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

List:       kde-usability
Subject:    Re: Usability Strategy Discussion
From:       Peter Gostelow <peter () grandad ! co ! za>
Date:       2002-07-06 3:33:14
[Download RAW message or body]

After reading this thread I'd like comments on whether I understand the issues 
involved.

1- The KDE project is neither commercial nor market driven, but a fun thing 
people like to do in their spare time.

2- Whatever public value KDE has, its real value depends on the developers.

3- KDE emulates a single user desktop on multiuser server/client network POSIX 
compliant operating systems.

4- KDE uses 3 interface conventions: X11, MacOs, and Windows.

5- A UI is an interface layer between the user and the computer (apps).

6- The UI was conceived to:
	a) Cut user training costs.
	b) Give the apps a uniform 'look and feel'.
	b) Lower application development costs.
	c) Maximise reusable interface code.
	d) Add your point here...

7- A UI allows the user to access apps forming an app/user relationship.

8- An app customises the UI to make the app more usable.

9- A good UI offers a range of features for apps to improve their usability.

10- A GUI allows the users to imagine their work, rather than describe it.

The GNU/Linux was motivated by people who wanted to explore an operating 
system with minimal restraint. The idea of presenting a graphical view of a 
text based system is a rather interesting challenge (er, to some..). The fact 
that _other_ people want to actually _use_ it, is largely accidental. 
Admittedly, the KDE project does advertise 'an alternative' GUI to existing 
computer users, which is open to misinterpretation.

On the one hand, hackers haven't said, "Our business is to gain market share 
by selling our blah blah OS even if it means working for nothing in our spare 
time." On the other hand, the computer industry hasn't said, "A free (speech) 
OS is essential to our growth and progress." While this incompatibility 
exists, is it reasonable to question KDE's usability when the system itself 
hasn't found a 'user market'?

Are people raising the usabilty question because - like the hackers - they 
finally have a free OS to explore usability issues? While a free OS directly 
affects hackers in their craft, it indirectly affects all other computer 
fields, too. Perhaps 'usability hackers' see the same advantages software 
hackers do and want to join in. If so, will they adopt a similar informal - 
spare time - interest, or cling to formal structures for fear of falling off 
the Earth? Getting jailed is more likely (e.g. kivio/adobe tm issue).

To me, point three is the real crux of the matter: a single user GUI dropped 
on a multiuser system. A desktop model is too restrictive and doesn't emulate 
the Unix environment very well. Users _want_ to login with several accounts, 
without logging out, _and_ from different network points. Being able to 
contact other users and network services is just as vital as monitoring an 
account's disk usage and resource allocation.

However, multimedia and printing services should form part of the OS itself 
(GNU/Linux), or the GUI driver (i.e. X11). It's possible to include 
multimeadia as part of the user interface, but that exceeds the 'window 
manger' definition and certainly blurs the distinction between a 
multimeadia/printing system and a ui with that capability.

Introducing usability into the KDE project won't work if it interferes with 
each developer's 'fun factor'. But accessability issues with app developers 
might attract their attention, although this probably depends heavily on any 
ongoing X11/QT/KDE discussions? As a project, KDE should have a well defined 
scope and not exceed that by emulating missing parts other sub-systems don't 
supply (e.g. printing) - just to make GNU/Linux 'usable'.

Perhaps usability hackers should have separate projects to thrash out suitable 
approachs to Bazaar type projects before intergrating with them? I guess 
developers are skeptical about usability techniques because they don't see 
how it benefits them. Once a test project gets results, maybe they'll be more 
interested. If the project presents results to the KDE team, identifying the 
exact problems they're trying to solve, and possible alternatives they 
dismissed or ignored, it might advance usability far more than pursuasive 
argument. Assuming the solutions work:)

 btw, I thought 'hacker' applied to software geeks only, until I read the 
jargon file. Did I use it correctly?

tia, Peter.
_______________________________________________
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]