Derek Martin wrote:
>
> 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.
Right, within that UI. However, I fear most the idea of going to one
UI (there must only be one, sayeth the high priests), because I DON'T
think like some folks, and they don't think like me, or others. Let's
instead design app interfaces to the UI that allow choice of UI by
user. Remember, with Linux (& Unix), it's easy to set it up so the
user sees his / her interface when he / she logs in - just have the
selection in a . file in the user's home directory!
>
> 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.
The problem is that each thinks it is creating THE ONE TRUE INTERFACE
- which is where the fundamental problem is - that's the wrong goal.
>
> 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...
>
hm. I'm reminded of Jim Gettys' talk at Nashua earlier this year
about the X development. He showed a film of them demonstrating
adding voice recognition to X some 7 - 8 years ago. Why was it so
easy? Because the X folks knew they didn't know the "best" way to do
UI, so they built an extensible framework, specifically designed to be
hooked into, with changing policy. I think part of our problem is
people think now they know the ONE way, and haven't figured out that,
by insisting on that, they limit themselves in the future.
Of course, I'm also reminded of all the web developers who keep
insisting they know EXACTLY how I want to view their site - even
though they don't know what size screen I've got, how many colors I
can display, how big I keep the windows, what I like for fonts for
ease of reading, etc. And, normally, if they would just quit trying
to help, use basic HTML (this is a header <h1>, this is a header2<h2>,
this is text, etc, they would let me view their site as it pleased me,
they could concentrate on the content (you know, what I went to the
site for), and everyone would be happier.
The hard part is convincing the developers to quit trying to force
their one way down the user, but to design the flexibility in to begin
with.
> 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.
>
Ugh. Try the hall of shame:
http://www.iarchitect.com/shame.htm
Specifically the Microsoft section:
http://www.iarchitect.com/msoft.htm
And the MS products on the product index:
http://www.iarchitect.com/idxprod.htm
> 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. :)
Like changing from Shift-Insert to Control-V for insert? or
Control-Delete to Control-C for cut? Single or double click? I've
had lots of folks go close to postal on the change from Win3.11 to
Windows95 - they hated it, could see no reason for the user changes.
>
--
jeff smith
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thought for the day: There is more to life than increasing its speed.
-- Mahatma Gandhi
**********************************************************
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
**********************************************************
