Post #198,523
3/14/05 12:19:13 PM
|
Ah yes, all that configurability.
That's why half the features that used to be in the Mozilla suite have had to be re-implemented as Firefox extensions, right? \r\n\r\n There's a simple principle here, and you can't seem to wrap your head around it: Interfaces which are good for power-user geeks are generally horrible for average users. The two groups are, to a certain extent, mutually exclusive in their wants and needs. \r\n\r\n Which is why Firefox, even with everything that's in about:config, only has a fraction of the features and configuration options of the full Mozilla suite; the feature set was deliberately reduced to the minimum that most users would require, and configuration options were dropped left and right. Now we have a browser that, for most people, does not need to be configured at all; it Just Works, and that's why it's become a household word in less than a year while the old Mozilla suite never managed to be much more than a niche product for power users and Linux geeks. \r\n\r\n And GNOME is attempting to do the same thing. In order to be widely used by average users, it has to focus on what average users want: a simple, usable desktop that Just Works out of the box. That means it has to drop an awful lot of the overhead it was carrying around in the form of extraneous features and configuration (and move the remaining "advanced" features into GConf, just as Firefox moved them into about:config), and that means it's not going to be the same ultra-configurable, everything-and-the-kitchen-sink desktop it was in the past. \r\n\r\n If you don't like that, either use something else (the apps run fine under Enlightenment, and if that isn't a power-user, ultra-configurable system I don't know what is), or start writing code to put back the stuff you want (there are already some tools out there to do that for Nautilus). Complaining, at this point, serves no useful purpose whatsoever, so why are you still doing it? --\r\nYou cooin' with my bird?
\r\n[link|http://www.shtuff.us/|shtuff]
|
Post #198,528
3/14/05 12:40:52 PM
|
Ah yes, all that availability.
"That's why half the features that used to be in the Mozilla suite have had to be re-implemented as Firefox extensions, right?" And more. And they are as easily available to the end-user as your "power user" "Interfaces which are good for power-user geeks are generally horrible for average users. The two groups are, to a certain extent, mutually exclusive in their wants and needs." The above proves you wrong. Firefox DOES have simplicity, extensibility, and fine configurability. And it IS attractive to both "power users" and whatever you want to call the 'other kind'. They are most certainly NOT mutually exclusive. While you may liken gconf to about:config, the analogy is false; about:config actually improves the availability of fine-tuning to the user over it's ancestor, Mozilla - moving things to gconf does the opposite for Gnome. "If you don't like that, either use something else (the apps run fine under Enlightenment, and if that isn't a power-user, ultra-configurable system I don't know what is), or start writing code to put back the stuff you want (there are already some tools out there to do that for Nautilus)." And you don't see my point embodied in that, do you? People are already frustrated enough to write these things; and that's great - but since it's a result of the removal of functionality, it shouldn't have been necessary in the first place. Again, 'sane defaults' doesn't mean those defaults have to be nailed into place, and the claw-hammer hidden. "Complaining, at this point, serves no useful purpose whatsoever, so why are you still doing it?" OK - let's make this clear - just because I'm not a Gnome fan-boy, and I comment on what I see as wrong with the current direction gnome development, does not mean I'm complaining about gnome. I don't care enough to complain; I will discuss, though, with those that seem interested in discussing my opinions (hint: opinions are not always positive). I like to discuss things; that's why I come here. Get it? [link|http://www.runningworks.com|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #198,535
3/14/05 1:08:32 PM
3/14/05 1:10:52 PM
|
You don't get it.
So the existence of Firefox extensions proves that Firefox is unusable and should have catered to the everything-and-the-kitchen-sink crowd instead? \r\n\r\n Another general principle for you: the base package should have a small set of features and limited configurability, with sane settings out of the box. \r\n\r\n That's what Firefox does, and you don't complain because people have written useful extensions for the extra things you want it to do. That's what GNOME does, but you complain because no-one's written the extensions yet. Maybe that's something you could do? --\r\nYou cooin' with my bird?
\r\n[link|http://www.shtuff.us/|shtuff]
|
Post #198,545
3/14/05 1:43:10 PM
|
Huh?
I fail to see the similarity in Gnome removing functionality that people find useful with Firefox changing them over to extensions and allowing everyone to play with the about:config screen.
I was a huge fan of gnome. Was. These changes have left me (trust me...a linux user...not power using geek) cold and wanting a return to the older paradigm where some of these things were user configurable.
And my post against the top of this thread was accurate. I don't use KDE or Gnome anymore. Both have become huge overhead draws and have not given a corresponding growth in functionality.
If I have to configure a desktop...I'm gonna pick something lightweight and simple. Thats why xfce runs on my machines. It does what I need and thats about it.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #198,549
3/14/05 1:59:19 PM
|
"Removing functionality people find useful"
Apparently no-one here understands how this sort of thing should be managed, so here's a hypothetical case: \r\n\r\n Consider Feature X. Feature X has been part of FooDesktop since its inception, and is popular among advanced users. FooDesktop has recently decided to broaden its target audience, however, and so Feature X has come under scrutiny: will it stay in the next version? \r\n\r\n The following facts are known: \r\n\r\n \r\n- Research and user feedback has shown that 2% of users of FooDesktop make use of Feature X.
\r\n- Usability tests found that, of an average sampling of computer users, 70% rated FooDesktop as "too complicated to use" and 95% of those listed Feature X as one of the factors which most confused them.
\r\n \r\n\r\n You are project manager for FooDesktop. What do you do? --\r\nYou cooin' with my bird?
\r\n[link|http://www.shtuff.us/|shtuff]
|
Post #198,578
3/14/05 2:57:26 PM
|
Different Levels of Configuration options.
Upon first login: Hello, I am your friend initial environment Fairy. I'd like to ask you a few questions. Please be honest, as this is not a "keeping up with the Jones's thing".- Do you like to just sit down and do things?
- Are you one whom like to get things done, but have on occasion wanted to tweak the way things work or feel?
- Are you or have you ever been termed a "Power User on Steroids" or a seriously keyboard oriented users?
- Are you one of *those* people that like a fine grained control-freak oriented way of doing things?
Okay, now that those question are answered honestly, I can produce a desktop for you which will by default possibly really like.
Should I create it or go back and ask questions again? __Yes, create the initial Desktop for me
__No, I want to redefine my answers, please start over This would then create a nicely customized, well thought out "Sane Default" for nearly 99.99% of the people out there. Trust me, KDE does this already (well sort of) and So, does WindowsXP and Mac OS-X. Would it *BE* so hard to do this? I'd be surprised if you asked these questions, or some refined versions, you'd get a great response and find more people will help. Plus, those people that just want something that works... can have that stuff to. -- [link|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net|greg], [link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ iwethey[link|http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=134485&cid=11233230|"Microsoft Security" is an even better oxymoron than "Military Intelligence"] No matter how much Microsoft supporters whine about how Linux and other operating systems have just as many bugs as their operating systems do, the bottom line is that the serious, gut-wrenching problems happen on Windows, not on Linux, not on Mac OS. -- [link|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1622086,00.asp|source]
|
Post #198,583
3/14/05 3:25:01 PM
|
Harder than you think.
Thing is, people can't answer those questions honestly, because they're terrible at gauging their own levels of ability.
The KDE setup wizard thing is the KDE project's way of saying "We cannot agree on a set of sane defaults for our desktop", instead giving people environments that are bad ripoffs of existing environments. What they SHOULD do is go, "This is KDE! Hear it roar!"
If you're going to pretend to be Windows/Mac OS/CDE, you'd better do it with high fidelity, because there's nothing more confusing than something that says it's like Windows but then isn't. Which is of course what happens, because the only thing that's just like Windows is, well, Windows.
Mac OS X does no such thing, and neither does Windows XP. Having installed both of those recently (and having had cause to marvel at the simplicity of the OS X installation on an admittedly more predictable hardware platform) I can speak with a little authority. OS X just does localisation/personalisation, runs a registration wizard, nags you about a .mac account, and that's it. XP does activation, a little personalisation/localisation, and then you're done. Both have tutorial things. Neither run automatically (although they both show you them at first log in).
Peter
[link|http://www.ubuntulinux.org|Ubuntu Linux]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
|
Post #198,597
3/14/05 5:05:49 PM
|
Users are stupid.
As Peter already said, users (especially on the first install of a new environment) don't know what they want, and really suck at trying to articulate it; this is why usability tests have to be conducted in person. If there were a way to magically make the users competent enough to answer the questions correctly, we wouldn't have to have this debate. --\r\nYou cooin' with my bird?
\r\n[link|http://www.shtuff.us/|shtuff]
|
Post #198,636
3/14/05 7:20:02 PM
|
I wonder...
Jim, are you a GNOME Developer?
[link|http://www.shtuff.us/weblog/66/ignoring-user-requests-isnt-always-a-bad-thing|\ufffdIgnoring\ufffd user requests isn\ufffdt always a bad thing]
I read that, it basically is the same thing you are saying here. I can only believe you have read Havoc's writings on the Subject.
I am not saying it is BAD, I just would like to see a much better external program able to tweak the stuff that 1.4 had in it.
I guess, I didn't mean to start a flamewar, but I see both sides, you see both sides, why for can we not understand the usability issues.
And one other point, I do not consider myself a Geek. It is Uber-Geek to you buddy.
-- [link|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net|greg], [link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ iwethey[link|http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=134485&cid=11233230|"Microsoft Security" is an even better oxymoron than "Military Intelligence"] No matter how much Microsoft supporters whine about how Linux and other operating systems have just as many bugs as their operating systems do, the bottom line is that the serious, gut-wrenching problems happen on Windows, not on Linux, not on Mac OS. -- [link|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1622086,00.asp|source]
|
Post #198,666
3/14/05 8:44:29 PM
|
I'm not.
A GNOME developer, that is. But UI and usability work is a large part of what I do for a living, so this stuff interests me. From the perspective of making it accessible to more people, I think the GNOME guys are on the right track, and I respect the fact that they're sticking to it in the face of opposition from their "power users". That isn't easy to do. \r\n\r\n And as for external programs to edit stuff, well, that's kind of the point I've been making with the Firefox analogy. Except with GNOME you've got a whole desktop to hook into... --\r\nYou cooin' with my bird?
\r\n[link|http://www.shtuff.us/|shtuff]
|
Post #198,668
3/14/05 9:02:52 PM
|
Bah. Firefox made configuration tweaking MORE accessable.
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #198,681
3/14/05 10:36:56 PM
|
To expand on that
No one is saying Firefox is more configurable than Gnome is. They're saying Firefox is more configurable than Firefox used to be, and Gnome is less configurable than Gnome used to be. Maybe they're converging on a middle ground, or maybe Firefox has already come up with the perfect interface to combine simplicity with power access.
But the fact is there are configuration options that Gnome still supports, that used to be accessible through a user interface, that are now "hidden" behind a user-unfriendly db-like interface. It is like Microsoft killing off TweakUI and forcing users back into the registry.
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #198,824
3/15/05 4:13:38 PM
|
And I'm saying
That less configurability is often good for usability, and bad for geeks. --\r\nYou cooin' with my bird?
\r\n[link|http://www.shtuff.us/|shtuff]
|
Post #198,847
3/15/05 6:28:50 PM
|
I completely disagree with that assertion.
Making something more configurable only adds a component of usability to those who chose to actually use that ability.
Establishing what is being stated in this thread as "sane defaults" simply establishes the baseline usability.
Dumbing down for the masses has already been accomplished. In the end it created an entire subculture devoted to designing an alternative. And as appears to be the case with Gnome development...this subculture (or at least a portion of it) appears quite willing to repeat that history.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #198,854
3/15/05 7:51:42 PM
|
Let me explain something to you.
When you add features and configurability to a system, you have to decide where to put them. In other words, if you're going to provide Feature X and allow users to configure Feature X, you have to provide controls for it somewhere. Do this often enough and the number of controls and options gets to be a bit unwieldy. At that point usually somebody has the bright idea of just adding an "Advanced" panel on the configuration, and sticking all the extra options in it (or an "Advanced" sub-menu off the main menu), but there are two problems with this: \r\n\r\n \r\n- It doesn't address the root problem (too many features and options to manage) and, inevitably,
\r\n- The "Advanced" panel/menu becomes hopelessly cluttered.
\r\n \r\n\r\n When you reach this point you have to step back and evaluate your feature set, and ask yourself: what do we really need? Anything you can't justify based on significant demand and significant usage should go. And anything that confuses more people than it helps should go. Firefox did it, GNOME's doing it. It's a fact of development that can't be avoided, and you can complain about "dumbing down" all you like without changing it. --\r\nYou cooin' with my bird?
\r\n[link|http://www.shtuff.us/|shtuff]
|
Post #198,898
3/15/05 11:43:19 PM
|
Now let *me* explain something to *you*
It's not that we don't understand what you're saying, we don't agree. While I don't know of anyone else here who does usability as their primary job, a lot of us have spent quite a bit of time studying it. You can explain your point however you want, we'll still understand and still disagree.
Let's talk some specifics:
* Why is Screensaver under Advanced, while Network Proxy, PGP Preferences and Remote Desktop are top level?
* How is Printing a System Tool?
* Why doesn't Screen Resolution work in a default installation?
* And if it doesn't work, why is it on the menu?
* Why is the Keyboard settings under Accessibility a non-resizable window that doesn't fit vertically within the viewable area of my 800 x 600 laptop display?
None of these strike me as the type of things designed with usability in mind. But hey, at least they got rid of all those confusing options.
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #198,907
3/16/05 1:18:14 AM
|
Bug. Bug. Bug. Distro Bug. Not a bug. Bug.
Filed 'em? (I should note that the usability-borked "advanced" submenu has gone in 2.10, at least as shipped by Ubuntu).
Having said all that, I've switched to Mac OS X as my primary desktop, so it's all a bit academic to me.
Peter
[link|http://www.ubuntulinux.org|Ubuntu Linux]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
|
Post #198,943
3/16/05 8:29:19 AM
|
Re: Let me explain something to you.
When you add features and configurability to a system, you have to decide where to put them. Our point exactly. Thats where HCI folks like you come in. To the remaining point of "everybody has screwed this up before so Gnome development was correct in just throwing in the towel and taking that crap out", I continue to disagree. Try and justify it all you like. They are repeating a failed history. It drove me away and has done the same to several other folks around here. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #198,823
3/15/05 4:13:11 PM
|
Re: Bah. Firefox made configuration tweaking MORE accessabl
To most users, about:config is voodoo as deep as the registry. Or GConf. --\r\nYou cooin' with my bird?
\r\n[link|http://www.shtuff.us/|shtuff]
|
Post #198,828
3/15/05 4:27:47 PM
3/15/05 4:31:43 PM
|
So what?
If fine configuration (tweaking) of Gnome is not something that your sublass of user (luser?) that Gnome is 'targeting' really wants to do, why would they do it? 'Sane Defaults' would take care of that.
Once again, making this hard to do, DOES NOT ADD VALUE to the desktop. Nobody is clamoring for a desktop that is harder to tweak - though they might once have looked for one that is simpler to use. The two concepts are not even vaguely similar. And here's a clue for you - simpler to use, and easier to tweak - can exist in the same product. FIREFOX IS LIVING PROOF OF THIS. It is both simpler to use than it's ancestor, Mozilla, and easier to tweak.
Gnome is simpler to use - maybe, when it works. It is also HARDER to tweak (and fix). Projecting Firefox's success onto Gnome is false for that reason.
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
Edited by imric
March 15, 2005, 04:31:43 PM EST
|
Post #198,551
3/14/05 2:06:53 PM
|
Ummm. What?
My biggest and most salient point was about:config - which directly concerns the topic being discussed. Extensions make up for some of the deficiencies, true. That's part of what makes firefox more flexible, the ability to choose, download and configure features placed within easy reach of the user, not just your power-user. That's part of being flexible, running and (easily) configuring just the pieces you want to.
On top of that, about:config made fine-tuned configuring more available, while firefox got a simpler base UI at the same time. Meanwhile, firefox lost none of it's popularity. Gnome has made fine-tuning LESS available; time will tell if that makes it more popular, but I think not.
As I have said, repeatedly, I have no problems with 'sane defaults' or simplicity as a base. It's the fact that Gnome is harder to configure than it has to be, harder than it used to be. You think that's a good feature, I think that's a problem. I can't see people beating down the doors for more difficulty in configuration, you do. You think that there is a solid wall between power users and regular users, I see a painted line. I have no problem with locking down a desktop when necessary; that is NOT the same thing as making it a PITA to configure.
And - insist I'm complaining all you like; I'm not. I simply won't use it until it's done. If I think it's done 'wrong', if it's a pain to use, I won't use it at all. I haven't badmouthed Gnome, the developers, or anything else but expressed concern that the direction Gnome is headed will marginalize it. My ONLY complaint about Gnome is that it seems slower to me than KDE; and that's something that I would expect to be remedied over time anyway. IOW, it's not a big concern.
And - BTW, the old saw of 'write it yourself'? I might, if it mattered to me at all. It doesn't, though.
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #198,568
3/14/05 2:36:48 PM
|
The gconf editor is no harder than about:config
Peter
[link|http://www.ubuntulinux.org|Ubuntu Linux]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
|
Post #198,571
3/14/05 2:41:07 PM
3/14/05 2:42:00 PM
|
And about:config is easier
than what was there before. Which was nothing. 'Nuff said.
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
Edited by imric
March 14, 2005, 02:42:00 PM EST
|
Post #198,574
3/14/05 2:46:48 PM
|
What was there before...
...was a confusing mess.
I can see we've gone circular here, so I'll not beat the bloody horse stain too much more.
The bottom line is that GNOME is now more usable by regular users than it was before. Regular users (i.e. !you and people like you) don't want to configure stuff. At all. Ever. They want to write the memo, send the email, make the document and then go the hell home. Or they want to print the photo, buy junk on eBay, send the email, look at the funny video, and go the hell out to the pub.
Configuring windows into groups with a programmable window manager is, oddly enough, not on these users' radar.
KDE has chosen to plough a different furrow, and that Kontrol Kentre will come back to bite them in the bum, mark my words. It's already like the elephant in the boardroom.
Peter
[link|http://www.ubuntulinux.org|Ubuntu Linux]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
|
Post #198,581
3/14/05 3:06:07 PM
|
One last word (can't resist)
If a user doesn't want to configure, they won't. Configurability does not lessen the value of the desktop. Those clueless users that want only what everybody else has, and no more, they shouldn't be forced to configure. By all means, sane defaults!
But... being forced to do the equivalent of editing the registry to tweak (unless, as has been pointed out, you install some other package that makes it easy to configure but is not part of Gnome) does NOT ad value to the desktop. Making it a PITA to tweak isn't locking it down either (as should be possible, and I've said elsewhere) - it's just a PITA.
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
