Bah. Firefox made configuration tweaking MORE accessable.

Post #198,668

by imric

3/14/05 9:02:52 PM

[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

by drewk

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

by ubernostrum

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

by bepatient

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

by ubernostrum

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

It doesn't address the root problem (too many features and options to manage) and, inevitably,
The "Advanced" panel/menu becomes hopelessly cluttered.

\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

by drewk

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

by pwhysall

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.

Post #198,943

by bepatient

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

by ubernostrum

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

by imric

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

Expand All History

Welcome to IWETHEY!