Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 4th Apr 2009 16:16 UTC
This is the eleventh article in a series on common usability and graphical user interface related terms. On the internet, and especially in forum discussions like we all have here on OSNews, it is almost certain that in any given discussion, someone will most likely bring up usability and GUI related terms - things like spatial memory, widgets, consistency, Fitts' Law, and more. The aim of this series is to explain these terms, learn something about their origins, and finally rate their importance in the field of usability and (graphical) user interface design. After a rather long hiatus, this eleventh instalment will focus on bling, desktop effects, and compositing, and what they can contribute to the desktop experience.
Thread beginning with comment 356919
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: strange definition of "usability"
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 4th Apr 2009 17:29
in reply to "strange definition of "usability""
Member since:2005-06-29
You didn't read very well, did you? I specifically explained why certain effects make a desktop more usable for some people.
I also specifically explained configurability is a good thing in this context, and that's why Compiz is the best option. However, configuring Compiz should be made easier still.
You need to go back, and read it again. Just copying a few select sentences and pull them out of context is no way to comment on an article.
RE: strange definition of "usability"
by sbergman27 on Sat 4th Apr 2009 17:32
in reply to "strange definition of "usability""
Member since:2005-07-24
And what has wobbly windows to do with usability?
Thanks for reminding me of one of the funnier exchanges I have ever seen on OSNews:
http://www.osnews.com/thread?169922
:-)
Edited 2009-04-04 17:33 UTC
RE: strange definition of "usability"
by Vanders on Sat 4th Apr 2009 17:37
in reply to "strange definition of "usability""
Member since:2005-07-06
RE: strange definition of "usability"
by n4cer on Sat 4th Apr 2009 18:41
in reply to "strange definition of "usability""
Member since:2005-07-06
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-07-12
???
I thought this article is about usability. Instead you proclaim that openness makes a compositor more advance even if it's too complicated to be configured? And what has wobbly windows to do with usability?
You've got a really strange definition of "usability".
Believe it or not, most users (even advanced users and geeks) don't like to spend their time configuring or recompiling apps. Instead their glad when developers decided for sensible defaults so they don't have to fiddle with the apps. That's a main point of usability. It's not about - "configure / compile yourself - I was too stupid to think about users needs, so I simple opened up the code and added a complex configuration file so everybody can spend valuable time trying .."
And I don't see why "open" and "configurable" makes a software "more advanced".
Edited 2009-04-04 17:24 UTC