal oft-needed information, then the program is less usable than one that requires fewer. This is true of both CLIs and GUIs of course, but the problem is usually compounded in CLIs which provide little if any way for a user to discover what those keystrokes/mouse gestures are. These two example factors (interaction design and discoverability) are constant regardless of the user's computer literacy.
Yeah, that was kinda harsh in isolation, but the rest of assertions in the gp post were off the mark enough to justify it.
"This is the kind of attitude that alienates programmers from any concerns about usability: the idea that usability is only for the masses, and making programs more usable is all about making them more suitable for the least computer-savvy demographic imaginable."
Clearly usability is applicable to all users of technology. I am not claiming to the contrary, I don't know where you got that impression.
"Since most open-source hackers start by producing development tools for themselves and their colleagues, it is quite appropriate for them to concentrate on users who are like themselves"
Sure, but that still does not excuse the incorrect assumption that "if it works for me, it will work for others like me". This is very much not the case, especially for UNIX hackers, who most free software developers tend to be tend to be and who tend have very, very custom workflows (due to the encouragement given to configure their environment using shell tricks and scripts).
"Finally, it makes perfect sense for Linux geeks to worry that "usability" (in the sense of an exclusive focus on the least savvy users) will make their systems less usable. It has already happened with GNOME"
Ahh, lol! Nice troll. You had me going there for a moment.
"So, any program interface that uses the command line is either *done* as far as improving usability or it's just a stupid idea to think a CLI is usable?"
Neither, clearly.
"I don't see how any of these listed items can't be applied to a CLI program"
Some of them can and are, but some of them cannot and are not.
"Basically, I think you're using consistency as a crutch to bypass usability on the command line altogether"
No, you haven't got the gist of what I am saying at all, namely that command line interfaces suffer intrinsic usability issues compared to graphical interfaces and hence are not fit for people in general. If you're used to using a shell, if you take the time to learn how to use it and the command line programs you can run from it they can be awesome (they are awesome for me). However, statements along the lines of "CLIs are just as usable or user-friendly as GUIs" are just incorrect.
Yes, this is one reason why free software ui's tend to suck.
"Usability is mostly a function of what the user is used to".
Incorrect. While consistency is important so are many other factors such as information organization and display, discoverability of core features, support for internationalization, localization and accessability.
"I find working from a command line to be the most efficient way to get things done"
Which puts you in a very small minority, and disqualifies you from making any useful observations about usability in general.
"I don't really think it's possible to quantify "usability""
Incorrect. It is very much possible to measure usability with user testing and similar studies - it has been happening for decades.
"when to most people it's best rendered as "similarity to Microsoft products."
Incorrect, given Microsoft just recently redesigned the user interface for their two top products, Windows and Office, even these "gold standards" have much room for improvement.
Your framing of this sort of behaviour is legitimizing and implicitly condoning it as if it is good and normal. It isn't good or normal, you should stop carrying on as if it is and you should start doing something about it.
Sure, a culture war would explain a republican cracking a democrat web server, but it certainly doesn't explain why two groups of centrist baby boomers, allegedly on the same side, are attacking each other.
Even in my particular glass house inter-faction party bickering is mostly kept behind closed doors and limited to ganging up on each other to get your own {leader|policy|whatever} officially anointed as that of the party's.
Your "sit back until they die" approach will just not work as the children of that generation have already been taught to act the same as their parents. The transition from them to us hasn't been limited to "limited to mostly bombastic rhetoric and easily fixed shenanigans", consider the ill effects of things like the War on Drugs - you've got at least four stupid wars to end, not one.
Yes, I'm not helping, but no one over there seems to be doing anything about it, either.
Is everyone in the US so effing polarized that you can even get your website hacked by someone supporting a person you're running against,/even if they are in same party/?! This isn't democracy, it's a slum.
What gives here, honestly? It's/just/ a presidential nomination, not an attack on freedom or something.
If you spent half the effort on real problems that you spend electing a leader for your arrogant little country, the world be be such a better place.
ZOMG! I can't believe you think Beck has no substance. Sure, Midnight Vultures and Guero were "like, totally dreamy" and I haven't heard the new album(s?), but everything else had more substance than a brick through a window.
You're right, they aren't standards. Go to any one of the W3's "standards" documents and you'll see they are all called "Recommendations", HTML 4.01, for example. The cool kids call them "RECs".
Now, what good is a recommendation, you ask? Plenty - mostly interoperability. The W3C provides a specification and recommends people implement it. Those that do can interoprate. The consumer wins.
How do you get the vendors to implement the RECs? Make it an important bullet point on their feature lists. The Acid tests are a particularly well done kick in the backside for browser vendors. They have effectively become more important than the bullet point that says "standards compliant" because they are a (limited) test suite. For vendors to be able to say they do well in the tests, certain key parts of the RECs must be implemented and done so correctly, there is no room for buggy or partial implementation.
The result in the end is better interoperability. The RECs provide that common basis that vendors can't quibble over. The Acid tests are both the carrot to get them implementing the RECs and proof that they did so (partially) correctly.
You and the rest of western civilisation. Seriously, I think we're all screwed anyway because most people are the same as you describe. I guess I only bother out of not wanting to shit too much where I sleep.
Actually, I don't own a car. Why? Because aside from the cost and the envrionmental impact, both car companies and petrol companies are ruthlessly evil. By not having one, I don't support those companies. I don't buy my furniture from Ikea, I don't buy my coffee from Starbucks. I buy locally where ever I can, if I can't then I buy from whoever is the least evil. I only use Free Software for the same reason.
I can appreciate that not having any ethical or moral principals makes your life easier, but criticising others for doing so makes you look like a stupid asshole.
Good question, I don't have the right answers - I suspect it would vary depending on who you are dealing with and what country you're in. I don't think there's one deus ex machina that you can throw into an email, however. You could try joining Mozilla's community evangelism group and get them to provide ideas and assistance.
Perhaps one way to start is to establish a friendly dialog with the people involved. You could try first sending an email to the people who maintain the sites. Just ask when they plan to support browsers other than IE and platforms other than Windows.
If you have a non-Windows machine that you often use, point out that it would be handy to be access the sites from that machine for such-and-such a reason. If they point to roadblocks (e.g. they don't care, management does not care, technical issues, etc) then try to find out who could do something about it and start talking to them as well. Write letters if email does not seem to be working.
You need to be patient however, don't expect them to change overnight - especially for large and government organisations making such changes can take a long time. The most important things are to keep it friendly (don't use threats or extortion) and keep in touch over time so they feel a constant but gentle pressure to fix their sites.
Stop being absurd? What, not wanting to break the law is absurd? Or having some principals (and actually standing up for them) is absurd? Or not rolling over and getting reamed by faceless corporations is absurd?
If you think this is just about a web browser, then you clearly have no clue.
I make it a condition of my employment that I can use Free Software for all of my work during the day. This kinda makes the problem of deciding to quit go away.
Slashdot Mirror
*lol*
/Mike
"The difference (to me) is largely a question of literacy or illiteracy. I believe that the definitions of "usable or user-friendly" are quite different when one is literate or illiterate"
Yes, and in doing so you make the same error as the original post. As I said in response to that, usability is not just determined from (in)ability to use the interface, but by a number of equally important other factors.
For example, so if you need to constantly use several keystrokes and/or mouse movements and clicks to perform some common function or reveal oft-needed information, then the program is less usable than one that requires fewer. This is true of both CLIs and GUIs of course, but the problem is usually compounded in CLIs which provide little if any way for a user to discover what those keystrokes/mouse gestures are. These two example factors (interaction design and discoverability) are constant regardless of the user's computer literacy.
/Mike
Yeah, that was kinda harsh in isolation, but the rest of assertions in the gp post were off the mark enough to justify it.
"This is the kind of attitude that alienates programmers from any concerns about usability: the idea that usability is only for the masses, and making programs more usable is all about making them more suitable for the least computer-savvy demographic imaginable."
Clearly usability is applicable to all users of technology. I am not claiming to the contrary, I don't know where you got that impression.
"Since most open-source hackers start by producing development tools for themselves and their colleagues, it is quite appropriate for them to concentrate on users who are like themselves"
Sure, but that still does not excuse the incorrect assumption that "if it works for me, it will work for others like me". This is very much not the case, especially for UNIX hackers, who most free software developers tend to be tend to be and who tend have very, very custom workflows (due to the encouragement given to configure their environment using shell tricks and scripts).
"Finally, it makes perfect sense for Linux geeks to worry that "usability" (in the sense of an exclusive focus on the least savvy users) will make their systems less usable. It has already happened with GNOME"
Ahh, lol! Nice troll. You had me going there for a moment.
*plonk*
/Mike
"So, any program interface that uses the command line is either *done* as far as improving usability or it's just a stupid idea to think a CLI is usable?"
Neither, clearly.
"I don't see how any of these listed items can't be applied to a CLI program"
Some of them can and are, but some of them cannot and are not.
"Basically, I think you're using consistency as a crutch to bypass usability on the command line altogether"
No, you haven't got the gist of what I am saying at all, namely that command line interfaces suffer intrinsic usability issues compared to graphical interfaces and hence are not fit for people in general. If you're used to using a shell, if you take the time to learn how to use it and the command line programs you can run from it they can be awesome (they are awesome for me). However, statements along the lines of "CLIs are just as usable or user-friendly as GUIs" are just incorrect.
/Mike
Yes, this is one reason why free software ui's tend to suck.
"Usability is mostly a function of what the user is used to".
Incorrect. While consistency is important so are many other factors such as information organization and display, discoverability of core features, support for internationalization, localization and accessability.
"I find working from a command line to be the most efficient way to get things done"
Which puts you in a very small minority, and disqualifies you from making any useful observations about usability in general.
"I don't really think it's possible to quantify "usability""
Incorrect. It is very much possible to measure usability with user testing and similar studies - it has been happening for decades.
"when to most people it's best rendered as "similarity to Microsoft products."
Incorrect, given Microsoft just recently redesigned the user interface for their two top products, Windows and Office, even these "gold standards" have much room for improvement.
/Mike
Oh, you are so massively correct I can't even begin to describe it.
+âz, Insightful
/Mike
After looking on the Wine site, I can't find what makes this release 1.0? Did they completely implement a particular set of APIs or what?
/Mike
Hehe! But you are serious?
/Mike
Even in my particular glass house inter-faction party bickering is mostly kept behind closed doors and limited to ganging up on each other to get your own {leader|policy|whatever} officially anointed as that of the party's.
Your "sit back until they die" approach will just not work as the children of that generation have already been taught to act the same as their parents. The transition from them to us hasn't been limited to "limited to mostly bombastic rhetoric and easily fixed shenanigans", consider the ill effects of things like the War on Drugs - you've got at least four stupid wars to end, not one.
Yes, I'm not helping, but no one over there seems to be doing anything about it, either.
/Mike
What gives here, honestly? It's
If you spent half the effort on real problems that you spend electing a leader for your arrogant little country, the world be be such a better place.
Christ, _just get along_.
*frustrated*
/Mike
/Mike
Have you heard Stereopathetic Soulmanure?
/Mike
I say pish-posh to that!
/Mike
True, except it's a quote. I'd put a [sic] in there but you know, why change now?
Nah, I just to sound like one. :)
Now, what good is a recommendation, you ask? Plenty - mostly interoperability. The W3C provides a specification and recommends people implement it. Those that do can interoprate. The consumer wins.
How do you get the vendors to implement the RECs? Make it an important bullet point on their feature lists. The Acid tests are a particularly well done kick in the backside for browser vendors. They have effectively become more important than the bullet point that says "standards compliant" because they are a (limited) test suite. For vendors to be able to say they do well in the tests, certain key parts of the RECs must be implemented and done so correctly, there is no room for buggy or partial implementation.
The result in the end is better interoperability. The RECs provide that common basis that vendors can't quibble over. The Acid tests are both the carrot to get them implementing the RECs and proof that they did so (partially) correctly.
/Mike
You and the rest of western civilisation. Seriously, I think we're all screwed anyway because most people are the same as you describe. I guess I only bother out of not wanting to shit too much where I sleep.
/Mike
I can appreciate that not having any ethical or moral principals makes your life easier, but criticising others for doing so makes you look like a stupid asshole.
/Mike
Perhaps one way to start is to establish a friendly dialog with the people involved. You could try first sending an email to the people who maintain the sites. Just ask when they plan to support browsers other than IE and platforms other than Windows.
If you have a non-Windows machine that you often use, point out that it would be handy to be access the sites from that machine for such-and-such a reason. If they point to roadblocks (e.g. they don't care, management does not care, technical issues, etc) then try to find out who could do something about it and start talking to them as well. Write letters if email does not seem to be working.
You need to be patient however, don't expect them to change overnight - especially for large and government organisations making such changes can take a long time. The most important things are to keep it friendly (don't use threats or extortion) and keep in touch over time so they feel a constant but gentle pressure to fix their sites.
It's not fast or easy, but worth it.
/Mike
If you think this is just about a web browser, then you clearly have no clue.
/Mike
Hence the fact that Wine runs it is moot.
/mike
That aside, I think supporting an open web is worth it.
/Mike
Comfortable and quite a nice looking number, too.
/Mike
I make it a condition of my employment that I can use Free Software for all of my work during the day. This kinda makes the problem of deciding to quit go away.
/Mike