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

List:       kde-usability
Subject:    Re: KDE3 defaults
From:       Sander Devrieze <s.devrieze () pandora ! be>
Date:       2003-08-17 14:04:17
[Download RAW message or body]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Op zondag 17 augustus 2003 00:42, schreef William Leese:
<snip>
> >>>If you give a user too many features he will ignore them?  Then what's
> >>> the harm in having them in?
> >>
> >>Clutter. It harms access to features the user finds more important.
> >
> >?
>
> See it this way. Your application has 30 different features. Five
> features are used by 90% of your user base. For ideal usability these 5
> features should be the most accessible (e.g. on the toolbar, being the
> first five buttons). The other 25 features should be accessible, but
> shouldn't compromise the accessibility of the 5 mostly used features.

I agree, but we are talking about *one* feature, not 2 features...I thaught 
1+0=1 You didn't? :p

> >>OK. Let's just make this clear. Defaults settings are used by people new
> >>to KDE. They are not used by people who know how to change their
> >>environment to suit their needs. Therefore default settings need to work
> >>optimally for new users. If our most of our new users are Windows
> >>converts, our defaults need to cater to them, if most of our new users
> >>are GNOME converts, we set our defaults to something exGNOME users will
> >>feel comfortable with. So who are 'most of our new users'? They're going
> >>to be Windows converts, not *nix veterans. So we must have defaults that
> >>a Windows user can live with.
> >
> >Not always: we shouldn't copy the bad things and make them default
> > settings. If MS Windows people use KDE they have to discover after a time
> > that KDE has much better usability even if this makes it in the beginning
> > for the user a little bit harder. Why? It's just good for the adoption of
> > KDE because users will loves KDE not only because it's cheaper...
>
> It's not one way or the other. Defaults should be a balance between
> making the environment comfortable for Windows converts, yet displaying
> the strength of KDE.

I agree...so what's the problem? :s

> For example there is no reason to change KDE's
> default single click policy to a Windows-like double click policy
> because the user will learn this very quickly.µ

It's also bad for RSI reasons. Maybe we can make this clear to the user why we 
do it this way. e.g.: warning when you like to change it to double click 
policy and/or remarkt this in an introduction of KDE.

> But OTOH it would be very
> hard for a new user to get the hang of the linux filesystem, so while
> Quick Browser is great when you know about the FS, it provides only
> confusion to a new user looking for his documents.

Interactive tutorials will be nice IMO ;)

And again: when the user see how logical and simple the filesystem tree is, he 
will like Linux more. It's not because there are problems with this that we 
need to implement the bad and difficult MS Windows way...

- -- 
Mvg, Sander Devrieze.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/P4toK+G8aHNHCSMRAsxCAJ9kTsVvLKm7qJGCDEOnt5Vx6BYLtwCgmmX6
0byUbCyxUiPGhEX9IA3n7Vg=
=rlRb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
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]