Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 28th Dec 2006 22:24 UTC
Red Hat Red Hat plans to ship the next version of its premium Linux product on February 28, debuting major virtualization technology but missing an earlier deadline by about two months. Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 had been scheduled to ship by the end of 2006. However, the company gave itself scheduling wiggle room in September, when Red Hat released the first RHEL 5 beta; a second beta arrived in November.
Thread beginning with comment 196963
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: screenshots of this beta
by unoengborg on Fri 29th Dec 2006 05:20 UTC in reply to "screenshots of this beta"
unoengborg
Member since:
2005-07-06

Looks like FC6.

The desktop will most likely not be the primary target for this release but it's still a pity that they didn't wait for the next Gnome version that will contain some of the usability enhancements that was introduced by Novell. I'm thinking of things like the new "slab" gnome menu. Not that the current Gnome menu is that bad, but nothing beats things that have been tested on real non geek users.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: screenshots of this beta
by sukru on Fri 29th Dec 2006 09:38 in reply to "RE: screenshots of this beta"
sukru Member since:
2006-11-19

Incorporating something that isn't even tested on Fedora would be a great risk for them.

RedHat needs to support their major server releases for at least seven years. Such a move could bring unnecessary support issues, which they smartly avoid.

Reply Parent Score: 5

unoengborg Member since:
2005-07-06

True, RHEL5 will have a long lifespan, that makes it even more urgent to make use of the latest research in usability. There are too many pointy haired bosses out there that will judge even a server OS from its looks.

Besides, a server needs to be managed, and the people doing that would benefit from a better interface. You are right that, not testing things like the slab in Fedora poses a risk, but then again, who's fault is it that. Novell managed to include it in their distro long before FC6 was out.

As for the "slab" menu, we are talking about a Gnome applet, i.e. it is a very limited amount of code. It should be quite possible to test it in a relatively short time. If they can't do that, I would say that there are something seriously wrong with their testing procedures.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: screenshots of this beta
by sukru on Fri 29th Dec 2006 11:40 in reply to "RE[2]: screenshots of this beta"
sukru Member since:
2006-11-19

Well, my experience is a little bit different. I've seen several small firms and mid range system rooms.

Normally servers are not operated directly. They usually sit in an isolated room, and probably tens of them are connected to a single console switch.

The server operators, and administrators access via SSH, and any X11 application is also tunneled in such a connection.

The only time you use the actual console is for installing a new operating system or doing low level maintenance.

Even in those situations, there are remote access cards on servers that allow full remote operation (access to BIOS, RAID cards, OS install, and full remote VGA cloning).

This is also true Windows 2003 servers. They are usually operated through Terminal services.

So a new "start menu" which will probably cause destabilization is not on potential customers' wish list. (Any organization willing to spend thousands of dollars on RedHat will probably employ competent system administrators too).

Edited 2006-12-29 11:44

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: screenshots of this beta
by h3rman on Fri 29th Dec 2006 11:11 in reply to "RE: screenshots of this beta"
h3rman Member since:
2006-08-09

... a pity that they didn't wait for the next Gnome version that will contain some of the usability enhancements that was introduced by Novell. I'm thinking of things like the new "slab" gnome menu.

Novell's Gnome menu is not more usable than the present default Gnome menu.
The former actually needs more mouse clicks.
Plus, why sacrifice one window thumbnail/virtual desktop bar? Because virtual desktops are confusing; however it's nice once you know it. Why not explain the nice 'secret' features of Gnome in a KDE style "tip of the day" way?
I may be ostracised for saying this, but if anything, Novell's Gnome menu is an attempt to make Gnome look more like Windows, which is not by definition more usable. It may be good for people that get scared by anything remotely different from Windows, though, if you want to have them use another OS.

Not that the current Gnome menu is that bad, but nothing beats things that have been tested on real non geek users.

Ergonomists know, for starters, that a menu on top of the screen is better. For your neck, for example. So here Novell is making a first, untested I assume, mistake. If these 'tests' on 'non geek users' didn't take efficiency (number of mouse clicks) and ergonomics (menu bar down by default, not smart) into account, and presumed that users should not be told of anything they could not discover for themselves, then this 'test' is already compromised by the fact that most people sort of know how the Windows interface works.

Reply Parent Score: 4

g2devi Member since:
2005-07-09

Couldn't agree more. I'm not sure who they tested on because:

1) The "Computer" menu doesn't mean anything to me. Why would I look for applications in the computer section? An "Applications" or "Programs" menu is more intuitive. Even the much maligned "Start" button is more obvious (just make sure you place the logout/shutdown button outside of this menu;-]).

2) It doesn't obey Fitt's Law. It's easy to get to the "Computer" menu, but once there, you have to hunt, in two dimensions for what you need to look for. Two dimensional mouse hunting is something frowned upon in the accessibility community.

3) Novell KDE's SLAB solves the "two dimensional hunting" issue a bit better:
http://www.desktoplinux.com/files/article106/sled102-new_menu.jpg
But it still suffers from a number of problems (shared with the GNOME version in some form). For instance, if we're going to have tabs, why not just make them separate menu items (a la GNOME Applications/Places/System) to conform with Fitt's Law and expose the options. And it's not at all obvious how to add something to your favourite's list (I assume it's possible). If it's not possible and it's autogenerated, them the "Favourite's List" can confuse people since items will pop in to or out of that menu and move around in that menu as you use it. Anyone who has had to support windows users who turn on "Personalized menus" has heard the common complaint "It was there yesterday, I swear, but now it's gone." Anyone who has used it know you can't rely on "muscle memory" to quickly find items because they keep moving around.

This isn't to say that the GNOME menu couldn't do with some improvement. The (KDE) SLAB, does have some good ideas, and so does Gimmie ( http://beatnik.infogami.com/Gimmie ). But blindly following what Windows won't help GNOME (or KDE) become more usable or intuitive or easily learned.

Edited 2006-12-29 15:47

Reply Parent Score: 4

unoengborg Member since:
2005-07-06

Novell's Gnome menu is not more usable than the present default Gnome menu.
The former actually needs more mouse clicks.


That would be true only every program was used at the same frequency by all users. In reality most users only use a few programs on a daily basis. By having these on shortcut, lots and lots of mouse clicks are saved.

Plus, why sacrifice one window thumbnail/virtual desktop bar? Because virtual desktops are confusing;


I agree with you, that the Novell finding that one panel should be better than two is somewhat odd. If we apply Fitt's law, two panels should present a much larger target to interact with.

However, there are also advantages. For one thing most documents we create have portrait layout. Removing the top menu would create more screen space for the document you are working on. This would be especially important on small screens such as laptops.

The main reason for users to prefer one panel at the bottom layout is probably, as you suspect, that they are used to having it that way from windows.

Allowing to users make use of knowledge gained elsewhere is part of being usable. E.g. we could probably make a car easier to control by using a joystick, but any benefits from doing so would be undone by the fact that people already are used to having a steering wheel, a clutch, a brake and an accelerator. This way of thinking also applies to desktop environments.

I also doubt that having the panel on top or at the bottom makes much real difference with respect to muscle tension related problems. The reason is that you use it too seldom. How you arrange your monitor, and what chair you use will have much bigger impact on this.

BTW,the menus you use the most will be the menus of your applications, and they are likely to be closer to the top than the bottom.


Novell is making a first, untested I assume, mistake. If these 'tests' on 'non geek users' didn't take efficiency (number of mouse clicks) and ergonomics (menu bar down by default, not smart) into account, and presumed that users should not be told of anything they could not discover for themselves, then this 'test' is already compromised by the fact that most people sort of know how the Windows interface works.


Usability is more than counting number of clicks. Theory is good, but when theory and reality differs, it is usually the reality that is right. That 90% of potential Linux users have experience with windows is part of that reality, and whatever tests we do will be influenced by this. What good would it be to design systems that would be usable for users that are not likely to use the system.

Reply Parent Score: 2