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

List:       kde-look
Subject:    Re: Maybe a good idea : Konqi Desktop Buddy
From:       Dave Leigh <dave.leigh () cratchit ! org>
Date:       2001-11-26 13:24:45
[Download RAW message or body]

On Monday 26 November 2001 08:06, David Golden wrote:
> Devil's advocate mode engaged:

Mode indicator noted.

> Clippy does suck -  but is that simply because MS implemented the idea
> spectacularly badly?   For one thing, clippy interrupts your work, with
> always-on-top dialogs, and doesn't get out of the way when it is told to,
> and is difficult to completely disable (you have to massacre the Actors
> direcotry of Office), often coming back when it is closed.

I think the concept is basically flawed. Look at what it does... Clippy waits 
until you are attempting to perform a task, recognizes the task that you are 
performing, and then offers assistance. Sound reasonable? Then think about 
this: it can't recognize that you're attempting to do something unless you're 
already doing it.

In other words, Clippy, /by design/, attempts to assist you with those tasks 
for which  you don't require assistance. Doesn't sound so reasonable anymore. 
Doesn't even sound necessary, or even smart. Sounds like an annoying 
distraction, really.

> At the same time, things like AMOR, Sheep, etc are extremely popular among
> a certain segment of the population.  They hang around pulling faces etc,
> but do not interrupt your workflow demanding a response.  Why not make them
> pop up the occasional context-sensitive useful tip, instead of the
> completely random tips currently popped up?

Remember that Clippy is an assistant, it is NOT help. By this I mean that it 
goes beyond informational messages and attempts to do for you. By its nature 
it demands a response. On the other hand, something like GNOME's "Wanda the 
Fish," modified to simply display context-sensitive tips, would be far less 
offensive.

I'm not entirely opposed to assistants, either. I think, if implemented, they 
should stay in the bit-corral until summoned BY THE USER. The time to invoke 
such a thing is NOT when the user is already demonstrating competence (as 
Microsoft does). The time to invoke an assistant is when the user admits he 
needs the help.

> One other note: a lot of the time, people I've seen using Office, when they
> encountered a bug/asked for help,  blamed clippy (even hitting the screen),
> rather than blaming the real culprits, Microsoft.  I'd be interested to
> know how much this displacment of blame helped MS's public image.  People
> may hate Clippy, but they were hating Clippy, rather than attacking some
> hapless support tech.  They may hat MS for inventing clippy, in turn, but
> that's "one hate", rather than lots of hates for all the bugs...

Hmmm. Let me paraphrase this: "MS created a scapegoat rather than accept 
responsibility for poor design and fix it.  Therefore (by inference) it might 
be a good idea for US to create a scapegoat. That way we won't have to fix 
our mistakes... we can blame the *cartoon* instead."

That said, I think it's an interesting observation. I also wonder how much  
mileage Gates got out of blaming the cartoon.

-- 
dave.leigh@cratchit.org
http://www.cratchit.org

"Cogito ergo I'm right and you're wrong."
-- Blair Houghton

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