Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 1st Jun 2008 14:35 UTC
Graphics, User Interfaces As I already explained in the first Usability Terms article, consistency goes a long way in ensuring a pleasurable user experience in graphical user interfaces. While some user interfaces appear to be more graphically consistent than others, Windows has always appeared to be worse than most others - probably because it carries with it stuff that dates back to the 16bit era. IStartedSomething agrees with this, and started the Windows UI TaskForce.
Thread beginning with comment 316479
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Why?
by porcel on Sun 1st Jun 2008 16:52 UTC
porcel
Member since:
2006-01-28

Call me a cynic,but I understand fully why people give of their time to improve open source software as you are contributing to a common good (I am using the term good here in its economic sense). More importantly, one that nobody can take away, but why would any one freely give of their time to contribute to the bottom line of one of the world's largest companies?

Let Microsoft do its own homework. The day it releases its operating system under an open source license, I will be the first to line up to help.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Why?
by google_ninja on Sun 1st Jun 2008 17:38 in reply to "Why?"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

Because it is what is used by the vast majority of the worlds population?

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Why?
by Milo_Hoffman on Sun 1st Jun 2008 19:52 in reply to "RE: Why?"
Milo_Hoffman Member since:
2005-07-06

yes, and if they want it to CONTINUE TO BE USED by a majority they should take the time and effort to improve their product themselves instead of spending so much time adding in DRM which their customers don't even want.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE: Why?
by superstoned on Sun 1st Jun 2008 19:27 in reply to "Why?"
superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

I agree with you. I'd rather see a community improve something which is OWNED by the community instead of them helping a big company which has done pretty much everything it could to hurt innovation - and in that sense, that same community. And as a psychologist, I well know past behavior is often the best predictor of future behavior.

Maybe I'm extreme, but I think it's bad to support proprietary software in any way. I think the whole concept is bad for humanity. Information and knowledge should be free, and by extend should the infrastructure on which it is transported and spread.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Why?
by JonathanBThompson on Sun 1st Jun 2008 21:42 in reply to "RE: Why?"
JonathanBThompson Member since:
2006-05-26

If you feel so strongly that all ideas and knowledge should be free, and also all software should be free please back it up with your actions in your profession: do what you trained for and spent lots of time and energy and money to acquire for free, and only for free. What, you can't do that? Ok, then stop insisting others must give things away for free!

Now, if you want to help a proprietary company make something that's better for end-users, sometimes you have to tell them "Hey, this sucks, I'd like this better, because it makes more sense to me!" and sometimes you honestly can't expect to get anything out of it besides the personal satisfaction that at least you made your wants/needs clear to the company(s) in question. Of course, it is entirely possible that their wants/needs and yours don't coincide: to which I reply, go back to the Open Source Software you support, and support it by doing what's needed to make it the way you want it. Of course, there's lots of things that aren't available for free, because there hasn't been enough interest in those that would do things for free to bother with it. In the end, everything that exists has a price: you just get to decide what price you're willing/able to pay, and perhaps whom has to pay it, as it isn't always a one-sided deal as to the people that pay the price.

Note: developers are part of the infrastructure of which you speak: this ties it back to the put-up-or-shutup dare. I think OSS is great, and those that voluntarily contribute to it are great for doing it, but in no manner would I insist that they do it on any other than their own agreed-upon terms. If they are lucky enough to get paid to do it, everyone wins, but demanding it be truly free in all senses is unfair.

Edited 2008-06-01 21:47 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Why?
by MollyC on Mon 2nd Jun 2008 00:58 in reply to "RE: Why?"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

I agree with you. I'd rather see a community improve something which is OWNED by the community instead of them helping a big company which has done pretty much everything it could to hurt innovation - and in that sense, that same community. And as a psychologist, I well know past behavior is often the best predictor of future behavior. Maybe I'm extreme, but I think it's bad to support proprietary software in any way. I think the whole concept is bad for humanity. Information and knowledge should be free, and by extend should the infrastructure on which it is transported and spread.


Clearly, those that are using Windows and want certain things "fixed" (I put that in quotes because many of the things listed in the article aren't bugs, but are requests), have an incentive to report said issues. Who are you to tell them not to do that, or look down on them for doing it? You don't think it's worthwhile to report problems in Windows (because it's not OSS or whatever)? Fine, then don't. That's your choice. But it's others' choice to go ahead and report the problems they find. Your calling these people saps for reporting problems with a closed source product is akin to a closed source dev calling an open source dev a sap for working for free to enrich the pockets of the investors and execs of a company that distributes the resulting OSS product. That's what you sound like when I read your self-righteous, self-congratulatory post.

I get the feeling that what really upsets you about this is that you hate Microsoft (you've said as much in your post), and therefore *want* their products to suck and can't abide any effort to improve their products undertaken by those that use said products.

Oh, and save the self-righteous "owned by the community" bull. The people reporting these UI problems aren't necessarily developers, they are users. And non-dev users aren't part of the "community" that "owns" OSS. For example, I and most I know use Firefox, an open source product, but none of us feel that we are in some "community that owns" Firefox, anymore than we'd feel that we "owned" Opera, IE, or any other closed-source browser. That's because we don't give a damn that the code is OSS. It's just another product.

One last thing: This article has nothing to do with OSS advocacy or your anti-Microsoft crusade. Every time a Microsoft article is posted here, the haters come out of the woodwork to spout the usual lines on how Microsoft sucks and how some OSS alternative is better or the OSS "philosophy" is better, or some other claptrap. When an Linux article is posted, you almost NEVER see some Windows fanboy derailing the thread with anti-Linux BS or pro-MS advocacy. To put is simply: This article is NOT about you. It's about Windows users that want to improve it. Not everything is about you. You want to advocate OSS? Then do it in an appropriate article rather than derailing every single Microsoft article's thread with pro-OSS anti-Microsoft bilge.

Edited 2008-06-02 01:11 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Why?
by sappyvcv on Sun 1st Jun 2008 22:22 in reply to "Why?"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Your logic is backwards. If people are paying to use Windows, isn't it better if Microsoft asks them what they don't like and how to improve it? It's not that Microsoft can't or doesn't want to spend the money, but it's better to get user input and make decisions based on that.

Besides, if you take maybe 10 minutes to type up what you don't like and how to improve it, what's the big f--king deal?

This is Microsoft trying to actually do it's homework.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Why?
by tomcat on Tue 3rd Jun 2008 22:48 in reply to "Why?"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Let Microsoft do its own homework. The day it releases its operating system under an open source license, I will be the first to line up to help.


What difference does the license make to people that just want to use an improved OS? Serving up recommendations for improvements helps them just as much as it does people who recommend improvements for GNU-ish projects.

Reply Parent Score: 2