> I have, and we have done numerous usability tests on > Evolution. I've > also been working on this project for 4 years. Have > you taken courses in > it? Have you conducted usability tests on Evolution? > What are your > creds? So far, your only cred seems to be "I've run > Mac OS X". Big deal. > As far as I can tell, you're simply another > self-proclaimed usability > expert - which, if you look at Slashdot, you'd see > that self-proclaimed > usability experts grow on trees.
I have taken courses in usability. I haven't done usability tests on evolution, but I have no need to because my basis for comparison has done far more usability testing than you: Apple and Microsoft. I don't claim to be an expert. It is however a hobby, and one that I spend a lot of time developing and studying up on. If I were saying that I made my usability assumptions up out of thin air, of course that would leave me with little to argue about. However my proposal to break up the interface is based on these reasons: 1) Gnome software trends For one moment, I'd like you to consider what other gnome apps that are close to the gnome-tradition of simple design follow the design of evolution. Taking a brief look at my Gnome 2.6 menus shows this: Browser - epiphany Chat - gaim Movies - totem Music - rhythmbox Files - nautilus Documents - abiword Spreadsheets - gnumeric just to name a few. I could go in more detail, but I think you get the point. each one of these apps is responsible for one task. that is not typically a gnome thing, every system should strive for this. is it a HIG requirement that each app have a set goal? i do not know this for sure, but you cannot deny that it's a software trend. 2) Previous usability testing done by large corporations (Apple and Microsoft) You cannot deny the testing of such large companies as these. They obviously put in millions of dollars of usability testing. However the difference is seen once you look closer. Microsoft's design (of which evolution mimics) is Outlook. Apple's design, is iCal, Addressbook, and Mail (of which kcalendar, kontact, kmail mimic component wise). We can debate all day which OS is more usable, but most credited interface designers and usability experts will agree it's Mac OS. Apple is known for being better at user-oriented design. 3) Basic principals of human factors and interface design One of the things they make you do in usability 101 is design a clock, radio, phone, alarm, and cd player all in one physical device. It's meant as an example more than anything, but what it shows is obvious -- it cannot be done well. Related functions are not the same as differing functions. When I go to burn a CD in iTunes, I don't have to convert all my iTunes mp3s to wave files, then import the wave files into Roxio Toast, then burn them as an audio CD. iTunes should just manage my music, and manage it well. However it should also include related functionality that does not all-encompass another application if such related functionality enhances the usability of the application but at the same time does not serve to completely replace the functionality of another application. Can iTunes act as a complete replacement for Roxio? no. That is a clear distinction from the design of Evolution. Evolution treats any of the components as subfunctions -- they are all totally separate modes. Calendar mode is completely different from Contacts mode. Contacts is in no way a subset or useful subfunction of calendars. Calendars may reference contacts, but a calendars program does not need a full-fledged contacts system within it. The way Mac OS makes this distinction is apparent whenever you add a buddy in iChat. It asks you to provide the buddy's real name by showing a standardized contacts widget (http://otierney.net/images/contacts.pdf). 4) User expectations and their environment You claim that users want all their PIM features in one collective space, and don't want to fool with system menus. What you're assuming is that the user is using only Linux, with only Gnome, and that said user does not have direct quick launch icons on a taskbar. If I had quick launch icons for my address book, calendar, and mail all separate that would be a lot faster than going through the system menu. Many users do this, and OS X even defaults to having a shortcut for all 3 of these applications (since as another rule of interface design: most users never change the defaults). Lets change the situation around a bit and say the user is running evolution in Mac OS X. This is not far fetched, as it can be done. With 10.3's new expose feature, having individual windows per-application is actually a benefit. By using fittz law the user can hit the edge of the screen and zoom all windows out, and then click the respective window they want to acquire. This is going to be faster than acquiring the individual evolution window, then acquiring the sub-component (Say the contacts button) to finally get to a list of contacts. You're making too many assumptions about what the user wants, and their respective environment. 5) Defaults In conclusion, I think the most important argument is this: users don't change defaults. Some do, but for many just making a mail account is a feat. It's nice that i now know how to split it up into individual applications, but until this is the default it is quite useless to all but a select few. the select few who actually care enough about usability to find and make such a change are the very ones who benefit the least from it. Few people will ever touch the console, let alone "man evolution" or "evolution --help". It may be in the help file, and at least I hope it is. If you want to have a option, rather, it should be to include them all in one application (as it is currently). This way you get the added usability from splitting up the functions, and the outlook-like users can have an option to enable mode-switching in all applications in the preferences, or someplace easily found (a console switch is unacceptable). --- Jeffrey Stedfast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Your argument about splitting Evolution into > multiple separate > applications has no substance. Have you done > usability tests to prove > that this way is better? If so, where are these > usability studies? > Pointing at Mozilla is hardly a usability study. > > Have you even *looked* at Evolution 1.5 as compared > to 1.4? Have you > noticed at all that your argument that "users won't > be able to figure > out where to do XYZ" is completely bogus? Lets > pretend for an instant > that users really are confused about where to > schedule an appointment or > whatever. Will splitting Evolution into multiple > applications really > solve this? No, it would not. Because now, instead > of choosing the > "Calendar" button in Evolution, they'd have to > launch the "Calendar" > menu item in some system menu, which, I guess if > your point is "users > will look in the system menu first", then sure, you > might be right, but > that doesn't mean you have to split Evolution into > multiple > applications. However, you said *nothing* of this > menu thing which leads > me to conclude that that is not what you meant at > all - my only > conclusion is that you haven't the faintest idea of > what you're talking > about, especially once you went into how the > architecture arguments. > > Usability ideas are welcome, but don't go off like a > know-it-all. > > Jeff > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25� http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash _______________________________________________ evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
