IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Fine

However, as a general guideline, developers should strive to minimize the number
of configuration options offered, as this leads, in turn, to better software which
is easier to use productively.


Immediate possible falsehood. This leads to software that is easier to use, to start
off with. "productively"? Maybe. Or maybe in the course of deciding which options to
drop in the configuration, it limited what the software itself did, which in turn
means it was less productive for certain people for certain tasks.

The problem with arguing this in the abstract is either side can state whatever they want
without proving anything.


This can be summarized by a simple rule of thumb: an application should have only those
configuration options which are necessary for it to carry out its task(s), and no more.


It seems that way, but presentation control options aren't strictly part of the task,
but impact the user's experience which in turn may determine which users WANT to use
the software.



* Minimal configuration increases end-user productivity: the less time a user has to
spend configuring an application, the more time the user will be able to spend carrying
out his or her desired tasks. In other words, configurability should be viewed as a
means to an end (the end in this case being productive use of the application), rather
than an end in itself.


Disagree. Sane defaults provide that EXACT same benefit, while allow the more experienced
user to fine tune the behavior of the app which in turn leads to even MORE productivity
as the usage is streamlined. Based on your premise, all users will always be zero knowledge
newbies, with no benefit as experience is gained.


* Minimal configuration encourages user research: to determine the minimal amount of configuration
necessary to use an application, the developer must often conduct research and user tests to
determine what will be expected of the application and how it is most likely to be used, resulting
in an application which is a better fit for its target user base.


Disagree. While user research should be done to understand the best defaults for a user,
by definition you would then lock the interaction to the least knowledgeable user.



* Minimal configuration encourages smarter application design: rather than shunt off questions
by requiring a user to perform configuration, minimal configuration means that a developer must
look for the most efficient way for the application to obtain the information it needs to run
effectively (information which could be gleaned from requiring configuration may well be easily
inferred or deduced from sources other than configuration settings).


Disagree. Read previous 2 answers for why.


* Minimal configuration decreases the number of potential problems end users may encounter: each
additional configuration option increases the number of ways in which the application may behave,
sometimes exponentially so. Less configuration means fewer ways in which the application may behave,
and so means fewer cases the developer must test to ensure the application behaves as expected.


Ah, now we get to the point. You've now limited what that app does to simplify the code. As I
pointed out above, actually limiting what the app DOES, as opposed to limiting the user configuration
portion. This become far more a business case issue than a user interface design issue.
Is the goal of the app to provide certain minimal functionality while limiting help desk calls?
Fine, then design the app to do less. But don't cloak it as an interface issue.


* Minimal configuration often means that less knowledge is required of the end user, which both
increases the potential user base of the application and results in a shallower learning curve for
use of the application.


Sane defaults takes care of this.


* Minimal configuration decreases the complexity of the end-user interface, which both increases
the application's ease of use and decreases the probability of user error.


Depends. Are you talking about the interface portion that the user uses to configure the
app, or the portion that use to run it? Either way, it is so dependant on the app you really
can't argue the point in the abstract.

So the bottom line, is, you've thrown up a bunch of assumptions and beliefs, most of which
are countered by by sane defaults.

Let me explain my general viewpoint as a programmer.

I write table driven systems. Config file driven systems. Complex workflow interpreter engines.

Let me give you an example of one of them.

My user population is a huge variety of varying skill level people. I've got entry level
clerks, graphics artists, mainframe cobol programmers, desktop publishing (high end) people,
print floor operators (some with very little English), and their managers.

The things my workflow does varies based on the options set every step of the way, which is controlled
by a configuration file, which is generated by a C# app.

I want to write a system and walk away, or at least hand it off to my junior to support. Not
change, support. This means the system must simply work, and be flexible enough to handle
most business needs (that we could envision) from the beginning.

It means config / table driving most decision points.

Yes, it is far more complex than if I had hard-coded most of it. To start off with. But then
enhancement growth would have killed it with either cut and paste hacks or refactoring overhead.

Your design works for entry level phase one release one stuff. But it does not account for
the fact a single system has to serve a varying population that has different skill levels,
and as the app is enhanced you need configuration options to control the behavior, not stripping
previous behavior (or making in really hard to control / find the way to change it).
New Re: Fine

Immediate possible falsehood. This leads to software that is easier to use, to start off with. "productively"? Maybe. Or maybe in the course of deciding which options to drop in the configuration, it limited what the software itself did, which in turn means it was less productive for certain people for certain tasks.

\r\n\r\n

Any statement which is not analytically true is immediately a probable falsehood, so that's not a particularly useful statement. However, this does not actually reply to any of the reasons I provided in support of my position, so I'll skip it unless and until someone can show that it does.

\r\n\r\n

The problem with arguing this in the abstract is either side can state whatever they want without proving anything.

\r\n\r\n

If you or others feel discussion would be helped by reference to appropriate existing examples, then by all means provide them.

\r\n\r\n

It seems that way, but presentation control options aren't strictly part of the task, but impact the user's experience which in turn may determine which users WANT to use the software.

\r\n\r\n

Presentation should be decided on the basis of usability principles and user testing, or should follow a user's indicated preference for the desktop environment/OS interface, or both. There is very rarely a need for applications to have an interface which differs from the standards of the environment in which it runs; for a more forceful assertion of this point, see [link|http://www.livejournal.com/users/jwz/123070.html?thread=521918#t521918|this well-known comment regarding "skinnable" applications].

\r\n\r\n

Disagree. Sane defaults provide that EXACT same benefit, while allow the more experienced user to fine tune the behavior of the app which in turn leads to even MORE productivity as the usage is streamlined.

\r\n\r\n

If a certain option is required in order to use the application productively, then by my own rule of thumb above I'm in favor of it. Options which are required in this fashion are sometimes obvious, but at other times can be discovered by means of usability testing.

\r\n\r\n

Based on your premise, all users will always be zero knowledge newbies, with no benefit as experience is gained.

\r\n\r\n

I am unable to determine how this conclusion follows from my alleged premise, or, indeed, to determine the premise to which you refer. Please elaborate.

\r\n\r\n

Disagree. While user research should be done to understand the best defaults for a user, by definition you would then lock the interaction to the least knowledgeable user.

\r\n\r\n

I am again unable to determine how this follows logically from any premise of which I am aware. Please elaborate. Please also refer to my mention of "shallowing the learning curve", which implies the existence of a learning curve.

\r\n\r\n

Disagree. Read previous 2 answers for why.

\r\n\r\n

I am awaiting elaboration on those answers, as requested above.

\r\n\r\n

Ah, now we get to the point. You've now limited what that app does to simplify the code. As I pointed out above, actually limiting what the app DOES, as opposed to limiting the user configuration portion. This become far more a business case issue than a user interface design issue. Is the goal of the app to provide certain minimal functionality while limiting help desk calls?\r\nFine, then design the app to do less. But don't cloak it as an interface issue.

\r\n\r\n

It appears that you are asserting that limited configurability of an application equates to reduced functionality for the application. Yet I have clearly indicated my belief that an application should provide such configuration as is necessary to achieve its desired functionality (though no more configuration than this). If an application follows this guideline, then logically none of the application's desired functionality will be reduced. Please inform me if I have misinterpreted your statement.

\r\n\r\n

Also, do note that in the post to which you are replying, I indicated that these points came from both a development and a usability perspective.

\r\n\r\n

Finally, the goal in mind is not to, as you have asked, limit help-desk calls. The goal of usability in software design and development is to provide functional software which is easy to use, a goal whose achievement can be greatly facilitated by a thorough testing methodology. Offering only the minimal necessary configuration results in fewer cases to test, and thus also furthers this goal. In this case, the development perspective and the usability perspective dovetail.

\r\n\r\n

Sane defaults takes care of this.

\r\n\r\n

If an application can provide its functionality without requiring a user to configure certain options at the outset, then why would these options need to be configurable at a later time?

\r\n\r\n

Depends. Are you talking about the interface portion that the user uses to configure the app, or the portion that use to run it? Either way, it is so dependant on the app you really can't argue the point in the abstract.

\r\n\r\n

I am talking about all parts of the application's interface. And regardless of whether configuration is presented inline with other functionality, or in some other form (say, in a dialog), it adds additional items to the application's interface, so this is not dependent on the particular application.

\r\n\r\n

Your design works for entry level phase one release one stuff. But it does not account for the fact a single system has to serve a varying population that has different skill levels, and as the app is enhanced you need configuration options to control the behavior, not stripping previous behavior (or making in really hard to control / find the way to change it).

\r\n\r\n

While I may be misinterpreting, you seem to have assumed that I believe functionality should be sacrificed for the sake of reduced application configuration. On the contrary, I believe that when configurability is necessary to the functionality of the application, it should be included. When it is not necessary, it should not be included.

--\r\nYou cooin' with my bird?
\r\n[link|http://www.shtuff.us/|shtuff]
New Simple example
If the application saves files, and the file exists, and the default action is to ask the user if they really want to overwrite the file, should there be an option that allows the user to turn the "are you sure" prompt off?
New Re: Simple example
And there should be an option somewhere else to turn that warning back on later if desired. And maybe there should be an "I know what I'm doing" option to turn on and off similar warnings throughout the app. And since such a warning is common among all file saving apps, maybe there should be a global option in the DE's control center to manage such warnings. And since people installing the DE from the tarballs likely "know what they are doing", we should include it in the "personalizer" wizard that runs on first startup so that knowledgeable users can apply their favorite settings immediately in a few quick steps.

--
Chris Altmann
New Hey
No extending the example until he bites!
New No.

Because an operation which destroys data should never occur without the user being notified.

--\r\nYou cooin' with my bird?
\r\n[link|http://www.shtuff.us/|shtuff]
New Batch process. Automation. Piss off.
===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
New It's probably a database permissions problem.
*flees*


Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
New Now that twitch in my left eye is back
===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
New mickeysoft berk
rm -r * should take place upon hitting the enter key, if you didnt want to do that get a mscie
thanx,
bill
"the reason people don't buy conspiracy theories is that they think conspiracy means everyone is on the same program. Thats not how it works. Everybody has a different program. They just all want the same guy dead. Socrates was a gadfly, but I bet he took time out to screw somebodies wife" Gus Vitelli

Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
New You've made it plain
You have no advanced users in your world.

You will always choose to slow people down, and not even give them the option to take any responsibility for their decisions.

I'm glad it is unlikely that I'll ever use any app you designed.
New You've made it plain

That you have no interest in extracting your head from your ass and having a serious discussion, which is why you always come back to a response like that in the end.

\r\n\r\n

I'm glad I don't have to deal with people like you unless I choose to.

--\r\nYou cooin' with my bird?
\r\n[link|http://www.shtuff.us/|shtuff]
New Reality check
You just said as a universal rule that any step that destroys data must require user notification

You said it to a guy who spends a good deal of his life automating batch data processing for very large amounts of data.

And you think he is out of line to say that he doesn't ever want to rely on any application that you've designed the UI for.

I am far more sympathetic to Barry's position than yours. Like him, I've also had to automate stuff. And I can say from personal experience that if any step has to use a UI designed to make it impossible to avoid notifying the user about critical steps, that step will become the bottleneck that becomes a permanent PITA.

Some day I hope that you have to do some serious batch processing. And learn in detail how wrong you were, one failed job at a time. Hopefully with associated midnight wakeups from your pager.

In the meantime, try to digest the following clue: there are people whose needs are different than you anticipate. The best way to figure out what those needs are is to listen to them and try to figure out why they are saying what they are saying. That means that you let them tell you their needs, instead of you trying to tell them.

Regards,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
New The statement that highlights the fundamental disconnect
That means that you let them tell you their needs, instead of you trying to tell them.


Most here are on one side of this statement, one here is on the other.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New Devil's advocate mode
He believes that he can interview and observe his user population to achieve a true set of requirements. This true set will be the absolute minimum required to do the job. No bells and whistles, minimum flexibility or configurability. Bet there will be a lot of hardcoded values and embedded assumptions.

And if those requirements change, then he feels it is OK to start over, and if not start over, change the current code to match the new set of requirements.

So, at best he's naive.
And at worst, it is a matter of job protection.

Either way, it ends up with the same result.

A crappy program and an asshole programmer you have to argue with to make changes.
New You CAN always leave means to override the default behaviour
In the Box example, an admin can globally alias rm="rm -i" which means that rm -rf * will still prompt for deletions. If you really want to blindly kill everyting you have to /bin/rm -rf * Similarly GUI based programs can have command line arguements that cause them to run completely silently.
In general, you build your program to suit your clients needs and put in exceptions if you have clients with varying needs. Make it easiest for the majority. This isn't that complicated once analysis has determined who the clients are and what their needs are.
New No, it can be very complicated
What if you don't know exactly who your customers are going to be and what they are going to need?

For example, let's say you're building a semi-standard product that has to be customized for each customer's product. It has to fit into their assembly lines and match with their standards (for data collection, safety, interface, etc). And the customers are always dreaming up new applications that can be quite different from the original customer. But it's unaffordable to do a separate software control program for each customer.

I'll just say there's a reason I like scripting languages.

Tony
New That's true.
Everything for everybody programs are a nightmare that seldom work. As with everything, there are different approachs. Scripting can be good, as can loadable sub programs that can be added or modified later. Being able to modify your program's interface with a configuration file can also work. All have good points and bad points depending on what you are trying to accomplish. There are a lot of ways to skin that cat, and the cat hates them all...
New ICLRPD (new thread)
Created as new thread #237022 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=237022|ICLRPD]
===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
New On its face
the majority of your point revolved around limiting the amount of configuration to the bare minimum allowable to acheive the "desired" funtionality.

There are several reasons why this is (IMO and others) simply incorrect.

One, you can have configurability allowed even after providing the "sane" default and, in fact, advanced users demand this. And whether you care to admit it or not, at some point you are going to have to deal with advanced users. Simple math, there are a finite set of newbies..and over time those newbies will become advanced users.

Hell, there are even advanced users that use Windows ;-)

However, I'll link to a web posting by [link|http://www.useit.com/alertbox/scottbutler.html|Scott Butler from Rockwell Software] which is actually linked from [link|http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9705a.html|The Difference Between Web Design and GUI Design] which is found on [link|http://www.useit.com/jakob/|Jakob Nielsen's website]. All of these guys know just a little bit about HCI and interface design.

The most telling section I will quote

They say, "The web is different because it's used for so many different tasks. It's not like Excel where we know what people are going to use it for: budgets, graphs, etc.."

IMHO: It's not different than Excel because we don't even know what people are going to use Excel for. Some EE friends of mine used to use Excel to track intermediate values in self-adjusting algorithms. They picked Excel because it was the best tool they had for the job and it was really easy to use. I doubt that Microsoft included this use case in their usability testing, but it was still easy to use. I'm sure that my friends' mindset for this task was significantly different than it would be if they were using Excel to make a budget, but they were able to use the tool effectively. Point being, principles of good design seem to be pretty robust.


Its a fairly fine point but you must read through it. It is FOLLY for a design team to think that they can design for all contingencies and for all users. Because of this, the best applications are highly configurable.

Add insult to injury, this discussion (and most of your points) are really focussed on application interfaces (as the above example regarding excel). Designing the primary interface to the computer is COMPLETELY different..as it involved not only configuration at the application level (tree views in Nautilus for example) as well as coniguration at the macro level on how the person interacts with the machine. And the number of personal experiences in the latter case equals the number of computer users...which means that regardless of the amount of user testing you do, you will never have tested a "significant sample size" to determine if you have it right.

With this said, I will again point to Warp, which probably had the most amount of HCI research done >pre-launch< (granted it is old now, and compared to some current offerings may seem limited...but there are still configurations that were possible on Warp that cannot be accomplished through desktop option screens of any other OS). The reason I use this as the example is because it (though you may have never used it) proves both your point and ours. Sane defaults are critical and Warp had them set at the "99%" user level. A beginning user wouldn't have to change a thing post install to accomplish common tasks simply and effectively. Secondly, accessing the configuration for ALL desktop items used the exact same initial options. Program, file, spreadsheet etc...all were common objects and the rgt-click menus were identical. So this critical aspect was consistency. And finally, further in those options was the ability to configure aspects of the interface to the utmost detail, allowing the interface to become personal.

There are folks here that have continued to use Warp far beyond its useful life and I'm convinced that it is because of this last point. They, by now, have Warp doing things that probably can't be configured into other interfaces..and if your theory holds, should not be allowed.

Thats a long enough post for now. I have to go check the bird.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New I use Excel daily.
It's not all that configurable; most of it is frippery - colours, recalc, circular things, do your dates start from 1900 or 1904 (no, seriously, you can choose that) and because of MS's insistence on being backward compatible with both Excel and 1-2-3, there's a number of options to do with that. None of which are of much substance, taken in isolation.

Excel is inherently flexible.

Out of the box, and with no configuration whatsoever, it can be used for complex financial analysis, arbitrary data-shuffling, or balancing your chequebook.

ObExcelRant: Why bother configuring how the fuck many files are on the MRU? Why can I only have a maximum of 9? Why can't I have that list go as far down the screen as the menu will reach? What if I'm using more than 9 files and want to keep track of them? Cheers, Microsoft. I now get to use the utterly fucked up "history" option (in Windows) or the "fuck you, it doesn't exist" option (in OS X).

I had high hopes of this being fixed in the generally superior Mac version, but it's not.

And another thing, while I'm ranting about Office. Word's crap, right? Graphics handling, numbering, fields, all utter shite. However. Instead of fixing that, Microsoft decided that what we need is Sparkle Text. What the FUCK is that about?

And don't even get me started about Access.


Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
New And why can't you do sparkle text *and* marching ants?
===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
New That could mean Excel is a flawed example.
More likely, it points out how 'configuration' (e.g. a cell's number format) has migrated towards 'functionality'.

I have a simpler example. I develop and maintain a trouble-ticket system. Like most systems, tickets are able to be put into different categories for action by different groups of people. Is the job of adding new categories configuration? In a way, yes. But not really: most people who use it are unaware that adding or renaming a category is dead simple - there's actually a screen just for that. It might look like configuration, sure, but it's functionality.

Wade.
"Insert crowbar. Apply force."
New Number *format*.
That's part of the document. Not configuration.


Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
New you poor bastard
"the reason people don't buy conspiracy theories is that they think conspiracy means everyone is on the same program. Thats not how it works. Everybody has a different program. They just all want the same guy dead. Socrates was a gadfly, but I bet he took time out to screw somebodies wife" Gus Vitelli

Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
New Thanks for that link. Nostalgia!
Butler's post reminds me of Infoworld's [link|http://static.userland.com/userLandDiscussArchive/msg008043.html|Inclusion software forums]. I remember the text being hard-coded in a font that was nearly invisible with a 1600x1200 desktop. I'll bet they thought they used sane defaults. ;-D

In searching around, I came across [link|http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2005-01-09-008-26-OP-SW|this] LinuxToday story that was a pointer to Chad Dickerson's IW article about open source and outsourcing their antispam efforts. It sounded, based on the responses at LT (the feedback area at IW is either gone or very well hidden), that the thinking at IW hadn't changed much. :-/ I see that Chad [link|http://weblog.infoworld.com/dickerson/|left] and now works for Yahoo Search.

</nostalgia>

Ah, [link|http://www.goodeatsfanpage.com/Humor/SNL/DeliciousDish1.htm|good times].

Cheers,
Scott.
New Re: On its face

One, you can have configurability allowed even after providing the "sane" default and, in fact, advanced users demand this.

\r\n\r\n

They can demand all they like, but adding configurability to an application means adding interface, adding complexity and adding new behavior interactions. As the third impacts mostly on the application's developers (who must determine and test the possible interactions for QA purposes) I'll pass it over, but the first two certainly impact usability one way or another for various groups of users. The second one in particular is important to look at in detail, because while some users won't have trouble with a more complex interface, many users probably will. And if the interface change is being implemented solely at the behest of a small group of users, then it appears to generally be a net loss for usability. Which means it shouldn't be implemented; while not by any means an ironclad rule, that sort of utilitarian calculus makes for a handy rough guideline in usability decision-making.

\r\n\r\n

Furthermore, you seem to have assumed the truth of this implication: if a given user is an advanced user, then that user will desire additional configuration options. Universally quantified as it is, however, that implication is trivially easy to disprove.

\r\n\r\n

And whether you care to admit it or not, at some point you are going to have to deal with advanced users. Simple math, there are a finite set of newbies..and over time those newbies will become advanced users.

\r\n\r\n

Not every new user becomes an advanced user with time; most users, even those who receive thorough training and documentation for an application, only ever learn as much of the application as they need to for their daily interactions with it.

\r\n\r\n

Its a fairly fine point but you must read through it. It is FOLLY for a design team to think that they can design for all contingencies and for all users. Because of this, the best applications are highly configurable.

\r\n\r\n

A simple logical extension of that argument would conclude that it is folly for a design team to think that they can anticipate all aspects of an application which users might wish to configure, and thus that even highly configurable applications would fall short of being defined as "the best" (where "the best" is a dangerously vague term -- the best at what exactly?). At any rate, the impossibility of pleasing all of the people all of the time was solidly confirmed long before the advent of programmable computers. But as I have never once stated that a design team should attempt to design for all contingencies and/or all users, or to think that it can, I suspect you're replying to an opponent made from the dried stalks of cereal plants.

\r\n\r\n

And the number of personal experiences in the latter case equals the number of computer users...which means that regardless of the amount of user testing you do, you will never have tested a "significant sample size" to determine if you have it right.

\r\n\r\n

There are two erroneous assumptions apparent in your statement here:

\r\n\r\n
    \r\n
  1. You continue to rely on an assumption that all users must be pleased all of the time. I've already pointed out that this is an impossibility no matter the number of configuration options offered, so we must return to the utilitarian calculus: what is the largest portion of users that can be satisfied for the largest portion of time? Answering this question generally leads to the exclusion of (what you assert to be) the demands of so-called "advanced users", as the complexity such users are willing to accept from interfaces is generally beyond that which so-called "average users" will accept.
  2. \r\n
  3. You assume that user testing is the only means by which developers can determine whether they "have it right". In actual fact, developers have access to information from a variety of other channels besides user testing, and good usability processes take advantage of as many of these channels as possible.
  4. \r\n
\r\n\r\n

There are folks here that have continued to use Warp far beyond its useful life and I'm convinced that it is because of this last point. They, by now, have Warp doing things that probably can't be configured into other interfaces..and if your theory holds, should not be allowed.

\r\n\r\n

Again, two problems leap off the screen:

\r\n\r\n
    \r\n
  1. If configurability to the "utmost detail" truly does result in significant usability gains, then Warp would not be a museum piece.
  2. \r\n
  3. You seem to conflate, as Peter pointed out, "flexibility" with "configurability". Flexible interfaces need not necessarily be configurable, and configurable interfaces are not necessarily flexible.
  4. \r\n
--\r\nYou cooin' with my bird?
\r\n[link|http://www.shtuff.us/|shtuff]
New Quick question for you
Do you believe that OS 2 lost because it was worse (ie less useable) than the competition (Windows)?

If so, then you're going to have another argument on your hand shortly...

Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
New I do not believe

that any one factor ever is the sole cause of an interface's success or failure; the real world is never that simple.

\r\n\r\n

But if the level of configurability in OS/2 Warp truly had a significant impact on usability, then one would expect something more to have come out of it, even if only in a legacy of ideas living on in other systems. As it is, the ideas which are being extolled here are not the ideas from OS/2 Warp which actually did live on.

--\r\nYou cooin' with my bird?
\r\n[link|http://www.shtuff.us/|shtuff]
New Before anyone else responds to this ...
Please branch it. You are now starting the "other argument" Ben mentioned.
===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
New Too Late, Drook.
Have you ever used OS/2? Do you know anything about it's usability features? From your post, it's clear that the answer is no, and no.

In short, you are a big fan of arguing from ignorance.

Having used Warp, Windows, Linux and Mac in order of degree of use over the last ten years, I think I can say I'm not arguing from ignorance. Warp was a bitch to install, but after that was far and away the best system for actual use, and arguably still is, or would be if there was more software for it. Warp was done in by a few things, not least of which was the OEM's desire for a sole supplier so that they could hand over the keys to someone else.

Why don't you go buy a copy of eComStation from Mensys? Tell Roderick I sent ya. It'll cost you a few hundred bucks, but after that it'll be very cheap over the long haul; the state of unix ports on OS/2 is far advanced to the same situation on Windows, and interestingly enough it's all maintained by a tiny fraction of the development community. You've got your web suite (moz, firefox, thunderbird), OpenOffice (new version coming out very soon), various dev tools, and of course REXX. You also get what is arguably the best and easiest to learn UI ever created for computers. It's not an attempt to be "intuitive", instead it's an attempt to be "consistent" everywhere, so that once you learn how the basic thing works, you are off to the races for anything you try to do.

The right click pop up menu came from OS/2. 'nuff said.... and I won't be saying anything more on the matter. However, I will say that you should really think twice before offering a conclusion on something upon which you have just readily admitted you know nothing.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton                            jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca]                   [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada               [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
New Ya gotta admit, it /is/ arse-ugly, though.
/me flees after chucking the hand-grenade.


Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
New Ya looking in the mirror again? ;-)
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail ... but, a true friend will be sitting next to you saying, "Damn...that was fun!"
New I see many things in the mirror. OS/2 isn't one of them.


Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
New And *I'm* the one that gets accused of fishing for LRPDs
===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
New That's because it isn't behind you
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
New Ya gotta look at a version that's was released in this
century sometime, Peter.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton                            jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca]                   [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada               [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
New Re: Ya gotta look at a version that's was released in this
I [link|http://www.ecomstation.com/gallery/index.php?g=eComStation_1.2/user_submitted_screenshots|did].


Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
New Wow. 4 out of the 6 are very nice looking.
Those 4 look everybit as nice as KDE or GNOME does. One even surpasses them in subtle touches.

Really, truly, there is no difference in the "look" of the Linux Desktop and the OS/2 eComStation. I am thinking there is an "OMG-Lookey-What-I-Can-Do" amount of options in configs... the last time I really used OS/2 was ONLY in commandline mode for controlling a tape-robot, a couple of tape storage Cabinets, and a gaggle of Tape Drives.

I rather liked being able to just use it.

The other two that were setup in "gaudy" mode, sure we can get there in Linux. Just try "twm" on for size.
--
[link|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net|greg],
[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ iwethey
Freedom is not FREE.
Yeah, but 10s of Trillions of US Dollars?
SELECT * FROM scog WHERE ethics > 0;

0 rows returned.
New I take it your wife chooses the decor in your house.
You'd go blind, otherwise...


Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
New Jack, it' like trying to teach a pig to sing.
New you've heard him, he cant sing :-)
"the reason people don't buy conspiracy theories is that they think conspiracy means everyone is on the same program. Thats not how it works. Everybody has a different program. They just all want the same guy dead. Socrates was a gadfly, but I bet he took time out to screw somebodies wife" Gus Vitelli

Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
New Thanks, Barry, now I don't have to write that same post
===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
     Let's try it again then. - (ubernostrum) - (48)
         I don't think anyone disagrees with that. - (Another Scott) - (4)
             Re: I don't think anyone disagrees with that. - (ubernostrum) - (3)
                 Sensible people don't want redundant configuration options. - (Another Scott) - (2)
                     Seriously. - (ubernostrum) - (1)
                         Balkanization -NT - (drewk)
         Fine - (broomberg) - (42)
             Re: Fine - (ubernostrum) - (40)
                 Simple example - (broomberg) - (16)
                     Re: Simple example - (altmann) - (1)
                         Hey - (broomberg)
                     No. - (ubernostrum) - (13)
                         Batch process. Automation. Piss off. -NT - (drewk) - (2)
                             It's probably a database permissions problem. - (pwhysall) - (1)
                                 Now that twitch in my left eye is back -NT - (drewk)
                         mickeysoft berk - (boxley)
                         You've made it plain - (broomberg) - (8)
                             You've made it plain - (ubernostrum) - (7)
                                 Reality check - (ben_tilly) - (6)
                                     The statement that highlights the fundamental disconnect - (bepatient) - (5)
                                         Devil's advocate mode - (broomberg) - (4)
                                             You CAN always leave means to override the default behaviour - (hnick) - (3)
                                                 No, it can be very complicated - (tonytib) - (2)
                                                     That's true. - (hnick) - (1)
                                                         ICLRPD (new thread) - (drewk)
                 On its face - (bepatient) - (22)
                     I use Excel daily. - (pwhysall) - (4)
                         And why can't you do sparkle text *and* marching ants? -NT - (drewk)
                         That could mean Excel is a flawed example. - (static) - (1)
                             Number *format*. - (pwhysall)
                         you poor bastard -NT - (boxley)
                     Thanks for that link. Nostalgia! - (Another Scott)
                     Re: On its face - (ubernostrum) - (15)
                         Quick question for you - (ben_tilly) - (14)
                             I do not believe - (ubernostrum) - (13)
                                 Before anyone else responds to this ... - (drewk)
                                 Too Late, Drook. - (jake123) - (11)
                                     Ya gotta admit, it /is/ arse-ugly, though. - (pwhysall) - (10)
                                         Ya looking in the mirror again? ;-) -NT - (jbrabeck) - (3)
                                             I see many things in the mirror. OS/2 isn't one of them. -NT - (pwhysall) - (2)
                                                 And *I'm* the one that gets accused of fishing for LRPDs -NT - (drewk)
                                                 That's because it isn't behind you -NT - (ben_tilly)
                                         Ya gotta look at a version that's was released in this - (jake123) - (5)
                                             Re: Ya gotta look at a version that's was released in this - (pwhysall) - (2)
                                                 Wow. 4 out of the 6 are very nice looking. - (folkert) - (1)
                                                     I take it your wife chooses the decor in your house. - (pwhysall)
                                             Jack, it' like trying to teach a pig to sing. -NT - (n3jja) - (1)
                                                 you've heard him, he cant sing :-) -NT - (boxley)
             Thanks, Barry, now I don't have to write that same post -NT - (drewk)

And my Gramma, too.
571 ms