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

List:       kde-usability
Subject:    Re: Fwd: Re: KMail annoyance
From:       Frans Englich <frans.englich () telia ! com>
Date:       2003-12-13 20:28:26
[Download RAW message or body]

On Saturday 13 December 2003 18:54, Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> On Saturday 13 December 2003 18:37, Casey Allen Shobe wrote:
> > Well I'd be happy enough with the checkbox (and am okay now as I have

> > but do you think this should be enabled by default, even with
> > a properly working checkbox?  I think the amount of users which would
> > benefit from it is very small...and as they are typically more
> > advanced (i.e. developers), they could easily just switch it on.
>
> The problem with disabling this feature is that many users who would

Well, all /developers/ like it.

> like it will miss it. And if it's really easy to turn it off (as it is
> with a checkbox) then I don't see a reason not to enable it by default.

I find this issue a typical example of where the average user have been 
tramped on in the belief that an software developer is a good representative 
of a typical user, while it actually represents a fraction. To put it in 
another way, in order to build software with Good Usability we developers 
have to look up from our own belly.

Indeed "many" users will miss it but it is only a fraction of how many who 
will get annoyed by it - just as Casey Allen. We could easily assume those 
who want it represent 1% out of the total userbase(the remaining - 99%). 
*Which* group should adapt to the other one? And if this is a new feature of 
3.2, how many bugreport will we not save? As Ingo said afterall, it is really 
easy to turn it on.
I only judge from this thread since I run 3.1.4, but perhaps the detecting 
algoritm should be narrowed down to triggering on '^PATCH:.*' and 
'^\[PATCH\].*'(regexps) in the subject? Because developers certainly write 
other things than patches. With only these two patterns(or one more obvious 
perhaps) the chances are perhaps so big the option could even be left out.

Another similar example where config/feature bloat is added because of the 
conception of "all who really use this app/KDE is developers" is from a 
changelog I read - "Added option for [...]. beacuse it is of huge help when 
debugging the app"(in rough terms). There is *a couple* of people debugging 
an app and hopefully not very often. This option should just be left out 
instead of making things harder for 99.999...% of the user base. Lets assume 
someone gets the idea to implement configurability which is of interest for a 
couple(literary speaking) of users, then *atleast* leave the GUI out.

One *very* easy way of solving config bloat and user frustrasion is to make 
really sure the default settings follows the taste of the majority. And this 
applies to this KMail example indeed.

Personally, I think KDE suffers from *huge* config bloat, please do not 
confuse that with functionality, configurability, adapability, flexibility 
etc. When I use the term config bloat I refer to the HCI/UI aspect.

Perhaps we could add a section in the KUIG(really in the sense of *guide* 
lines) discussing some easy ways to solve config bloat/problems, such as "try 
to implement in such way an config option is not needed"; "Make sure the 
default setting fits the majority"; "Except from some very rare exceptions, 
always assume the amount of users with high software/computer competence(read 
developers) are a very small minority" etc. Would such an comment be of 
interest for KUIG?

As always implicit stated when someone opens his/her mouth - IMO.

			Frans


_______________________________________________
kde-usability mailing list
kde-usability@mail.kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-usability
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]