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

List:       kde-usability
Subject:    Re: simpler UI for konqy
From:       Carlos Leonhard Woelz <carloswoelz () imap-mail ! com>
Date:       2004-01-17 18:48:02
Message-ID: 200401171701.42756.carloswoelz () imap-mail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/signed)]


On Saturday 17 January 2004 11:34, Max O'Shea wrote:
> I think the moment you start having two browsers both using KHTML, things
> are going to start getting confusing.

Why? One of them has to be the default one. And Konqueror is much more than a 
browser.

> To look at the main competition (and let's be honest, it is the main
> competition with 90 something percent), in Microsoft Windows, if you're
> file browsing and you then type a web address into the address box, it'll
> convert itself into a complete web browser. Then if you type in the path to
> some folder, it'll convert itself back into a file manager.

This has advantages and problems.

Problems:
- Ask in your office how many people know the windows explorer is the internet 
explorer. They don't. People are task oriented. If they want to browse the 
internet, they open a web browser. If they decide to manage files, they fire 
up a file manager.
 - The "dancing application" is a ui nightmare: you confuse the menu and 
toolbar items from the two views: if they have different menus, toolbars and 
configuration, why are they the same application?
- Sometimes the task of managing files and browsing the web is confused and 
mix. In this scenario, ie makes sure you can't handle the strange cases.

Advantages:
 - You end up with only one capable web browser "brand".
 - You find a way to work with specialized interfaces even for tabs open in 
the same instance of the application. By switching the tap, you switch the 
interface. (Is this really an advantage? I don't think so.)


> I think 
> Konqueror already does this, but it doesn't do it enough. When you're using
> it as a web browser, there are too many features still there that are more
> for file managing than web browsing, and when you're using it as a file
> manager, there are still too many buttons that might be better just for
> when it's a web browser. I know Internet Explorer is rubbish, but in visual
> terms, it isn't so bad.

I think differently.

If you are a regular user you don't care about computers, you want the job 
done. For this users, why not two "stable" interfaces (even if it is the same 
technology behind the scenes) with two different brands?

If you are a power user, you can handle the heavy user interface. Konqueror is 
_excellent_ for this kind of use today. You have learning gains by keeping 
the same interface for all views. Imagine the configuration options, the 
menus and the toolbars changing _totally_ after switching tabs. I mean, today 
Konqueror acts a bit like it, but it _adds_ stuff. The things it has on 
default _stay_. And that is great usability wise.

[Attachment #5 (application/pgp-signature)]

_______________________________________________
kde-usability mailing list
kde-usability@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-usability


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