[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-devel
Subject:    Re: Ui enhancements
From:       "Friedrich W. H. Kossebau" <Friedrich.W.H () Kossebau ! de>
Date:       2003-01-26 3:02:45
[Download RAW message or body]

Michael Kreitzer wrote:
> Uno Engborg wrote:
> > We just have had a very heated discussion on the kde-usability list on
> > adding more configurability to KDE and most people there would say no to
> > add any single more thing to configure almost regardless how useful or
> > slick  it would be, as it would add complexity to an already  complex
> > system. In this case the readability problem can be solved just by using
> > another background.

This is not constructive! One chooses his background for some reason.

Anyway, regarding the readability on the screen: most people I watched
didn't happen to change their desktop icons that often. When even then
they search for something on the desktop they first go by symbol then
reassure by text. So I don't think readability is that important here,
but aesthetics, too.

> This has got to be the most rediculous thing I have ever heard.  To think
> someone would even think that not adding configurability is a "Good Thing"
> 'cause it might step on some poor newbies toes is absurd.  Create a button
> and label it "Advanced."  Problem solved.  If the newbie gets his poor
> underused mind in a twist 'cause he clicked the "Advanced" he has no one to
> blame but himself.  Forcing users who want to and do know what they are doing
> to resort to code modification to get desired changes is NOT a "Good Thing."
> Configurability and ease of use do not have to be mutually exclusive.  Give
> the users multiple levels of abstraction and allow them to select the one
> they are comfortable with.  Hell if you're THAT concerned with ease of use
> put the option for increasing the level fo configuration in some obscure text
> file somewhere and don't tell anyone about it.  That way at least you'll
> avoid your dreaded "newbie confusion" factor.

I totally agree. There is "no one size fits all" in configurabiblity.
Pleasing one gets another one angry. I have no idea where to start and
how to structure the levels of abstraction, though. 

Perhaps I would be very informative to collect a lot of users' config
settings and try to locate common needs for setting modifications
different to the default ones. By having the users categorize themselves
somewhere between newbie and power user and/or some other useful
classification systems one could get the idea what to offer at what
level.

I like GNU/Linux and KDE because I can adjust it closer to my needs and
likings(!) than any other system I ever got to use. But this is only
because it _is_ so much configurable. My needs and likings are other
than somebody else's, which are other than another one's. Thus is my
furniture. Is my favoured food. Is my clothing. Is my girlfriend (hope
so at least ;). This is about freedom. 

Think about why one thinks more configurability is making it more
complex. 
My theory: Because one often has no idea where to change what. This
happens when one is not playing with the settings but having a _special
need_, like changing from single click to double click (it's in because
of freedom, too). 
The solution cannot be to restrict configurability in general but to
develop a better (as in straigther) access to the wanted setting switch. 

No idea right now how to do this...

Friedrich
 
>> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]