Linked by Thomas Leonard on Tue 16th Jan 2007 00:32 UTC
Permalink for comment 202424
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-06
You have a point--"intuitive" has a lot to do with what you're used to. And (perhaps unfortunately) most people are used to Windows and/or Macs, which means that borrowing interface elements from those OSes will result in a higher percentage of the general population being able to find their way around. Hence, the elements that make up Windows and Mac interfaces are more "intuitive" for the general population.
Since the usage case described seems to be targeting desktop-Linux end-users in office environments, I'd imagine that they wouldn't want to make the interface *too* unfamiliar. That said, the Windows paradigm of having to download an executable, then find it, double-click it and click through "Next" a bunch of times is hardly what I would call a good interface in anyone's book.