"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 view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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:2006-07-30
Spot on!
Somebody (I believe it was Linus) made the point that an application that contains only the features that are used by a majority would have nearly no features at all.
The point is that different groups of users use different subsets of the features. Maybe one needs wordcount, the other needs syntax highlighting and a third person absolutely depends on an integrated file manager if we take Kate as an example.
So the question is not whether or not to have all these features but how to present them to the user. In this regard I believe Kate is an interesting example because the word count feature is (last time I checked) not listed in a menu but you are expected to use the command "wc" in the integrated terminal.
This might seem rather odd but with any full blown application you have so many options that you need to check the documentation anyway - unless you want to hunt the feature down in menus that are 4 levels deep, which often takes more time, or guess what button of the 1000 buttons that reside in the menubar and unfortunately all look the same does the thing you want. Looking at you two, Kile and OOffice!
Member since:2006-03-23
Well i for sure hope that no features really gets removed, because if someone cant use them, or dont wanna bother finding out what they do, then just stay away from them, its not like they DEMAND that you press them and tweak them to doomsday.
so the solution is simple, Have a good allaround defalt, which i believe KDE has, and then users which wants to customize can choose to do so, and users who want to do nothing, can simply stay away from the configuration dialogs. And if they cannot stay away from it, well, thats really their problem, i dont see why i should give up my abilities because they dont wanna use them, and as such, dont wanna have them even exist.
And this is why i currently use KDE, its abilities reflects these philosophies, which, (and yes, i dare say this) is the RIGHT one.
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:2006-01-02
Hear, hear! Knowing the particular flags of a command-line program or the formatting of a config file (or registry key, if you're of the Windows persuasion) is not a good use of human intelligence. Even for technical users, the interface to the software should take them as quickly as possible to the places where they have to make a decision that the software cannot make itself.
It is not the eye candy of the transparent, 3-D desktops that make software usable and beautiful. The Mac has none of these things and it is still well-regarded. It's the thought that goes behind how the functionality is presented to the user so that they naturally fall into the pattern of using the software correctly. Discoverability is hard.
Also, listening to user requests is not the right answer. Neither is having the developers and designers "guess." UI designs are like a--holes, everyone's got one and no one really wants to use yours. The only real way to get a good UI is to instrument your prototypes and either collect data in a usability lab or to collect data through remote telemetry.
Member since:2005-10-02
Stop the nazi-namecalling, please.
Fact is that users can perform some operations faster through a GUI and other operations faster through command line. Personally it's my experience that the combination of GUI and command line is the most powerful combination. What would AutoCAD be like if I couldn't combine mouse-drawing with keyboard-drawing?
l m *mouseclick*m *mouseclick*
Draw a line from midpoint of one line to midpoint of another line. Damn fast to do when combining both tools. GUI isn't better than CLI and CLI isn't better than GUI. Different strengths, different drawbacks. Learn how to use the tools properly.
Member since:2005-11-02
Exactly! 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...
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.
I invoke Godwin's law you GUI-Nazi!
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:2006-01-04
Why not just have the rarely-used options configurable via a command line interface, while keeping the UI as clean as possible? That will be easier to navigate for the technical users who want to change such an option, and if you want to make an easy to read FAQ, you can provide cut and paste command line snippets. Additionally, you could call those options "unsupported" to help concentrate on making a subset of the possible configurations work as well as possible.
Also, some people think there is a difference between "Configuration" and "Customisation". Configuration being things like making your network card function correctly, but customisation being changing the desktop wallpaper or something.
I completely agree with the idea that configuration is often used to cover up UI design flaws.
Member since:2006-03-15
Allow me to clarify. about:config is actually an excellent feature. It requires the invocation of an advanced feature in order to access advanced options, which is fine by me. Regular people never see it, but tweakers can have all the fun they like. What I'm talking about is a nightmare for anyone, like Tools|Options in Microsoft Word 2003.
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.