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 316502
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Why?
by superstoned on Sun 1st Jun 2008 19:27 UTC 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[3]: Why?
by sbergman27 on Sun 1st Jun 2008 22:01 in reply to "RE[2]: Why?"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

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!

Not necessary, really. Red Hat has managed this better than anyone else. They do not work for free. And yet they do manage to keep ideas and knowledge free. It is a delicate balancing act, to be sure, Jonathan. But they have managed it. We need to consider how this beneficial strategy can be proliferated. No one should have to work for no gain. But to be able to work for everyone's gain is a privilege. I do not have the answer. But I think about it every day. Maybe someday I will.

I believe that Superstoned does contribute hard work to the KDE project. I respect him for that.

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[3]: Why?
by superstoned on Mon 2nd Jun 2008 06:03 in reply to "RE[2]: Why?"
superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

It's not about hate for MS or any other company making and selling proprietary software. Many are decent and are doing a great job. But I sincerely believe the businessmodel behind proprietary software is bad for society. When I write Free, I'm not talking about free but Libre. Not free beer but freedom of thought. The freedom to aquire, share and develop knowledge which can help people. The freedom of political expression. The freedom to do with whatever hardware you bought whatever you want. The only restraint on human freedom should be another person's freedom - no more, no less.

Economically speaking, proprietary software has a tendency to lead to a monopoly. Every economist can tell you - a marginal cost of zero leads to a monopoly. And almost every economist will tell you a monopoly is bad. It raises prices, lowers efficiency and kills innovation. Maybe not immediately, but in the end, it's what happens.

Socially speaking, proprietary software developers have a financial incentive to limit the freedom of their users. They don't HAVE to do it, sure. Some will, some won't. But as long as there is that incentive, as soon as a small company grows into a big company, it becomes more and more likely to happen. And I think that's dangerous, as we slowly begin to depend more and more on computersoftware to express ourselves, to share information, knowledge and art.

So I think economical freedom, the free market economy, is good for people. I also believe personal and political freedom are good for people. Therefore I believe proprietary software is bad for humankind in the long run. Which is why I promote Free Software (Linux/BSD/KDE/Gnome), Free Culture (Blender/Magnatune/Creative Commons) and Free Knowledge (Wikipedia & friends).

Reply Parent Score: 2