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

List:       kde-usability
Subject:    Re: Kicker bar maiming
From:       Frans Englich <frans.englich () telia ! com>
Date:       2003-12-21 9:17:17
[Download RAW message or body]

On Sunday 21 December 2003 07:57, Sander Devrieze wrote:
<snip>
> The beneath arguments are _not mine_; it are arguments that I've already
> heard and which have some clue _IMO_.

Then they're basically yours. Since it is you who will stand up for them, 
argue for them and find that they have some clue ;-)

<snip>

> > You're missing the big picture - I'm sorry to come with sad news but you
> > are suffering from the @kde.org syndrome.
>
> The @kde.org syndrome? Is that infectious? :D

As many other deceases this is highly individual. As a decease it is quite 
fascinating, it emerges from too frequent KDE hacking and using, and its 
effect is ten-fold multiplied by hanging out in #kde-devel, where btw, the 
most effected are encounted. It is yet unknown if it is lethal, but if it is, 
it is perhaps an evolutional way of keeping an healthy balance. 
As of this time, it is impossible to becoming imune to the @kde.org decease 
but a range of preventive methods is known; Hanging out on #gnome(although 
there is cases which shows quite the opposite) and talking to people that 
does not suffer from @kde.org.

>
> > I am also quite convinced konsole is used by advanced users but are you
> > aware how many that play kfouleggs?
>
> So for these people it will be easier to add there KFouleggs icon in
> Kicker, just like for the advanced people.

Not quite sure I'm following you.. But yes, it is just as easy to add 
kfouleggs as konsole no matter user type. Agreed.

>
> > Or do you know how many who use kandy?
> > Believe it or not, from KDE's total userbase there is more people using
> > all those (obscure :) apps than konsole. It is not a question about
> > whether "a lot" or "many" use konsole/whatever - it must be compared to
> > the total userbase. And if you do that, you will see that the
> > power/advanced users are a fraction.
>
> A fraction that could have an option in the KPersonalizer step.

Not following. Let me explain my reasoning once more:

Those that want konsole is a fraction of the total userbase, so is those who 
wants kfouleggs there, etc. ad infinitum. So lets say we don't try to please 
some of those really small usergroups in the default kicker(as we currently 
do with the konsole entry) and instead move it out to kpersonalizer. What 
have happened then? It is exact the same situation - if you don't plan for 
special treating one small usergroup(ie. those who wants the konsole) you 
will have to have a step in KPersonalizer  which includes /all/ entries any 
small possible group wants(konsole, kfouleggs, etc. etc.). This is just not 
sustainable. It is not a fraction of the userbase which goes through the 
configuration step - it is all who goes through it in order to please the 
minority. 
This is IMHO how configuring should work: The default settings should be 
adapted to the majority or the lowest common denominator(as in "all use KMail 
and Konqueror"). Then it becomes clear that *alot* of behavior/features does 
not suit some users and they will have to configure and adapt it to 
their /specific/ needs. Then there's two options: Explicitly ask for 
configuration(kpersonalizer), that means having every user going through a 
tiresome task just because some minorities want special behavior; or simply 
let the minorities identify their special needs and configure it 
afterwards(right click, add/remove on kicker).
Also, having an extra step in kperzonalizer is not optional. Tell me one 
configuration option which is not optional. The user will still have to parse 
the form and make a decision. This is what making an interface simple, fast 
to interpret and use: hiding unnecessary information and lowering the amounts 
of decisions necessary to take.
Besides, how on earth can the user know what it wants in the kicker when (s)he 
haven't even seen it yet?

In short, removing the proposed kicker entries, and skipping a kpersonalizer 
step will makes things easier to the majority while some minorities will have 
to right click the kicker. All in all, it's a win.
(And we power users shouldn't complain - we're afterall the group which will 
have easiest for configuring KDE)

> > You can put it in a very simple way: The defaults should be
> > tailored to the majority and the minority is the one's who should go
> > configuring.
> > And if we should follow your logic, we should indeed keep konsole but
> > also add kfouleggs, kandy, ktimer, etc , etc since they are "really much"
> > used(and actually even more used than konsole).
> > As you say yourself, configuring this is really easy, but it is still a
> > step to do - isn't it better if the power users(which isn't many) do that
> > instead of having the /majority/ adapting and experience the hazzle?
>
> I think the power users (and also other users) likes it much more if they
> can configure all things in a few steps in one time (first time KDE starts)
> in place of configuring smal things in different times after they find the
> courage to change these things that they already bothers them for several
> weeks. (same for other users)

But this bypasses the core issue: The usage of KDE can generally be made 
easier if config steps were reduced. The only one suffering is those with 
special needs(and making configuring easier for them, such as a kpersonalizer 
step hurts everyone else and that's why it's not sustainable). I refer to my 
paragraph above which discusses this in more detail.

<snip>

> > And bash is definately not user friendly.
>
> I was comparing it with the CLI of MS DOS ;-)

And when I wrote that I was very close to add "(perhaps when compared to DOS 
but that's OT)".
Just because it is /more/ /friendly/ than DOS/whatever does not make 
it /friendly/. If we skip comparing different languages, focuses on the 
relativeness and instead compares to the user we realize that (s)he still 
have to /learn/ a scripting language in order to use it.
In other words, I don't care if it is tens times more useful than DOS it is 
*still* *useless* for the ordinary user.

> > I don't want endless discussions on kde-usability. It is so boring and
> > unproductive.
>
> But sometimes it's necessary...

When is it not necessary?

> > Do you or anyone else have a reason to why that patch should not be
> > commited?
>
> See above: IMO the patch may be commited *if* there's something in
> KPersonalizer like described in my whish report.

You will have to explain again in what way a kpersonalizer step would make 
things easier, taking the whole usergroup into account.


			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]