Hi!

On this and on other lists, there have been a push to reduce configurabil=
ity,=20
because it would "confuse" users or because some KDE-haters complain abou=
t=20
it.

I've never heard a user of ANY software product complain about=20
over-configurability, only from people who don't like said software produ=
ct.

There is no such thing as over-configurability, only stupid defaults and =
badly=20
reachable configuration options (but removing those options will make it=20
worse, not better!). Novices will just use the defaults and won't be affe=
cted=20
by any configuration options at all.

The problem about KDE-haters is that:
- They don't want KDE to become better.
- They don't want KDE to succeed.
- The whining/complaining won't stop when you do what they want.

For example look at the product that has probably more configuration opti=
ons=20
than any other: MS Office.
Have you ever heard about users complaining about it being=20
"over-configurable"? I haven't. Instead it is very often used as *the*=20
example of how to design a user-friendly package.

As an example, the suggestion to add more window-placement strategies was=
=20
smacked down of this, even though a patch exists:

http://lists.kde.org/?l=3Dkwin&m=3D102168612625109&w=3D2

"And yes, adding many features rarely used _do_ hurt other users. In the=20
specific case of window placement, adding the new policies to the combo-b=
ox=20
would be required (in kcontrol) and this will add more to the already=20
confusing over-configurability of KDE, a thing that is very often critici=
zed."

Criticized by whom? Buy KDE-users? I doubt that.

Let's face it:

It doesn't matter what you do, the bashing and whining will never stop. T=
here=20
are thousands of MSFT-shareholders out there and even more MCSEs and othe=
r=20
people who will hate anything non-Windows no matter what you do. If you d=
o=20
things differently than in Windows, bashers will complain about it not be=
ing=20
"user friendly" (and the fact that it's not in Windows is enough to claim=
=20
it's not user friendly, unfortunately) or "over-configured", if you do th=
ings=20
like in Windows, the very same people will claim KDE is just a rip-off.=20
Trying to please bashers is fighting a losing battle.

I always liked KDE because it combined useful features of all three DEs (=
Win,=20
Mac, classical Unix) and threw in intelligent and useful additions.=20
Especially the latter are in danger. For example I still wonder why the=20
TearOffHandles were removed in the quickbrowsers in kicker. It was a very=
=20
useful feature and made quickbrowsers really useful.

But lately, I see more and more the "If it's not in Windows or MacOS it's=
=20
unfriendly and worthless" - attitude against everything that is new or=20
different, which makes me very sad. Windows has some good elements, sure,=
 but=20
it is certainly not the best interface imaginable. For example think of a=
ll=20
the registry-hacks that exist because of lack of GUI-configurability. Is =
it=20
really worth to introduce the same horror to KDE "just because it's like =
that=20
in Windows, therefore it must be right"?

Thanks for listening,

Roland

--=20
Always remember that you are unique.  Just like everyone else.


_______________________________________________
kde-usability mailing list
kde-usability@mail.kde.org
http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-usability