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 316658
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Why?
by rockwell on Mon 2nd Jun 2008 14:58 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Why?"
rockwell
Member since:
2005-09-13

//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).//

OK ... so ... how does Microsoft's existence prevent you from doing/using any of that? I'm confused. I thought Linux/OSS was growing every year?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Why?
by superstoned on Mon 2nd Jun 2008 15:39 in reply to "RE[4]: Why?"
superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

Well, MS creates proprietary software. As I said, I think proprietary software is bad, and it should go as soon as possible. Preferably before governments give in to the pressure for making FOSS illegal; or take advantage of it to limit the freedom of their citizens.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Why?
by chris_dk on Mon 2nd Jun 2008 16:30 in reply to "RE[5]: Why?"
chris_dk Member since:
2005-07-12

As I said, I think proprietary software is bad, and it should go as soon as possible.


I am interested in your opinion on how to make sustainable products that are specialized.

Open Source and Free Software is very good at producing low level software and software for the general public. However, I don't think that it is a good business model for niche products that very few developers can actually contribute to.

This is something that Free Software developers to this day still have not acknowledged: that there exists other business models than their own. This hurts the advancement of Free Software.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Why?
by rockwell on Mon 2nd Jun 2008 16:41 in reply to "RE[5]: Why?"
rockwell Member since:
2005-09-13

//As I said, I think proprietary software is bad, and it should go as soon as possible. //
Ummm .... ok? There are lots of things in life "that should just go away" but they won't. You can wish in one hand and poop in the other, and see which happens first.

Edited 2008-06-02 16:43 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Why?
by MollyC on Tue 3rd Jun 2008 17:16 in reply to "RE[5]: Why?"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

Well, MS creates proprietary software. As I said, I think proprietary software is bad, and it should go as soon as possible.


First, Microsoft also creates open source software.

Second, lots of companies create closed source software, not just Microsoft. Have you ever injected your OSS advocacy into threads about articles regarding non-Microsoft closed source software (thus, derailing the thread)? Didn't think so.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Why?
by tomcat on Tue 3rd Jun 2008 22:54 in reply to "RE[5]: Why?"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Well, MS creates proprietary software. As I said, I think proprietary software is bad, and it should go as soon as possible. Preferably before governments give in to the pressure for making FOSS illegal; or take advantage of it to limit the freedom of their citizens.


Let me guess. You're, like, 12, right?

Reply Parent Score: 2