Well, I figured since Apple doesn't sell any hardware with a touchscreen (other than a cellphone), it's really irrelevant whether OS X has multi-touch support or not. Even if it has it, the vast, vast, vast majority of Mac users can't use it.
You're right, though, I should have mentioned it. Since you can plug-in an external touchscreen monitor and use that. But there's no need to be so rude.
Take a look at this site, see how many projects are on it: http://sourceforge.net/ Are you seriously claiming that *all*, or even a majority, of those projects have had usability testing done? I hate to break this to you, but most of them don't even fucking run right!!
It's acid from the martians trying to disable the rovers! They also put a traffic ticket on them! And all the failed probes failed because the martians shot them down!
(These jokes aren't funny, but for some reason they always get modded up. Figured I'd hitch on to that gravy train."
I'm guessing the situation where you have to download a separate installer for Windows tablet is the rarer situation. I could be wrong. I've installed Vista on about a dozen tablets, with various hardware, and I've yet to have to install the "touch" driver separately. (I have no idea if any of those tablets have Wacom hardware, though.)
In any case, are Wacom tablets *pen-based*? Do they even work with touch?
And the version in Vista (which no longer allows you to add programs) was renamed to "Uninstall a Program" to keep its name consistent with the operation it performs. (They also added a separate control panel, "Turn Windows Features On Or Off" which you can use to, for example, activate IIS or Telnet.)
That actually makes for a pretty good example of how to "focus on the details" and keep the UI self-descriptive, rather than an example of Windows getting usability wrong like the grandparent is trying to make it.
Windows has no touch screen support out of the box either.
Vista does. You're either full of shit, or talking about an ancient Windows version. Given, Vista doesn't have *multi-touch* screen support, but neither does Linux or OS X. And Windows 7 will. So... yah.
Please do the world a favor and stop spouting bullshit. If you don't know for sure, don't write the fucking post.
Why should software go through Ubuntu to get validated by UI Experts?
I'm guessing the *primary goal* is to get developers to have UI experts look at their software, PERIOD. I'm sure Shuttleworth would be happy if it were someone else's UI experts.
The sad but true fact is that today, the vast majority of open source software *never* has any usability testing done.
Read it like this: "Linux software needs usability testing done. The Ubuntu project can provide resources to help accomplish that."
If he wants to make Ubuntu financially self-sustaining, Linux desktops that play well with media conglomerates aren't going to get anywhere.
Huh? What the hell are you talking about?
Bottom line, I get the feeling he sees himself as the great entrepreneurial hope for all of Free Software and that it, in general, will be successful when his company is successful. Well, Mr. Shuttleworth, they were doing fine without you.
Not in the realm of developing usable applications and OSes, they weren't.
*A consistent user interface doesn't exist. Mac's Finder UI looks remarkably similar to the Disk Utility, it doesn't help you work with either one! If anything, one builds expectations the other fails to deliver.
So, since a 100% consistent user interface doesn't currently exist, we should therefore give up and not even attempt to make one? If everybody thought like you, nothing would ever happen.
The problem is, we have this odd expectation that any software, from a compiler, to a game, to an office suite to a browser should be instinctive by use of other software. That is, they think Word processor == Word. So when you take another word processor such as Open Office, they expect it to work -exactly- like Word. Any differences are seen as "faults".
And...?
What point are you trying to make? That Open Office should do things the exact opposite of Word, even if users are asking it to behave like Word? That seems a particularly stupid point. Look, if people want software that behaves like Word, and you write software that behaves like Word, then you've made the users happy. It's really that simple.
(Of course, when you actually get into testing user behavior/preferences, if you don't find at least a dozen places where Word's UI can be improved, you're probably not even really trying.)
Take someone fully new to computers and have them learn Linux or Windows and chances are they will figure out Linux faster.
Bullshit. Prove it.
Take someone who has used Windows all their life and give them Linux they complain because things aren't exactly the same.
IE already has extensions, it has for AGES. At least since IE 5.5.
How do you think Google Toolbar runs in IE? Magic? Powdered unicorn horn? Hell, THIS VERY SLASHDOT STORY is about an IE extension.
What the hell drug did Mozilla give everybody to make them think IE doesn't have extensions? I feel like I'm the last human left and everybody else has been replaced by body-snatchers!!
No, there is resistance because the solution proposed is inferior. Yes, the Ribbon is more intuitive, but it also takes up significantly more space(1) which diminishes long-term usability compared to a good menu system.
(1) Microsoft Office being the exception, since its menus and toolbars were cluttered as hell to begin with.
Translation: Ribbons always take up too much space. Also: in the largest, most complex applications to adopt it, it takes less space.
Look, if you just don't like it, just say you don't like it. Don't try to make up "rational" reasons, because you end up typing things like the above and just look like an ass. See also: the vast majority of posts to this topic. Most of which are from people who have never even used the fucking thing.
Guess why MS isn't releasing the bulk of their apps using the Ribbon UI?
The bulk of their apps are Windows and Office. Office has the Ribbon now, as does Windows 7 (and all its bundled apps). Live Messenger, another of their popular apps, is extremely Ribbon-esque. (It's a little odd, but same general concept.)
So... you're full of shit. Thanks for playing though.
That's because they hate change, not because the Ribbon is a worse UI.
Basically, their opinion has nothing to do with: 1) Whether the Ribbon is a better or worse UI 2) Whether they are more productive with the Ribbon than without it
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that those Excel users who marked "hate it" are more productive using it. I know I am, and I consider myself a pretty advanced Excel user. (Of course, I'm also open-minded and don't have a problem with change.)
Bottom line is that I hate having tools move around when I use them
Then you should like the ribbon because it doesn't do that.
In fact when I develop applications now I disable contextually useless items but not hide them so the user does not waste time looking for a tool they shouldn't be using.
Welcome to 1984, where that concept was new. Now I'd be concerned if you *weren't* doing that.
Just FYI, if you're going to design UIs, you should probably take the time to study UIs (like, for example, the ribbon) as part of your job. I mean, if you seriously hid non-relevant contextual items instead of disabling them, you're *way* behind the rest of the industry. That's not good for the usability of your products.
Reject the ribbon concept if you must, but at least gather the data first.
I guess that the worst problem with these technologies is monoculture.
But monoculture has nothing to do with genetics. Nothing at all. For example, most plantations growing bananas are a monoculture, but they aren't genetically modified at all.
So you're basically saying, "I have absolutely no evidence that GM is worse, but here's a completely unrelated example that has nothing to do with GM." We're not that stupid, buddy, bring facts or go home.
In 40 years, it never occurred to you to just stop drinking milk? It's not necessary for life, like water is, you know. Your 40 years is wasted either way.
That aside, it all sounds like placebo to me. Do you have any evidence to back-up this statement: "Upon doing some research, I found that pasteurization destroys enzymes that help us digest dairy products." You did research, right? So you should have a citation to provide, right?
Direct insertion of DNA sequences from other species is different to breeding and selection.
Of course it's DIFFERENT, duh.
Your burden of proof is to show us it's WORSE. So far you haven't done that. You've just laid out a lot of scary language designed by Greenpeace to frighten people who don't know jack about genetics or science-in-general. You'll find the audience here is not the man-on-the-street.
So, go ahead, prove that using GM to obtain specific traits is worse than breeding for specific traits. Prove it.
What's the difference between a textbook having the symbol saying "the people who used this symbol were bad", and a video game with the symbol saying "the people who used this symbol were bad, shoot them"?
The law should only refer to the swastika being used in a *positive* sense. Although that leaves it open to interpretation, it's no more interpretation than what is "educational" and what isn't.
You can say that on television in the US. Dozens of channels do it every way. My favorite show, Penn and Teller's Bullshit has "bullshit" in the title and figures out some way to show topless women (almost) every episode. And it's on TV, in the US.
There's a catch, though: if you want to say it over public airwaves, you have to either follow the FCC's guidelines, or pay their fines. That's not a "free speech" issue, that's a contractual arrangement you follow in exchange for being able to use public airwaves.
If you're not using FCC airwaves (and every year, more and more cable-only channels are born), then say whatever the fucking shit you fucking want. You might get complaints from consumers and advertisers, but the government can't do dick about it.
Vista, like previous versions of Windows, requires driver installs for any piece of hardware that I plug in. They seem to have short-circuited the dialog box so that for some hardware that I plug in, it looks for the driver itself somewhere and installs it. However, the process still causes things to pause for a significant period and is far from "just works".
Ok, so let me get this straight: it does "just work", you admit in your post that it "just works", but because it doesn't do it instantaneously, you're arbitrarily declaring that it does not, in fact, "just work."
So the definition of "just work" just slides whenever Microsoft gets close to the old mark. This is going to be a problem in the long-term.:)
And in any case, are you really arguing that Windows would be better if it kept *all* of its drivers installed and loaded *all* of the time? It sounds like you're just saying Microsoft should bloat Windows beyond all belief to make you happy. If they did that, would you promise, cross-your-heart, to never complain about Windows bloat on Slashdot again?
For a lot of other hardware, it really requires driver CDs, and a lot of devices come with little stickers over their USB ports that say "STOP! Install driver CD first." Apparently, if you don't, bad things happen.
Try it. Bad things won't happen. The stickers are for Windows XP and 2000 users, not for Vista users. (I can't imagine what "bad things" would happen in XP or 2000 either, but whatever. Maybe the sticker is for the one Windows ME guy left.)
Of course, then you might actually have an informed opinion, and God knows we can't have that on Slashdot!!
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I figured since Apple doesn't sell any hardware with a touchscreen (other than a cellphone), it's really irrelevant whether OS X has multi-touch support or not. Even if it has it, the vast, vast, vast majority of Mac users can't use it.
You're right, though, I should have mentioned it. Since you can plug-in an external touchscreen monitor and use that. But there's no need to be so rude.
I didn't say "all", I said "vast majority."
Take a look at this site, see how many projects are on it: http://sourceforge.net/ Are you seriously claiming that *all*, or even a majority, of those projects have had usability testing done? I hate to break this to you, but most of them don't even fucking run right!!
Yah, uh, you also have to be qualified as an astronaut and a scientist. Sitting in your underwear and posting to Slashdot doesn't help. :)
It's acid from the martians trying to disable the rovers! They also put a traffic ticket on them! And all the failed probes failed because the martians shot them down!
(These jokes aren't funny, but for some reason they always get modded up. Figured I'd hitch on to that gravy train."
If there's no God then where did you get the delicious pork sausages? Figure that one out!
I'm guessing the situation where you have to download a separate installer for Windows tablet is the rarer situation. I could be wrong. I've installed Vista on about a dozen tablets, with various hardware, and I've yet to have to install the "touch" driver separately. (I have no idea if any of those tablets have Wacom hardware, though.)
In any case, are Wacom tablets *pen-based*? Do they even work with touch?
And the version in Vista (which no longer allows you to add programs) was renamed to "Uninstall a Program" to keep its name consistent with the operation it performs. (They also added a separate control panel, "Turn Windows Features On Or Off" which you can use to, for example, activate IIS or Telnet.)
That actually makes for a pretty good example of how to "focus on the details" and keep the UI self-descriptive, rather than an example of Windows getting usability wrong like the grandparent is trying to make it.
RMS?
Basic personal hygiene, is my guess.
Windows has no touch screen support out of the box either.
Vista does. You're either full of shit, or talking about an ancient Windows version. Given, Vista doesn't have *multi-touch* screen support, but neither does Linux or OS X. And Windows 7 will. So... yah.
Please do the world a favor and stop spouting bullshit. If you don't know for sure, don't write the fucking post.
Why should software go through Ubuntu to get validated by UI Experts?
I'm guessing the *primary goal* is to get developers to have UI experts look at their software, PERIOD. I'm sure Shuttleworth would be happy if it were someone else's UI experts.
The sad but true fact is that today, the vast majority of open source software *never* has any usability testing done.
Read it like this: "Linux software needs usability testing done. The Ubuntu project can provide resources to help accomplish that."
If he wants to make Ubuntu financially self-sustaining, Linux desktops that play well with media conglomerates aren't going to get anywhere.
Huh? What the hell are you talking about?
Bottom line, I get the feeling he sees himself as the great entrepreneurial hope for all of Free Software and that it, in general, will be successful when his company is successful. Well, Mr. Shuttleworth, they were doing fine without you.
Not in the realm of developing usable applications and OSes, they weren't.
*A consistent user interface doesn't exist. Mac's Finder UI looks remarkably similar to the Disk Utility, it doesn't help you work with either one! If anything, one builds expectations the other fails to deliver.
So, since a 100% consistent user interface doesn't currently exist, we should therefore give up and not even attempt to make one? If everybody thought like you, nothing would ever happen.
The problem is, we have this odd expectation that any software, from a compiler, to a game, to an office suite to a browser should be instinctive by use of other software. That is, they think Word processor == Word. So when you take another word processor such as Open Office, they expect it to work -exactly- like Word. Any differences are seen as "faults".
And...?
What point are you trying to make? That Open Office should do things the exact opposite of Word, even if users are asking it to behave like Word? That seems a particularly stupid point. Look, if people want software that behaves like Word, and you write software that behaves like Word, then you've made the users happy. It's really that simple.
(Of course, when you actually get into testing user behavior/preferences, if you don't find at least a dozen places where Word's UI can be improved, you're probably not even really trying.)
Take someone fully new to computers and have them learn Linux or Windows and chances are they will figure out Linux faster.
Bullshit. Prove it.
Take someone who has used Windows all their life and give them Linux they complain because things aren't exactly the same.
Probably true. Once again, what's your point?
IE already has extensions, it has for AGES. At least since IE 5.5.
How do you think Google Toolbar runs in IE? Magic? Powdered unicorn horn? Hell, THIS VERY SLASHDOT STORY is about an IE extension.
What the hell drug did Mozilla give everybody to make them think IE doesn't have extensions? I feel like I'm the last human left and everybody else has been replaced by body-snatchers!!
Out of curiosity, have you actually *tried* IE8?
Or are you just posting the same ignorant bullshit we see on every Slashdot thread?
No, there is resistance because the solution proposed is inferior. Yes, the Ribbon is more intuitive, but it also takes up significantly more space(1) which diminishes long-term usability compared to a good menu system.
(1) Microsoft Office being the exception, since its menus and toolbars were cluttered as hell to begin with.
Translation: Ribbons always take up too much space. Also: in the largest, most complex applications to adopt it, it takes less space.
Look, if you just don't like it, just say you don't like it. Don't try to make up "rational" reasons, because you end up typing things like the above and just look like an ass. See also: the vast majority of posts to this topic. Most of which are from people who have never even used the fucking thing.
Guess why MS isn't releasing the bulk of their apps using the Ribbon UI?
The bulk of their apps are Windows and Office. Office has the Ribbon now, as does Windows 7 (and all its bundled apps). Live Messenger, another of their popular apps, is extremely Ribbon-esque. (It's a little odd, but same general concept.)
So... you're full of shit. Thanks for playing though.
That's because they hate change, not because the Ribbon is a worse UI.
Basically, their opinion has nothing to do with:
1) Whether the Ribbon is a better or worse UI
2) Whether they are more productive with the Ribbon than without it
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that those Excel users who marked "hate it" are more productive using it. I know I am, and I consider myself a pretty advanced Excel user. (Of course, I'm also open-minded and don't have a problem with change.)
There's also the possibility that the utility he's talking about utterly botched the implementation.
I mean, if your only exposure to (say) traditional menus was Lotus Notes, you'd probably declare traditional menus a complete failure, too.
Bottom line is that I hate having tools move around when I use them
Then you should like the ribbon because it doesn't do that.
In fact when I develop applications now I disable contextually useless items but not hide them so the user does not waste time looking for a tool they shouldn't be using.
Welcome to 1984, where that concept was new. Now I'd be concerned if you *weren't* doing that.
Just FYI, if you're going to design UIs, you should probably take the time to study UIs (like, for example, the ribbon) as part of your job. I mean, if you seriously hid non-relevant contextual items instead of disabling them, you're *way* behind the rest of the industry. That's not good for the usability of your products.
Reject the ribbon concept if you must, but at least gather the data first.
I guess that the worst problem with these technologies is monoculture.
But monoculture has nothing to do with genetics. Nothing at all. For example, most plantations growing bananas are a monoculture, but they aren't genetically modified at all.
So you're basically saying, "I have absolutely no evidence that GM is worse, but here's a completely unrelated example that has nothing to do with GM." We're not that stupid, buddy, bring facts or go home.
In 40 years, it never occurred to you to just stop drinking milk? It's not necessary for life, like water is, you know. Your 40 years is wasted either way.
That aside, it all sounds like placebo to me. Do you have any evidence to back-up this statement: "Upon doing some research, I found that pasteurization destroys enzymes that help us digest dairy products." You did research, right? So you should have a citation to provide, right?
Direct insertion of DNA sequences from other species is different to breeding and selection.
Of course it's DIFFERENT, duh.
Your burden of proof is to show us it's WORSE. So far you haven't done that. You've just laid out a lot of scary language designed by Greenpeace to frighten people who don't know jack about genetics or science-in-general. You'll find the audience here is not the man-on-the-street.
So, go ahead, prove that using GM to obtain specific traits is worse than breeding for specific traits. Prove it.
What's the difference between a textbook having the symbol saying "the people who used this symbol were bad", and a video game with the symbol saying "the people who used this symbol were bad, shoot them"?
The law should only refer to the swastika being used in a *positive* sense. Although that leaves it open to interpretation, it's no more interpretation than what is "educational" and what isn't.
What's wrong with Surface?
Our company has one, it's really nice. Are you trying to imply that it doesn't exist except in marketing, or something?
You can say that on television in the US. Dozens of channels do it every way. My favorite show, Penn and Teller's Bullshit has "bullshit" in the title and figures out some way to show topless women (almost) every episode. And it's on TV, in the US.
There's a catch, though: if you want to say it over public airwaves, you have to either follow the FCC's guidelines, or pay their fines. That's not a "free speech" issue, that's a contractual arrangement you follow in exchange for being able to use public airwaves.
If you're not using FCC airwaves (and every year, more and more cable-only channels are born), then say whatever the fucking shit you fucking want. You might get complaints from consumers and advertisers, but the government can't do dick about it.
Vista, like previous versions of Windows, requires driver installs for any piece of hardware that I plug in. They seem to have short-circuited the dialog box so that for some hardware that I plug in, it looks for the driver itself somewhere and installs it. However, the process still causes things to pause for a significant period and is far from "just works".
Ok, so let me get this straight: it does "just work", you admit in your post that it "just works", but because it doesn't do it instantaneously, you're arbitrarily declaring that it does not, in fact, "just work."
So the definition of "just work" just slides whenever Microsoft gets close to the old mark. This is going to be a problem in the long-term. :)
And in any case, are you really arguing that Windows would be better if it kept *all* of its drivers installed and loaded *all* of the time? It sounds like you're just saying Microsoft should bloat Windows beyond all belief to make you happy. If they did that, would you promise, cross-your-heart, to never complain about Windows bloat on Slashdot again?
For a lot of other hardware, it really requires driver CDs, and a lot of devices come with little stickers over their USB ports that say "STOP! Install driver CD first." Apparently, if you don't, bad things happen.
Try it. Bad things won't happen. The stickers are for Windows XP and 2000 users, not for Vista users. (I can't imagine what "bad things" would happen in XP or 2000 either, but whatever. Maybe the sticker is for the one Windows ME guy left.)
Of course, then you might actually have an informed opinion, and God knows we can't have that on Slashdot!!