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

List:       kde-usability
Subject:    "Over configurability" - please don't listen to bashers!
From:       Roland Seuhs <roland () hasos ! com>
Date:       2002-06-28 17:40:47
[Download RAW message or body]

Hi!

On this and on other lists, there have been a push to reduce configurability, 
because it would "confuse" users or because some KDE-haters complain about 
it.

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

There is no such thing as over-configurability, only stupid defaults and badly 
reachable configuration options (but removing those options will make it 
worse, not better!). Novices will just use the defaults and won't be affected 
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 options 
than any other: MS Office.
Have you ever heard about users complaining about it being 
"over-configurable"? I haven't. Instead it is very often used as *the* 
example of how to design a user-friendly package.

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

http://lists.kde.org/?l=kwin&m=102168612625109&w=2

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

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. There 
are thousands of MSFT-shareholders out there and even more MCSEs and other 
people who will hate anything non-Windows no matter what you do. If you do 
things differently than in Windows, bashers will complain about it not being 
"user friendly" (and the fact that it's not in Windows is enough to claim 
it's not user friendly, unfortunately) or "over-configured", if you do things 
like in Windows, the very same people will claim KDE is just a rip-off. 
Trying to please bashers is fighting a losing battle.

I always liked KDE because it combined useful features of all three DEs (Win, 
Mac, classical Unix) and threw in intelligent and useful additions. 
Especially the latter are in danger. For example I still wonder why the 
TearOffHandles were removed in the quickbrowsers in kicker. It was a very 
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 
unfriendly and worthless" - attitude against everything that is new or 
different, which makes me very sad. Windows has some good elements, sure, but 
it is certainly not the best interface imaginable. For example think of all 
the registry-hacks that exist because of lack of GUI-configurability. Is it 
really worth to introduce the same horror to KDE "just because it's like that 
in Windows, therefore it must be right"?

Thanks for listening,

Roland

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