This is what I think we should shoot for in KDE: software that is simple by default so it can work for 1-dot users, but powerful when needed via expansive customization, so that it can appeal all the way to the 4-dot users–which includes many KDE developers. This is currently a strength of KDE software, and it won’t be going away!
Essentially we need to fully embrace Plasma’s motto of “Simple by default, powerful when needed” all KDE software, not just Plasma.
Nate Graham, KDE developer, is arguing that KDE needs simpler defaults – without losing the customisability that makes KDE, well, KDE. I think this is a good goal – especially since many distributions can opt for different defaults anyway. KDE is an amazing collection of software, but there’s no denying its plethora of options and customisation can also be intimidating and a little bit overwhelming, even for experienced users such as myself.
Of course, this can only really work if the option to tweak every individual pixel remains available for those of us that want it – we don’t need Knome.
That bottom 70 % of users never touch the settings of any app, so arguing for “simplicity” sounds misinformed to begin with. That plea actually comes from the higher tear users who already are a bit more savvy but too lazy to study their OS. They want to tweak their user experience but also want it all served to them on a silver plate.
Firstly, while 70% might not touch the settings of any *one* app, it isn’t a mass block of 70% of users who never touch the settings of *any* app. That’s a trap that UI optimizers have been falling into for decades now.
Secondly, exposing options to users helps in both specific utility scenarios, where an app has to be configured a certain way (or where someone has to be walked through configuring it that way) and, perhaps more importantly… exposing those options lets users start down the path to becoming more savvy users. If the options aren’t visible, they’ll give up and move on, instead of seeing what they can tweak, what it does, and learning how things work.
It’s interesting how working in IT for many years, users were progressively getting more savvy about their environments, users increasingly could solve their own problems, understood what techs were doing and why… and then the dumbed down device centric internet happened. Everything had options stripped away, everything became single-purpose and one-size-fits-all.
And users got dumber. Now, despite being able to *use* a phone and install apps, so many users have no idea of what’s going on or how and why things work.
We were so close! People were learning, people were thinking! I shudder for the millions of potential IT geniuses who never got a chance to flourish because the things they had to work with didn’t allow for experimentation and learning.
Being elitist about exposing options is the opposite of what people should be doing. Absolutely, streamline the app for the most common usage scenario, but expose all the options to customize it and make it fit the user better, if the user wants it to.
The1stImmortal,
I agree. I think the ability to go in under the hood without making it too difficult was one of the main reasons so many of us picked up computers as kids. Many of today’s restricted devices that don’t permit much more than consumption are going to produce future generations who are less capable than we were because the devices they are growing up with don’t provide a natural bridge to DIY tinkering.
It’s a far cry from the old days when computers booted up into a programming environment. It’s good for technology to evolve and become friendlier, but this doesn’t mean making low level access even more difficult than it needs to be .:-/
DOS was pretty simple and easy to understand, and BASIC was pretty simple and easy to understand. I think we might be discounting how much the small simple computing of the ’80s and ’90s helped ramp many enthusiasts up to become the professionals we are today, and how much complexity puts off new people.
The consumption devices of today really could become learning platforms to introduce people to programming. Alan Kay’s original idea for a tablet included a programming environment with a small language which people could use to automate it and write software. It was meant to be a low code environment which people could use to learn Smalltalk and be that natural bridge.
Of course, that future never happened because it couldn’t be monetized. It would have taken money and power away from the clergy, and that couldn’t happen.
Egh. Most people want to do something other then mess with computers which is fine.
Flatland_Spider,
Yea, that gets into the corporate agenda for walled gardens, which it a whole other topic, haha.
I think that’s fine, I have no problem with them. But my point is that I don’t think these goals have to be exclusive to one another. Unfortunately though some companies have used user-friendliness as an excuse to deprive owners of access as though this is a foregone necessity. But I’m afraid they are making low level access more difficult to serve their own business agenda rather than because it’s important for users.
While I agree that’s largely the case for our workhorse devices, I’m not sure I’d agree more broadly. I’d argue that the space for learning and tinkering has simply shifted to more specialized devices in the vein of the Raspberry Pi.
People were always dumb. The market for computers expanded beyond the small niche who liked to tinker with them to include people who have better things to do then worry about appeasing some hunk of silicon. It’s the same thing which happens to any thing that hits the mainstream. It was cooler when it was niche.
Do you buy Hilti drills? They’re high end industrial equipment used by professionals doing professional work. You know people who run a drill 5-6 hours a day. Or do you buy the cheap drills off the shelf from a local hardware store? The OTC drills have stickers which say they’re professional, but they’re cheap crap designed for the light duty cycles weekend warriors put them through and they don’t compare when used in a professional setting.
Anyway, *^%$@ consultants who prioritized billable hours and complex software cared for by high priests and acolytes over creating accessible and usable computing tools. The original vision for computers was exactly the dumbed down version you’re railing against. Somewhere along the way computers quit being tools to increase productivity of domain experts, or sources to access knowledge, and became fetish objects which are an end in themselves.
In the interim years, the only thing computing enthusiasts have managed to do is export a culture which celebrates and encourages people enduring pain and memorizing weird incantations we don’t fully understand.
I’m not saying there aren’t hard problems in computing. I’m saying people lost sight of the original reason we have computers and what they were originally for.
Flatland_Spider,
One the one hand, you can dumb down devices to cater to the masses, but on the other hand intelligence levels aren’t a fixed constant and can change. Education and upbringing are key especially at young ages. Putting up technological barriers to protect dumb people from technology can and will deprive people of learning opportunities and ultimately even their critical thinking skills will suffer. Making technology easier to use = good, but making it difficult for owners to program their own devices = very bad. Exposure make a huge difference to the type of people we become.
The growth of flat earth culture in recent decades is the epitome of dumbness and should be a warning to everyone who thinks it’s ok to dumb-down society instead of smarting up. Obviously I can’t blame everything on dumbing down/DIY-restrictive products, but IMHO it is one of many problems that’s making society worse off as time goes by.
I should clarify here that when I said “dumber” – I meant less capable of and educated in properly using and performing basic maintenance on the tools they use in their jobs. I don’t actually think people are “dumb” generally.
Perhaps it’d be better described as “learned helplessness”.
Your drill example is perfect – the people who use and rely on those drills largely need to know how to keep them in good working order. How not to use them, simple fixes for common issues, etc. Of course there will exist service options for harder issues or complete failures, but the people using their tools to get their job done need to know how to look after them.
The same should be true of computers. People who rely on them for their jobs should have the knowledge and ability to keep them working, whether they’re explicitly taught or simply pick it up. There’s always going to be harder or deeper issues that require external help, but simple “my printer won’t work” or “I can’t close this program” or “where did my toolbar go” type issues should be solveable by the user for the most part.
Hiding options makes things harder to resolve, and teaches users to give up. Instead of trying to keep their tools in working order, they just use them till they break then take them to the service center (IT). That wastes everyone’s time and money (though it can mean the original vendors make more sales than they otherwise would have).
Seeing on how GNOME camp approached this i would say thanks but no thanks. Then again KDE is not GNOME and lets see on how KDE does it. If they feel the urge and really want to do that. Who knows, as maybe KDE can do it right. The main “problem” i see is KDE, by default, is already simple. It’s not like i see the complexity. That begs the question on what exactly are they planing to remove.
Focusing on one vision for the DE would be a good start. They had a half classic and half Plasma mashup going last time I tried it, and I think they might have added a third option in the meantime. Being everything to all people is probably getting pretty chaotic for a massive project which doesn’t have corporations with deep pockets backing it.
More over, KDE has a 1000 different options for everything when they could have basic settings which accomplishes most of what people want and advanced settings which has the fine grained control which is needed at times. KDE is option overload by default, and that’s fine, but sometimes simpler is better.
From my personal experience i don’t see it like that. Once i installed Kubuntu defaults were great. What i got is a classic desktop experience. The one i could use 20 years back and will be able to use it 20 years from now. I don’t mind if there are 1000 settings hidden somewhere. On the contrary as i got an idea or two on what i would like to do differently. With a click or two it was all set. Don’t know on why would i claim this is bad. Being able to do that. And on why it would be a good thing to remove that.
Hope we wont’ see some trolling again. Like for example lets remove desktop icons.
Didn’t they already do that? I seem to remember it became a Plasma widget which could be full screened, but it’s been a while.
In Kubuntu i don’t have to set anything to have it. Thumbnails working out of the box, folder of pictures having a set of thumbnails on the folder … To quickly see what is inside folder. All in all a pleasant experience. And not some BS on how i should stare at a blank wallpaper.
Getting the balance right between simplicity and facilitating functionality is difficult. It’s rare anyone gets it right but then computing stuff can often be complicated because it’s complicated without any sound reason for it. Then you have purists and elitists and snobs tearing each other to pieces. I’ve heard the same old arguments and perspectives go around a dozen times so pretty bored with it now.
We’ll finally find out if under all those config options is a decent DE. 🙂
There things KDE does well. The apps are very well integrated to allow data sharing with each other, and they have very useful features. I like Okular over Evince because Okular has better PDF editing abilities. I forget what it’s called, but KDE’s application data sharing ability is really neat and something Gnome doesn’t have.
When I’ve tried KDE, I’ve often wanted to strip away most of the features to get a very simple, minimal DE which stays hidden. I’d like to get a Gnome3 style experience with KDE.
KDE configuration is pretty messy, and they could do a lot better at prioritizing which options people really need and providing a very clean default experience.
There are some Qt desktop environments that tend to be minimal and as you say there is GNOME 3. Just use that instead. Instead of trying to make KDE something that it is not.
Dear KDE, the “Advanced” button is a thing Apple uses it, in macos, it works.
Just put everything but the basics on a separate advanced dialog. Much better idea than going the GNOME route and just removing every advanced configuration option permanently to never be found again.
That’s exactly what I was thinking. Keep basics on one dialog, and hide everything else under the advanced button. Also, make it really easy to reset to defaults. It’s sometimes difficult for me to remember which combination of tweaks I’ve made that caused some random annoyance to occur.