"Today, the GNOME Project celebrates the release of GNOME 2.18, the latest version of the popular, multi-platform Free desktop environment." The GNOME 2.18 start page has all the details, such as release notes, download locations, and screenshots.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-24
"""
Look, this is not some theoretical argument delivered by self-proclaimed, ivory tower usability experts.
"""
I'm a big believer in empirical evidence.
But no one has shown me any. From what I can see, based upon what has been presented and linked here, the argument against user levels is very much a theoretical one.
And I'll admit up front that my argument is theoretical, as well. Furthurmore, I could be wrong.
Provide some solid, replicable, empirical evidence to support the position and I will take it quite seriously.
I still don't consider myself to be a usability expert.
But as a rational, thinking being, I would prefer to see actual evidence.
Controlled usability studies would be ideal.
Perhaps Novell or Sun will settle this someday?
Edited 2007-03-15 15:54
Member since:2005-11-15
As you, I many times asked for a set of complexity levels to assign to users.
My main reasons are linked to the fact that I support small networks. There you will see better the need for basic, regular and advanced levels from a user perspective (and, of course, a customized option too).
Most of the people would just go with basic, it is simple and straightforward and they don't want to mess with the system, just get their job done.
Some like few more options because they are a bit involved with cooperative tasks over the network or other not so usual things and extras options are handy for that.
And there are the power users that need many very unusual options. Many could argue that this kind of user can find out their way on the system and tweak it. Well, first of, only if the options are there, even if hidden, second, I don't like the fuss involved and the time spent just to turn it on, after all I just need THE FEATURE and would be happy to just click "Almighty Power NOW!" button instead of learning how to activate it after editing an obscure option on gconf.
Member since:2005-09-21
Ok, well I see where you are coming from, and in the 5 minute google search I couldn't find any papers discussing this issue specifically. However, if you want to refute the statement that user levels don't work, you need to come up with some evidence to back it up.
For example, how do you address the fact that users tend to overestimate their own abilities? This is fairly well documented in other fields.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Wobegon_effect
You say that if they miscategorize themselves then that is their own fault, but if that is the majority, then most people will think the Linux GUI is too complicated and cluttered. Not something that will help adoption.
Also, let's think about the technical aspects by going through some options of Konqueror, the KDE browser. Konqueror has a lot of options, so in your view, it should be a prime candidate for user levels.
"Enable completion of forms"
"Open links in new tab instead of new window"
"automatically load images"
So which one of those goes in which level? Should the beginner be allowed to disable form completion? What about the option for not loading images? Is that something an intermediate user may use? Or maybe this is only for experts? What about all the options related to cookies? Should a beginner have to see that? If we enable them by default, what about privacy concerns?
The point is that it's insanely hard to figure out which options should be in which group. For every single option you'll find someone that uses it every day, and will complain endlessly when you put it in the expert category, forcing him to set his UI to expert mode, even though he would rather have the simple clean interface otherwise.
The second point is complexity. Suddenly there are three config dialogs to manage, three sets of options which may not always be the same across levels. It's a nightmare to code and maintain.
I think Mozilla has it about right. The default options make sense, and for power users there is a searchable about:config. KDE has too many options for my liking, but Gnome goes too far in removing features for me to be able to effectively use it. A single good balance is better than a user level cop-out.
Member since:
2005-09-21
And while I don't claim to be a usability expert... it all looks like a load of tripe to me.
And that's why you're not a usability expert.
Look, this is not some theoretical argument delivered by self-proclaimed, ivory tower usability experts. The reasons against user modes come from experience. Like yourself, lots of people thought it was a good idea at first. Then they tried it and it failed miserably. To summarize, why user modes don't work:
1. Everyone think's they're an expert. Just like 80% of people will say they are above average drivers. People can't estimate their own competence.
2. Once you're in expert mode once, you never switch back. If you ever get asked to switch to expert mode to set one option, you wont be going back. User testing has shown this.
3. People want "all the options" so they go to expert mode just so they won't miss anything.
Plus a couple more less massive problems with the idea.
I also don't buy the idea that a reasonable set of options for each level cannot be chosen. It doesn't have to be perfect, and it *won't* be perfect.
You say that now because you haven't tried it. Chances are that you want a clean desktop. Well in "Beginner mode" thats what you get. Few options and only the most common. But sometimes you want an option in the expert mode, and you just have to have it because of your workflow. Well now you're in expert mode, and along with your option, which may be "Set burn mode" you get 4 other tabs of esoteric options that someone wanted and got shoved into expert mode to please them. It doesn't work.
And I see loads of evidence that many are unhappy with the limitations of the current Gnome UI.
Subjective subjective subjective. If everyone was unhappy the project wouldn't exist. Here's my subjective counterargument. My grandmother and all her friends likes Gnome just fine. Just as subjective and it came from the same place.
KDE users, I have a question for you. If Gnome provided you with more options and configurability by simply setting your interface mode to "Power User" or whatever, would it be a more attractive desktop to you?
No. It would be less attractive. Right now, it is marginally attractive because by default it is very clean and organized. I don't use it because it is lacking features, but taking away it's excellent looks and simplicity is just going to turn me off even more.