Is complexity (and wearing this on the outside) an inherit part of open source design? FactoryJoe compares the OpenOfficeMouse (a mouse with 18 programmable buttons and even an analogue joystick) and the Apple Magic Mouse-"To me, the OpenOfficeMouse seems like such a typical product from the open source community." [Kroc: I honestly believed the OpenOfficeMouse to be a very clever satirical joke, the irony that it isn't suspends belief]
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2007-02-17
Precisely so. Mod parent up.
BTW: I have seen literally thousands of "FAIL" designs touted for Windows or Mac applications, with never a suggestion that this makes Windows or Mac users look ridiculous. After all, the Windows or Mac users didn't make the design.
So why this article's inane slur against "open source design" whatever that is supposed to be?
What is wrong with simply having a go at the designers of the mouse in question, and leaving it at that?
Member since:2009-08-26
Member since:2006-11-12
I don't know how one can argue that the menus are more cluttered in open source. There is just too much open source variety to stereotype open source software.
Also, I have shown that a Mac config window is more cluttered than its open source counterpart. Furthermore, the two window examples that I use happen to be the very examples put forth in the original article to assert the opposite point. Care to compare two more examples?
Besides, one can merely use Gnome (or one of the lite distro/projects) if one wants limited choices with open source.
In addition, the few open source examples you give cannot begin to characterize the whole of open source software. There are numerous other desktop/WMs, image editors, office programs (and zillions of other programs) that are open source.
By the way, where exactly are the menus cluttered in the examples that you mention?
In regards to the notion that I am reacting to a "parody," please see the two links that I posted below, which lead to OpenOffice.org sites that refer to the OOmouse. It appears that the OOMouse people have already made a presentation at OOoCon 2009.
An 18-button mouse is plausible, considering that there is already a 17-button mouse on the market: http://www.razerzone.com/gaming-mice/razer-naga/
Here is a 15-button mouse, too: http://gizmodo.com/5061632/steelseries-world-of-warcraft-mouse-dest...
Even if the OOMouse is a hoax, the article on which this thread is based is real. The Apple-worshipping author really believes that Mac products are more usable and better designed than their open-source counterparts. I was merely countering the author's staggering misconceptions.
Member since:
2006-11-12
What a terrible article. It's full of flimsy arguments and stereotypical notions from an Apple-worshiping author. Obviously, he's too lost in the RDF (and too steeped in his own Apple-derived notions of "proper" interface design) to offer any precise reasoning.
Congratulations! I plugged in my non-Apple, scroll-wheel mouse and went to work one second later -- no acclimation necessary.
Guess what? Most open source users have simple scroll-wheel mice or 2-button/3-button mice -- again, no acclimation necessary.
Why is he comparing the OpenOfficeMouse to a peculiar, unituitive Apple mouse?
Probably should have stopped reading right there. Sounds like this guy has very limited experience with open source software. If he did have a lot of open source experience, he would realize that there are no generalizations about what is "typical" regarding open source, except that there is great variety and it's usually free in almost every sense.
My guess is that his encounters with open source are limited to the occasional, theoretical open source web articles he reads on his Mac (running OSX).
How do people like this get onto the boards of organizations with names like "Open ID" and "Open Web?"
This is the only good point in the entire article.
Really?
The operation of the OpenOfficeMouse config window is self-evident.
We see an image of the OpenOfficeMouse with one button highlighted (a function is being assigned to that button). There is a list of basic button function categories. Next to that list is a list of the precise operation that the button will execute. There are tabs at the top to assign button functions specific to the other Open Office modules.
We're setting one highlighted button at a time. The OpenOfficeMouse config page is very simple and straightforward.
On the other hand, the MagicMouse config page is confusing. There is an image of a hand with an extended index finger holding a blob of white plastic (the MagicMouse). Above that, in the image, is the floating window of what appears to be an image viewer with a large image showing two other floating, diagonal superimposed images.
So, in other words, we see two diagonal images, superimposed over a larger image, with a group of smaller images next to it, within a window, within an image that includes a hand and a plastic blob, within the main window!
WTF?! That's incomprehensible.
It gets worse when looking at the non-image part of the MagicMouse config window.
There are check boxes and multi-choice buttons. The first check box says, "Secondary click" with a multi-choice button reading "Right."
The question arises: secondary click of what? Are there any buttons/areas of the MagicMouse highlighted? I can't tell to what is being referred. Also, does this mean that I can only use secondary clicks on "right" (whatever that is)? Does this selection exclude "left" (whatever that may be)?
The second check box says, "Scroll" with an adjacent multi-choice button that reads, "with momentum." What is being scrolled? Again, no highlighed buttons nor areas on the MagicMouse.
The next check box says, "Screen Zoom," with an adjacent button that reads, "Options..."
Screen Zoom?... how? I see only an index finger over a blob of white plastic!
The "Two Fingers" section is self-evident, provided one is aware that the MagicMouse uses a touch surface.
However, it looks like the Apple config page has us setting several mysterious mouse functions at the same time (possibly at the exclusion of other desired mouse functions) with a complex image, while the OpenOfficeMouse config page has us very easily setting one mouse button at a time.
Again, with the stereotypes. Has this guy ever used Gnome? -- it's worse than Apple! Open source offers a wide variety of interfaces, some simplistic and some complex. Open source cannot be stereotyped in this way.
Dude! Get out of the RDF. Requiring over a week of acclimation merely to use a mouse does not equate an "instantly-usable product."
The original Engelbart mouse from the 1960s only took a few seconds to learn.
This guy doesn't use an open source OS very often -- he just "supports" the use of open source. In addition, his notions of usability are Apple-centric.
intuitive future-forward interfaces.
Beauty has nothing to do with the degree of usability of a product. This fact is something that is usually escapes most Apple fans. In fact, many of the most usable interfaces are often the ones that are generally considered ugly.
In the case of Apple, usability is often sacrificed for "looks."
I don't know of any "norm" in "open source design." I don't even know what he means by "open source design."
However, the "norm" mouse for most users of open source OSs is probably a simple 2-button/3-button/scrollwheel mouse.
What a terrible, erroneous article.