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

List:       kde-look
Subject:    Re: On menus generally
From:       Marko Samastur <markos () elite ! org>
Date:       2000-04-01 17:14:15
[Download RAW message or body]

Wilco Greven wrote:
> 
> > > I'd just like to add a warning about this obsessivness with
> > > configurability. I think this is one of the problems with Windows
> > > environment, which often gives you twelve ways of doing things, but none
> > > good.
> >
> > Right. There's something to be said for concentrating development
> > efforts on truly worthwhile features, such as our office apps,
> > stability, interoperability, etc. Configurability should really
> > be an afterthought. Design the thing well in the first place
> > and worry about the small proportion of users who want things to
> > work a certain way later.
> 
> Don't configurability and good design go hand in hand? IMO a well designed

When it comes to user interface design, then in general no.

> application can be made very configurable, although not all the options should
> be visible for the user. Look at kparts. It is a good design and it provides
> configurability.

kparts as far as I know are not (a part of) user interface. Great
configurability is not always a feature and is often just a way for a
programmer to avoid thinking it through, how something should really
work. This might not be so true for low level stuff, but it is certainly
even more so for everything user sees.

There are some truisms that should be infront of developers eyes, when
they design something user sees. One of them is: "Everything little
thing you add to user interface is additional information." More
information = more thing to learn & more things to go wrong.

That doesn't mean, we should avoid configurability at all costs. It just
means, we should really think about how much it benefits the user.

Marko

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