Today, Jeffry Smith gleaned this insight:
> Have you ever trained complete newbies? I mean those who've NEVER
Yes...
> SEEN a computer? I have. There is NOTHING EASY about computers.
True, but...
> Typical questions I got: what's the mouse for? What's the difference
> between single and double clicking? Why is that item under that
> pull-down menu? How come this command doesn't work this way? Why
> does THAT COMMAND do THAT? Why don't they call it X instead? I agree
> we need to make it as easy as possible, but I think we need to
> recognize that:
> 1. It does take some work, there is no such thing as an intuitive
> interface.
> 2. Each human's brain works somewhat differently, don't expect them
> to all think your way is the only way.
...All of this becomes successively easier for the newbie with each new
application, if you have a consistent interface. This is what Niall is
talking about, and that's why there IS a push within the Linux community
to get one (two, four, whatever)... The point is not to have to
COMPLETELY re-learn everything you've already learned, just because you're
using another application.
To that end, it doesn't really matter what the consistent UI is, only that
there is one. Once you are no longer a newbie (WRT the interface), and
you have learned the CONCEPTS behind how your applications work, and
therefore understand how they should flow, then you can go off and pick
your own UI (with that end being its own justification of having met such
a condition).
> Sounds like we need another UI project for some more folks.
Heh... NOT. That's exactly what we don't need. KDE and Gnome are nice
because they offer users CHOICE, but they defeat their own stated goals
(in that there are two of them) because they have created YAHW
(Yet another holy war) and prevented there ever BEING a consistent desktop
on Linux. The only way to solve this is for the two groups to get
together and work towards complete interoperability, which I think you'll
find will never happen.
Or perhaps you're right... maybe we DO need another GUI project; one that
specifically unites the best of the two into a truly standard
desktop. But again, I don't think you'll ever see that happen. I don't
really consider that a bad thing, but nor do I consider the goal of that a
bad thing.
> It needs a consistent desktop in the metaphor that THAT PERSON uses
> (i.e. a way for the apps to interface to the user interface that
> matches the way that person thinks). Linux DOES NOT need a single
> consistent UI, because I can guarantee you that there will be people
> for whom that is the wrong interface.
Which is why I said it needs the CHOICE to have a consistent UI. But it
must be realized that what is right for each individual user is affected
by such factors as how they think, and what they have already experienced.
For the completely new user, they may have no preconcieved notions about
what the interface should be like; everything they do is new so they don't
have time to worry about how they think it SHOULD be done. Of course,
there will always be exceptions. Once they learn a bit about how things
work, then they can go off and worry about whether or not they have the
right UI.
It would be nice if application developers would develop apps in a
UI-independent manner, and let the user plug in whatever they prefer; but
alas, this is not terribly realistic, given the amount of extra work the
developers would need to put in...
As much as I bash windows, the one thing many of the people on this list
have heard me give it credit for is that they did the UI right... meaning
that it is generally consistent and (usually) pretty intuitive, especially
if you've already become familiar with some subset of applications. It's
just too bad that the rest of their software sucks really bad.
Bear in mind that third-party vendors can and often do depart from the
framework that Microsoft has created for their consistent desktop. This
isn't Microsoft's fault, and (for once) they don't deserve the blame for
that.
> BTW: Having taught newbies, I can guarantee, not only are MS apps not
> broken in the same way, they break them in new ways each new release.
> I love people who tell me "Windows is the standard" - I ask "which
> one: Windows 3.0, 3.11, Windows for Workgroups, Windows95, Windows98,
> NT 3.1, 3.5, 3.51, 4.0, Windows 2000?" Each of them is different.
True, but not true. For the most part (and ignoring your multi-lingual
point), how the USER interacts with USER applications between Windows
releases remains reasonably constant. Or close enough that the average
end user can figure out the differences without going postal. There
always will be exceptions.
(I'm going to stop now... I feel dirty. :)
--
You know that everytime I try to go where I really want to be,
It's already where I am, cuz I'm already there...
---------------------------------------------------------------
Derek D. Martin | Unix/Linux Geek
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
