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

List:       kde-usability
Subject:    Re: KDE 3.0.2 Usability Study - First Steps
From:       Joseph Manojlovich <josephm () mail ! sis ! pitt ! edu>
Date:       2002-07-20 5:15:44
[Download RAW message or body]

I don't think that I've made my point clear here. I apologize, for this is
most likely my fault due to my poor communication. I do not want or expect
KDE to become just like MS Windows or Mac OS. I hope and expect the
default KDE style to have it's own flair and traits, seperate but equal to
the other desktops.

What I do want is to ensure that, as reasonable, KDE provides the
functionality to mimic common behaviors from other desktops. I never
suggested that this be default, or argued that it was on itself better
than KDE doing its own usability thing. I just feel that it's important
for KDE to be able to incorporate habits of the users coming from other
desktops.

Now to the point by point :-) Don't bother reading if the above provides
enough answers for you.

On Fri, 19 Jul 2002, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:

> the grand assumption here is that people do not want their desktop to be 
> consistent and easy to use but rather want it immediately familiar in every 
> detail. and when i say "want" i don't mean what they would say if you asked 
> them but what they would say through their actions after using the thing for 
> 6 months. 

Sure. What is so wrong about starting a new KDE user with the Windows look
and feel as defined in kpersonalizer, then gradually having them
transition to the KDE defaults over those 6 months? To me this makes much
more sense than presenting them on day 1 with a new system and forcing
them to transition all at once.

I never said to copy Windows or Mac OS in every detail, just when it's
reasonable, and only then as an option off by default, so that users could
turn it on to feel more at home, if they chose so.

> people often say that Linux GUIs are a pile of  inconsistency that is less 
> usable or at best ocassionally as usable as commercially available desktops. 
> and they are right. how do you suggest we improve on this when the overriding 
> urge is to mimic the faults of half a dozen different systems? we get all the 
> worst of the competitors years after they've moved on!

I would suggest that KDE continues to break new ground with UI design,
while still providing options to make the system feel comfortable to
people while transitioning. This can be done, within reason, as with
double clicking that is off by default. This is not breaking the UI, and
is not the cause for panic or exclamation points.
 
> instead how about we mimic the best things, drop the poor things and move on!

Again, by all means do so, drop double clicking from the default KDE.
What's that, it's already done? Than what are all the bytes about here?

> and i'm not suggesting anything radical like "let's get rid of vertical list 
> menus" ... i'm suggesting that when it comes to the details that we attempt 
> to create an interface that works well.

And go right ahead. What I would ask for is that in this wonderful new
interface, if there is the opportunity to make a behavior more like the
other desktops, then please provide the option for people.
 
> in all honesty, i'm very, very glad that you weren't around designing 
> interfaces in the early 80s. we wouldn't have GUIs at all. everyone knew text 
> interfaces, few had ever seen a mouse! wouldn't want to help them out with a 
> better way of using computers. nope. give 'em what they know, that way 
> they'll continue to use it. 
> 
> whatever.

"whatever" indeed. I would have been the first to argue for GUIs, as they
in general greatly increase productivity in most applications. I also
would have probably understood that not every application is suddenly
better as a GUI compared to a text based interface. This is true even
today.

Example, I would have probably been the one arguing for keeping some but
not all terminals text based. Certain tasks like inventory just don't need
the clutter of a GUI, and forcing the 9 to 5 workers to learn a GUI, just
because I read a book that said it would make them 2% more efficient,
isn't going to cut it. Notice that many interfaces such as cash
registers are still text based today.

There has to be a noticable and dramatic improvment for me to suggest a
change in a system, forcing months of interface relearning. For the topic
at hand, no, I don't think single versus double clicking is that much of a
difference. But again, I never said to change the defaults, just to
provide the option.

Either way, this point really isn't relavent to the topic, and is a
personal jab, suggesting the lack of a real argument. Sorry.
 
> i don't expect people to notice, in fact, i hope they DON'T notice. one goal 
> of an interface should be to get out of the way. ask people who use windows 
> regularly how effective that interface is at "geting out of your way". 
> uniformity in clicking is one way to help get that interface "out of your 
> way".

But you're making my point here for me. They do notice, when they get 2
copies of every app, after double clicking on the app icon. It's weird to
them. They don't like it. And they blame KDE and not themselves.

I worked a summer in a linux lab a few years back. We ran KDE 1, and in
general the users loved it since it was familar to them. The one thing
they kept coming to the helpdesk having problems with is that pesky
problem of 2 apps or 2 files opening. And no matter how many times I
explained how to just click it once, they still double clicked. They
couldn't help it. Eventually they modified their behavior to deal with it.
You know how? They automatically started closing one of the 2 apps opened.
Not very usable, I think.

> what incenses me is that anything not resembling windows is decried as 
> "UNFAMILIAR! UNFAMILIAR! NEW USERS WON'T LIKE IT!" .. 

Some say that. They might as well just stick with MS Windows then. 

> perhaps my motivations are different than yours.

I don't think I know what the heck your motivation is anymore. I want KDE
to be a great desktop too. For me, that involved not fighting the habits
of the users, within reason. That's called good usabililty. 

> one word for you: defaults.

IIRC, MS did make single clicking default when you installed the active
desktop. (Correct me someone if I'm wrong??? My beta copy of IE 4 had on
by default. Maybe MS got rid of it by the final release for some...
weird... reason... :-)

On another note, it seems that you didn't get to the last part of my
email. Maybe the text got cut off in transmission or something. To save
you the trouble of having to go back and read it, I'll just summarize of
the quote it contained:

"The only way to prevent [...] errors is through interface designs that
take into consideration the inevitability of habit formation."

Finally, I think you just need to relax and realize that this is not a
personal confrontation going on here. 

Thank you. :-)

--
Joe Manojlovich
josephm@sis.pitt.edu
http://www2.sis.pitt.edu/~josephm
"I'm sorry, but I cannot divulge information about
 that customer's secret illegal account."










_______________________________________________
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]