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

List:       kde-usability
Subject:    What is a good default?   [was: Re: Absolutely amazing kde style]
From:       Maurizio Colucci <seguso.forever () tin ! it>
Date:       2004-10-08 15:19:30
Message-ID: 4166B002.9020109 () tin ! it
[Download RAW message or body]

[ In previous posts: Maurizio suggests Comix as a default style for kde 
4, because it is minimalistic, not heavy, unobtrusive, polished and 
clear. Brandon replies that a default style should look more familiar, 
like plastik, instead of looking so "different". He also complains of 
Comix not to be "understated" enough.]

Brendan wrote:
 > On Friday 08 October 2004 10:22, Maurizio Colucci wrote:
 >
 >>I agree this is a common opinion. But an opposite, equally common,
 >>opinion is that a default should make you scream "WOW!". The exact
 >>opposite of "understated".
 >
 >
 > Honestly, I think this is not an entirely valid opinion. If you want 
 >to alienate people, sure, the default should scream "Wow!", but I guess
 > you really have to define what you want. For most people, I think
 > Comix would be a bad choice as default.

While using Comix as a default style for KDE may be a bad idea, let's 
leave this aside for a while. I think we have stumbled on something 
worth discussing.

In the commercial market we observe a tendency to have defaults that are 
NOT the most usable and "understated" ones, but the most

1. visually impressive

and

2. visually different

, even if this clearly makes usability worse.

Example of (1):  in Windows etc. there is a tendency to have animations 
on by default, even if they slow you down; this is to impress the user. 
Software houses know that people will turn them off, but don't care.

This means that, for software houses, a visually impressive default is 
preferred to a more usable but "understated" default.

Example of (2): MSOffice, MSMediaPlayer, Pinnacle Studio, Nero Burning 
Rom, all feel the urge to have different widget styles.

This means that, for those software houses, visual differentiation is 
more important than visual uniformity, i.e. "looking familiar".

---

Where am I getting at? Maybe this mentality could be convenient for KDE 
too. I mean, it _may_ be better for KDE to have defaults styles and 
settings that are 1. Visually impressive, and 2. look "different". Not 
the most usable and familiar looking.

Provided, of course, it is easy for people to switch to more usable 
defaults.

Comments?

---
Regards,
Maurizio Colucci
http://onefinger.sf.net
_______________________________________________
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]