To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I actually don't dislike the idea of rethinking the interface. 99% of the time I use my applications full screen, especially in my 12-inch laptop display.
I think that is a very important point. Most users on small laptop screens seem to prefer maximised windows anyway, so I don't see how a traditional desktop environment could be superior in any possible way. I see Sugar not so much as an attempt to provide a "dumbed down" interface for children, but an attempt to get the maximum out of the capabilities of the hardware (while at the same time providing an interface that is ideally suited to the situation those kids are in).
Thos, you describe in great detail that kids aren't idiots and well capable of learning computer interfaces, yet in the beginning of the article you question just that! I can't really follow that logic.
Neither do I believe that anyone growing up using an OLPC computer would have any trouble switching to another interface concept. Moving windows and clicking desktop icons isn't rocket science after all. The complexity lies in the actual capabilities and those differ from system to system anyway.






Member since:
2006-02-07
I actually don't dislike the idea of rethinking the interface. 99% of the time I use my applications full screen, especially in my 12-inch laptop display. I hate spending so much time moving windows around, trying to get the window size "right," etc. I also like the frame (activated by going to the corners), that seems much the way I actually have my interface set up. I realize it does have its problems but it's good when screens are small. And I can see using this interface without a mouse. Having the support of the MIT I guess they are doing a lot of research on usability.
I agree with Thom, though, that getting a leaner gnome should be a priority for the project and a great contribution for the community as a whole.