Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 19th Nov 2005 16:52 UTC, submitted by chrishaney
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu The first preview release of (K)Ubuntu 6.04 Dapper Drake has been released. You can download Ubuntu here, and Kubuntu here. Screenshots can be found here and here.
Thread beginning with comment 62360
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[11]: meh
by archiesteel on Sat 19th Nov 2005 23:00 UTC
archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

konqueror is not a good application except to the kde faithful. in fact, its downright poor. for usability, it seriously needs to go back to square one.

Again, vague criticism. Can you point to us in which ways the latest version of Konqueror is bad with regards to usability? They did a really good job of cleaning up the toolbars (at least on Kubuntu) depending on the current task.

Reply Score: 1

RE[12]: meh
by on Sun 20th Nov 2005 00:03 in reply to "RE[11]: meh"
Member since:

do you want mine and everyone elses(ie ordinary users) viewpoint or that of a kde developer as to the reasons why konqueror is a poor application?

here aaron krill talks you through why konqueror fails the usability test:




Novell is "standardizing" on Gnome as their desktop environment. Anyone want to know why? Because the gnome guys know how to make a good simple end-user application.

Lets face it. Almost all KDE apps have interfaces that provide easy access to even the most advanced functions. That my friends, is the problem. The immense choice of features and actions things like toolbars, as well as non-descript icons, are turning newbies away from KDE.

Lets take Konqueror for example, probably the one thing a linux newbie would use most. Right now, with SuSE 10.0 defaults, I have 12 buttons on my toolbar... These are what they do:

* Back
* Forward
* Up
* Home
* Refresh
* Stop
* Print
* Find
* Zoom In
* Zoom Out
* Security
* Download Manager

This is in Web Browsing mode. I don't need or want the Up button, or the Zoom buttons. The find button is non-descript and requires me to hover over the icon and wait for the tooltip. The security button is pointless since we can just put a lock icon on the status bar like most sane people (perhaps with a fancy KDE tooltip describing the security in use). The Download Manager button is also completely useless, especially since I don't even have KGet integrated with konqueror.

Secondly, we don't need the address bar to say "location." Most people already know its for addresses, so that just makes it look clunky. The Go button could use some work too.

This kind of stuff shows up in tons of KDE apps. Things have been getting better... especially in the KDE-PIM apps, But KOffice, Konqueror, Kopete, all have too much UI clutter and icons that just don't make sense where they are. Do we really need copy/paste icons everywhere? Do we need an icons for every functionality on the planet? It overwhelms the newbie user. Hell, it overwhelms me at times. I just get confused and probably end up not seeing all the great capabilities of these apps.

Novell, Redhat, and other "commercial" distributions are targetting their desktop distributions at businesses whose users have probably never seen or used Linux. They're also targetting their server distributions as replacements for Windows servers, and want to make it as easy as possible for Windows admins to move over to Linux. Gnome, I hate to say, excels at this due to the simplicity of their applications. They may not have the features or customizability of KDE apps, but they do have the UI right... simple and to the point.

http://funkyshizzle.com/

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[13]: meh
by Juerd on Sun 20th Nov 2005 00:23 in reply to "RE[12]: meh"
Juerd Member since:
2005-11-20

Yes, that's a problem with Konqueror.

And it's one of the reasons I give people Kubuntu instead of other KDE-based distributions: Kubuntu has managed to un-bloat KDE to an acceptable level.

With Kubuntu's default installation, the Konqueror web browser has only these buttons:

* Back
* Forward
* Up
* Home
* Refresh
* Stop

(And of course the unnecessary buttons for clearing the address box, confirming location and starting a search, but these are used often by people who are new to computers, and don't yet understand how to do these things with a keyboard.)

While you may not use the "Up" button, I find it very useful on many well-designed sites, that actually put some hierarchy into the URL. It's a shame many sites, including OSNews.com, are actually hierarchical in structure, but do not reflect this in the URLs. If I were currently looking at http://www.osnews.com/news/12721/comments/62378/reply, the Up-button could have been very useful. Alas, I'm looking at http://www.osnews.com/reply.php?news_id=12721&comment_id=62378.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[13]: meh
by segedunum on Sun 20th Nov 2005 01:52 in reply to "RE[12]: meh"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Novell is "standardizing" on Gnome as their desktop environment. Anyone want to know why? Because the gnome guys know how to make a good simple end-user application.

Sigh. Not again.

The integration between those apps is non-existant in many cases, and if you want to talk about quality just compare F-Spot to Digikam and Amarok to, well, what do you compare it to? In most cases the technology actually works in KDE as well. The vast majority of people will go for working technology every time, and that's certainly been my experience with Windows users out there who don't know about Linux desktops in small businesses. I've given people Gnome and KDE and they've ended up picking KDE every time after a period of usage. Most people who've liked Gnome have usually been Mac users at some point, but they work out the issues fairly quickly. At the very least people work out with KDE that the user interfaces may not be perfect in some cases but that it actually does what it says on the tin.

Novell have standardised on nothing yet (they actually have to move to Gnome first!), and they have so much work in front of them to get central products like SLES (which now doesn't exist - 9 was the last) and OES moved to Gnome (YaST etc.) it isn't believable. What they're trying to do is copy Red Hat. Saying it and doing it are two extremely different things, and quite frankly, Novell are a dead company even if they moved absolutely everything to KDE. It might help them for a bit longer, but they just have no grasp of the software that they're using whatsoever.

Certainly, if they're moving to Gnome then their desktop migration is going to be a costly and embarrassing failure which Microsoft will unfortunately jump up and down over. Novell just simply don't have the resources or time to make it work and give their work away for free. What's going to happen with Evolution and other bits of software? We'll find out in the next few months.

Novell, Redhat, and other "commercial" distributions are targetting their desktop distributions at businesses

What businesses?! Red Hat and Novell are selling zero desktops to businesses as Red Hat have consistently stated. The only place where their desktops make any sense is for graphical administration environments for their servers. In the case of Red Hat I think they could do an awful lot more if they used KDE and Qt, simply because at the moment they're spending far too much money, resources and developer time maintaining pointless low level stuff rather than actually creating graphical tools that actually help their customers and bring more in. Most of Red Hat's tools at this point are a bit of an embarrassment.

Enough with this targetting businesses and corporate environments thing - it doesn't exist.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[13]: meh
by phoenix on Mon 21st Nov 2005 21:54 in reply to "RE[12]: meh"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Lets take Konqueror for example, probably the one thing a linux newbie would use most. Right now, with SuSE 10.0 defaults, I have 12 buttons on my toolbar... These are what they do:

It's all about personal preference. As long as it is easy to add / remove buttons from toolbars, then does it really matter how many there are by default?

That's one thing I absolutely hate about Firefox: you have a *severely* limited number of buttons that you can add to the toolbar.

Regardless of the application, if you use a feature more than three times per session, then you should have the option of putting it on the toolbar. The toolbar is for frequently used functions ... so let's make it possible to put frequently used functions on there.

The toolbar editing functions in KDE apps are a little hokey right now and can be confusing even to power-users. I don't know what they are like in GNOME. But the few GTK apps I've used have extremely limited options.

Defaults aren't the big issue. Ease of customisability is. If you make it *very* easy to add/remove buttons from a toolbar, then the initial number doesn't matter.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[12]: meh
by on Sun 20th Nov 2005 00:04 in reply to "RE[11]: meh"
Member since:

For one thing, it tries to do too many things at once (god knows how browsing a basically tree-like structure is similiar to documents with interlocking hyperlinks is beyond me). I suppose I'd normally bring up how non-spatial file managers are always going to be less than ideal and inefficient to use, but I suppose that wouldn't do any good, as the chances of somebody knowing anything about UI design is fairly low, and if they do they wouldn't be arguing in the first place. I'll offload this debate onto this article, instead:
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/finder.ars/1

Honestly, I think current DEs should learn a lesson from the command line--small, specialized, and integratable == good; big, bloated, and disintegrated == bad.

-bytecoder

Reply Parent Score: 0