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

List:       kde-look
Subject:    Re: KDE from a usability look
From:       "Tom Hoferek" <tomh () corel ! com>
Date:       2000-04-17 18:32:03
[Download RAW message or body]



Michael van der Westhuizen wrote:

> David Faure wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, Apr 16, 2000 at 01:06:01PM +0200, Thomas Zander wrote:
> > > The file->new->"File system device" could have a better name, what about "Drive \
> > > Icon"
> > 
> > In theory one could use that to mount partitions too... but I am open
> > to suggestions, especially since I'm not a native speaker. Drive Icon sounds
> > a bit strange though, no ?
> 
> Yes, and remember, this *is* a UNIX desktop, not DOS/Windows, so filesystem is more \
> correct, as drives are just one  part of the filesystem heirarchy. IMHO there is no \
> real need to implement a tired and not completely relevant metaphor from another \
> operating system...

...unless there are millions of users out there who are already familiar with the \
tired and not completely relevant metaphor. Why disregard the previously learned \
knowledge and beliefs of users who are new to Linux? That knowledge is valuable and \
we should take full advantage of it. We have to take into consideration all of the \
things that users of other OSs have already learned and accepted. To present them \
with something new and unfamiliar forces them to face a roadblock or hurdle. If the \
new thing constitutes only a small bump as opposed to a roadblock and reaps the user \
big rewards, great, lets do the new thing. But I don't see that here. As a newbie to \
Linux, I have to admit that the file system hierarchy is not easy to grasp because I \
do have expectations that I carry over from many years of Windows and Mac use.

I'm not sure what the "File system device" is supposed to do because I cannot relate \
it to anything I've done using other OSs. I could take a couple of guesses at what \
"Drive icon" might do for me. Unless this function intended only for those who are \
Unix savvy and is not going to be taken advantage of by regular users, then we need \
to come up eith something that isn't so 'technospeak'. Technospeak terms (unless thay \
have become mainstream - then I wouldn't consider them technospeak any longer) hold \
no meaning to the users that we wish to win over. These users won't be concerned \
about the technical accuracy of the term. The term should give some sort of \
indication of an action that they will understand. Don't forget that most of them \
don't understand what it is to mount or partition something. What's going on behind \
the scenes is irrelevant, unless it helps build a mental model that the users can \
easily understand.

We need to leverage the existing knowledge of our targetted users so that the move to \
Linux is as easy as possible for them.

Tom


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