Linked by David Adams on Wed 24th May 2006 04:08 UTC
Editorial It's conventional wisdom that computers need to be "easier to use." But do they? More reliable, yes. Easier to troubleshoot, yes. But now that so many people use computers so much, I think there's something to be said for making them less easy-to-use and less intuitive.
Thread beginning with comment 127507
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by ple_mono on Wed 24th May 2006 15:56 UTC
Member since:

I agree on some of the points, but not all.

I guess the ruby language "Priciple of Least Surprise; things work the way you would expect them to" applies here. Well it would ne nice if they did anyway...

Another example is KDE. It does what you would expect it to, but you CAN do it another way (often more elegant) if you choose too. It still allows you to do it the easy way, or the "alternate" way.

I think OO programming makes complex yet easy application GUI easier to design, IF you choose to. But i still think you need to make GUI:s sort of intuitive without dumbing them down.

Also, i like how apps (especially in KDE, but gnome as well) have a habit of "do things the same way" if you see what i mean. It sets a standard, and common shortcuts are easy to remember.
Windows apps have a tendence to NOT work the same way, which is too bad.

Edited 2006-05-24 15:59

Reply Score: 2

RE: standards
by devurandom on Thu 25th May 2006 14:17 in reply to "standards"
devurandom Member since:

Ssssssssh! How about the lives of those linux bashing fellows that always scream on forums "TEH LINSUX INTERFACE IS NOT CONSISTENT"? Don't give them a pain! ;)

Reply Parent Score: 1