On 11/17/05, JM Ibanez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 11/17/05, Unvollendeter Tag > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > That "little bit" shouldn't matter in the long run, > > if the slave really has no choice. I think > > stability is more important. Users will be > > satisfied when software is predictable in the right > > way (e.g. it doesn't crash too often or at least > > has the good grace to autosave your work). > > It does matter. The Linux desktop might be relatively > stable compared to a WInXP machine, but see-- what if > the user hits the magic Ctrl-Alt-Backspace > combination? Will apps decide to autosave? Is this > predictable to Joe Windows User?
A valid example. Could this be disabled? > I believe these are the main points why one should > observe such deployments "from the top down". > > > > > 1. What is the perception of the user to the change > > > 2. How effective is it to the user? > > > 3. How fast is the user adoption? > > > 4. What can make the user adopt faster? > > > 5. Did the change affect productivity? > > > 6. What's the typical learning curve? > > > > In my previous job I was forced to use ancient (not > > just Old World) Macs. It took me one day to > > adjust. Any graphical user interface made after > > Windows 95 and Mac OS 8 (the one I was forced to > > use) should be as easy or as hard to use as any > > other. The case studies have already been done. And > > they're either inconclusive or biased. > > > > Just show the user the not-too-sublte > > differences. Start button = K button = Apple icon = > > Foot icon. After that, it's just a matter of > > clicking. > > I'd like to argue that a lot of users do use keyboard > shortcuts. For example, most Windows apps use Ctrl-C > and Ctrl-V for copy and paste, respectively. What are > the Mac equivalents? Will Joe User know? What about > browser shortcuts? Now that's a bad example. The Mac shortcuts are so similar I've forgotten what they are. It's a combination of either the Option or the Command key and C and V. The C and V thing is IIRC actually an Apple innovation. Or at least of a desktop publishing application which must have originated in the Mac (since that was where, until recently, all the cool design programs got their first lease of life). > What about certain features (either in Office or > OpenOffice.org)? Also, the Start button has a link to > the Control Panel and the Printers folder. Apple has > a different place for setting up printers (or for > tweaking). What about Joe User, who was given admin > privileges on his WinXP machine? What will a switch > to OS X be like? Will he know how to add > applications? We're talking about switching over users at work. Here it's reasonable for one or more employees to become or to double as the de facto administrator. In the place where I labored, even long-time users would ask the "tech" people (those who have the free time to fool around with their units and download all sorts of gray material off the Internet) how to set up things like screen savers and, yes, how to connect to the network printer. Most users will not admin their own machines (and it's a bad policy to let them). > For heavy mouse users, even the Mac OS tradition of a > single unified menu bar can get confusing. Joe User > may ask, why is the menu bar there? How do I switch > tasks? Where's my task bar? That differences can easily be taught. No, these can simply shown by the friendly office guru. But I'll answer your question about "task" switching with a question. Have you actually observed a casual Mac user at work? Office serf looks at the desktop and sees a file. She or he clicks on it because the boss has said, "Sam, rewrite Press Release Oct 31 in the Oct 2005 folder." Voila, MS Word pops open. But he needs to browse the Internet for some info. So he clicks on the desktop shortcut (or alias) for IE Explorer, which is visible to the right of the Word window (which isn't maximized and I believe impossible to maximize under OS !X). When he finishes browsing, he goes back to the file by simply closing the Explorer window. This effectively switches the task back to Word. But he soon finds a need to Google for even more info. So guess what he does? He clicks on the selfsame Explorer desktop shortcut. > Pretty soon, such (relatively) minor differences do > add up to major grievances. The only grievance I've heard is about program crashes because of a power or network failure. Problem No. 1 could have easily been remedied by having the units attached to a UPS, but management appears unwilling to spend the extra peso for the hardware. Would a *n*x system perform better with regard to No. 2? I don't know. But that's something for the tech people to evaluate. > Remember: human beings, in general, are resistant to > change. We are creatures of habit, and office workers > become creatures of habit pretty quickly. ;) Which is I guess why I was stuck using Mac OS 8 half a decade into y2k. Overcoming such inertia is, in the end, management's job. But take a look a similar transitions in the past: Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X or the even more dramatic Windows 3.1 to Windows 95. Since innovation has never been the strong point of free software, I believe the transition from Windows XP to Gnome or KDE would be much less disruptive. Now, have you heard of the pop theory of evolution? Evolve or perish. > It isn't as cut-and-dried as it would seem. > > > Users will probably find OpenOffice to be the > > toughest nut to crack. It has menu items in all > > the wrong places. Which is why I'd suggest going > > for Abiword or Kword. > > Again, you mention that the menu items are "in all > the wrong places". Will a user switching from > Microsoft Word to Abiword find the features he uses > in Abiword where he expects them to be? (Do note the > "maxim" that 90% of users use 10% of all features-- > but note that the 10% is different for all users). In most organizations the 10% is the same for most users, at least within a work group (e.g. how to open a file or how to spellcheck). The trick I think would be to pay overtime to the most tech savvy person in the group to study the mechanics of the new system. She or he will then be given the task of educating the other members. > > But if your goal is to win persons in authority to > > the cause, much more effective than showing off > > case study after case study is to do a live > > demonstration on how little difference your free > > desktop is from desktop X. Just be sure to "rig" > > your demonstration in your favor. Make sure > > beforhand that the system boots smoothly and would > > stay up long enough for you to conclude your > > presentation. > > Which is not a good idea, IMHO. One should *always* > show both sides of the equation and give a balanced > presentation. Show both the good points *and* the bad > points. What will it cost management to adopt this > for their employees? How will it benefit? Not showing > the risks (i.e. the bad points) is even more harmful > to the FOSS desktop, and does not help management > make an enlightened decision. You become no worse > than those who make biased ROI studies. You're preaching to a member of the choir. Of course, I know it's bad. But sometimes you have to resort to the same deceit-by-omission used to promote products on a "commercial" scale. Our goal in becoming the Avon ladies of free software is simply to neutralize the overwhelming marketing put behind the offerings of the big proprietary software companies. You never see a product's bad points highlighted in an advertisement. _________________________________________________ Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List [email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
