"A lot of bandwidth has been wasted arguing over the lack of usability in open-source software/free software. Some people say that bad usability is endemic to the entire OSS world, while others say that OSS usability is great but that the real problem is the closed-minded users who expect every program to clone Microsoft. Some people contend that UI problems are temporary growing pains, while others say that the OSS development model systematically produces bad UI. In an effort to understand usability in the OSS world, I've researched the stories behind my favorite - and least favorite - OSS programs. I've found a fascinating variety of personalities, design philosophies, and project organizations. Although I've only scratched the surface, there are already themes that come up again and again."
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2007-08-24
You might want to re-read the article and check some of the conclusions you have drawn.
He never said that it's a "mistake to make applications configurable."
He said that it's a mistake to make applications overly-configurable. And he pretty well defined what he meant by "overly".
Member since:2006-03-15
From your comments, I would guess that you (a) deal with technical people a lot, (b) are technical yourself, or (c) both. It's not that they're stupid. It's that they have more important things to do. Despite what you may think, he is NOT insane. I've also personally seen comments from developers like what were mentioned for ZIYASP.
As for configurability, he is right on about KDE. It's a geek environment. Where else can I sit down at one machine and have it act and look like Windows 95 and have it act like something else? There is nothing wrong with having options. The problem comes from having too many options, particularly ones that are almost never, if ever, used.
Member since:2005-07-06
> It's a geek environment.
you say that like it's at odds with being any other kind of environment. millions of non-geek users are evidence of it being otherwise.
> The problem comes from having too many options,
> particularly ones that are almost never, if ever,
> used.
that i agree with. the question is how to delineate between these categories of options. that is something i don't think many people have managed to do very well, and i've read quite a bit on the topic.
i see a lot of "software should be more sane!" mantra-ing without a lot of real world suggestions. in the article, the suggested solution in this regard is sane defaults. which, interestingly, is usually rather orthogonal to the flexibility of the software itself. however, what 'sane defaults' are is never actually elucidated.
so once again we get (vague, which is understandable given the attention span of a blog entry,) descriptions of problems with even more vague descriptions of solutions that are really just reiterations of ideas that have been hashed and rehashed with very little conclusion.
there have been a few people who have gone to great length to talk about these solutions, the person who coined the term "humane computing" being one of them, which has resulted in a great contribution to the field .... but here we are reading this blog entry instead =) oh well ...
Member since:2006-10-10
I've also personally seen comments from developers like what were mentioned for ZIYASP.
Exactly! Anyone who doesn't believe that, or want a live demonstration, should just head on over to any pro-Linux thread and shout TO HELL WITH COMMAND LINE! I'll bet you'll see the rank-and-file linux nazi's spew all sorts of nastiness not unlike that which the author fictitiously wrote about ZIYASP.
I, for one, consider myself a person of moderate intelligence and yet have ZERO desire to re-learn anything that has to be typed on the right hand side of a prompt.
A good article, at any rate.
Member since:2007-09-11
The problem comes from having too many options, particularly ones that are almost never, if ever, used.
I disagree with you here. Some check box somewhere in the back of a config dialog which almost no one touches can perhaps be a bit ugly but not really a big problem, and it can be valuable for the few people using it. Look at about:config in firefox for example, lots of tiny options that not many people touch.
The problem is when configurability is used to cover up flaws in the UI design. If you have a setting that 40% of the users set to a state that lets them do task A easier, and another setting that 30% of the users set to let them do task B easier, maybe you could instead have designed the program so both tasks were easy to do.
As a developer, a big practical problem here is that if your program is buggy you get bug reports, but you never get reports of these types of issues. Most people just configure it so that it works for them.
Member since:2005-11-10
I work with regular people every day, and some of them are more humble, well spoken and many times more intelligible than you.
The fact that a regular user can operate a complex machine like a car without issue, and then have so much trouble operating a complex computer shows that there's a wealth of engineers, UI designers and people like you that are mentally backwards when it comes to the importance of machine interface.
The end user is _not_ stupid. Any mistake they make, is, as a programmer, almost entirely your own fault. And technical people don't like to admit they're wrong, they just call the user stupid for not understanding their poor workmanship.
Member since:2006-06-03
A car is designed solely to drive, it goes forward, backward and turns corners. If you're lucky, you have the added functionality of a CD player, or buttons to control the windows. Some people even have both!
Whereas a computer is designed to do everything, playing media, communicating, analysing data, research, creating documents, there is very little that a computer hasn't been programmed to do. All of these are controlled through one interface (Keyboard/Mouse). Imagine being able to operate your toaster from the dashboard of your car, and you begin to have a fair compariason.
Member since:2006-03-23
Or perhaps they can operate a car because they spend time learning it by taking a drivers license. and mind you, the car really has limited functionality, sure, you have to know traffic rules and stuff, but i ask you... how many times do the users of cars do something wrong? at this very moment theres almost certainly a car crash somewhere..
Member since:
2006-03-23
that nobody listens to this "person", saying its a mistake to make applications configurable. Well, i say, if some user, like him, dont do any work because he constantly tweaks his UI, well then he is simply a moron that gets distracted too easily, and isnt worth the money someone is paying him.. I believe this is what Torvalds describe as an Interface nazi.
"oh please!! my master, i am too dumb to figure out how i want the interface, but i can not for the love of god stop touching these settings, please remove them, and allow ONLY the default to be there!!!"
this guy is insane.
and his example with the ZIYASP is totally bogus.
If people really are doctors, and cant manage to customize a gui like with KDEs, to something they like, or generally find normal(as in, stuff that people just come to, without requiring special training) applications confusing and cant use them, well then i'd better hope they never get hired as anything more than a door greeter, cause i'd really not want them to be performing any kind of medical thing to me. When was the last time anyone saw a gui that required knowledge of internal workings? yeah, cause we see that every day, our OSS gui's really are nothing more than a slightly more convenient way of running syscalls..
so talk about inhumane again.. and smart people... I think some of these Smart people was in charge of writing the recipt for some common cold medicin, but because they were so smart, they accidentally got him some more interresting things...
Edited 2007-10-07 00:05