"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: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:2005-07-12
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 ...