On Monday February 18, 2002 08:51, David Hugh-Jones wrote:
> This is a bit of a rant but hopefully a directed one.
>
> I think KDE has optionitis. That is, there are too many unnecessary
> options.

We don't have many choices here. Either KDE has to begin removing 
non-essential features, or KDE has to make those features optional.

Rather than take the easy way out and call for removing options, roll up 
your sleeves and try making the KControl modules already there easier to 
navigate.

> * Options should make sense in user terms. ("Limit pixmap cache" - no;
> "Use less memory" - yes.) Even if you can explain a confusing option
> with context help, the fact that it is confusing should alert you to the
> question "Is this choice relevant to the end user"?

We already have such things.  If you don't understand an option, use the 
What's This help.  The option is there to explain what it actually does; 
What's This is context-specific help to explain what it means.

> * Advanced options should be separated from simple options if possible,
> e.g. on a separate tab.

Then someone tomorrow will complain that KDE uses too many tabs.

> * Don't put an option in just because you're not sure what the best way
> to work is. Only put an option in if you are sure that different users
> need things to work differently.

KDE's optionitis is mostly in the realm of look and feel - the one area 
where users want to feel empowered, the one area where taste counts most.  
In Look and Feel people do need things to work differently, in order to be 
comfortable.  Most of your examples are in this category, and under this 
policy they would remain.

-- 
Neil Stevens
neil@qualityassistant.com

Don't think of a bug as a problem.  Think of it as a call to action.
_______________________________________________
kde-usability mailing list
kde-usability@mail.kde.org
http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-usability