- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Why Gnome, Ubuntu and the like don't understand "usability"
Wikipedia states: "Usability is the ease of use and learnability of a human-made object." What first springs to mind when reading such, is learnability is only important while the user is new to the program, and learning to interface with it. Ease of use is important for the rest of the users life! The concise, decisive mannerCompanies or projects spend a great deal of time, effort and research to find out what's the best way for the user to interact with a program. Then, they make that the only manner of communicating with the program. Obviously, for documentation, this is the best manner possible. Refer to the recent discussion we just had in LXer-forums about documentation for some rants. And that's only one thread of a whole bunch of them about failing documentation. If there's only one way to do things, it's easy to document.Also, it's easy for a software company to develop their source code, as there will be only one way of interfacing they'll have to code, support, update and fix in the feature. To me, it seems like this is the way Unity and Gnome are evolving. Gnome has the 'human interface guidelines'. To me, they read a bit like the Gnome-Bible of how to do things. That's OK, as it says clever things. I'll return to it later on. Most important: This principle meets the first part of usability: Learnability. It's easy to learn something when there's only one way to do your job. Especially if experts picked the easiest way for you. The sloppy, legacy-honouring way of doing thingsUsually, this is where the mess starts. I'll take my beloved AutoCAD* as an example. In the old times, one drew by entering commands in the command line interface, and entering coordinates and angles. Then came the mouse, so you could click in the raster as well where you wanted the line to be. But the CLI was still functional.Then probably came tracking, where you could snap to certain existing points. But also snap to certain angles, or only orthogonal. Of course, all this behaviour could be changed or turned off if the user decided so. Menu bars could be old style fixed to the outlines of the window, but also float, and users could change this. Of course - again - the CLI remained functional, but by default it disappeared. Easy to put it back in place though. Also, probably everybody knows AutoCAD because it's one of the only white-on-black programs. But less people may know you could easily change that setting. And you could alias your own commands in a plain text-configuration file. You used to be able to write LISP-macros. Probably one of the only things AutoDesk ditched. They ditched it in favour of VisualBasic. Later on, some kind of smart snapping - which I didn't like - arrived, highlighting where you were going, displaying angles more clear while moving. But I was used to the CLI - which still was there after all the years! - so I turned the smart thing of and happily kept using my CLI. Which of course begged the question: "Why was the smart-thingy I didn't like on by default?" Probably because a whole usability team at AutoDesk know their users, and decided that was the best and smartest way to do things! But AutoDesk knows their users. So they also know there are people who are quicker and more productive with the CLI. So they gave their users choice. For example, you can change which points your mouse snaps to via radio-boxes, but also by means of entering a kind of 'binary' value. The 0's are "off" and 1 is "on", and then you combine them. Convert the binary value to a decimal one, and that one you can use. Actually, it's how "chmod" works, for 'old skool people' like me. At first, it seems unnecessary complex remembering bit values. So, in the beginning one only uses the approachable radio boxes. But once one found a mode which one likes most, it's easy to remember. And instead of clicking through 10 menus and turning on / off tons of radio boxes, one can easily enter "osmode=2144" and be all done with it! Now imagine the AutoCAD help file. You search for "How to draw a line". The help text displays. It says: -You can draw a line using the CLI and coordinates, but CLI has to be turned on, -You can draw a line using a raster to snap, but you should turn the raster on, and set the raster space to the correct value, -You can draw a line using the mouse and are able to click everywhere if the raster and snap is of, -You can draw a line and snap to existing points, where you define which existing points you want to snap to, but snap has to be turned on, -You can draw using only certain angles. It varies however if orthogonal is on or off, and if polar is turned on, mind which snap-angles you defined, -You can draw using the smart snap / tracking feature, of which you can change settings, and by the way: This approach is default. Now, suppose you're an ACAD-n00b. The above description of the most basical thing in AutoCAD - how to draw a line - would almost certainly scare you of! Learnability is really 'bad'. And so is usability, as a result using Wikipedia's definition. But if this really was the whole story, competitors would do it different. Now enter Solidworks, something more from the nineties I'd suggest. It's 3D, while ACAD mostly is 2D, meaning a "whole different era". What does it have? Tons of legacy ways to do things! I use it almost every day, but I can't hardly remember all the way to do things. I can use the menu, change said menu. When I finish a command with left mouse click, or select a plane, a "smart adaptive" in-place menu appears immediately at my arrow, so I don't have to move to a menu. But I can call the same adaptive menu using right mouse click, if the left-mouse one was automatically hidden after three seconds. I can use the right-mouse button to do mouse gestures - of course gestures which I can map to the commands I like. I can make keyboard shortcuts. But I can also set up my 6 axis motion controller; think of it as a real expensive advanced joystick without a stick, of course very configurable. And I can map certain 'special'-keys of the motion controller to certain commands. Those are in turn even adaptive to which "creation mode" I'm in. If I'm in a part, assembly, sheet metal, or whatever: there's a different menu showing up! That's not all. When doing macros, I can simply record key strokes and menu clicks. But I can also do them in VBA, or C#. But if I'm not into those languages, I can also choose C++ or even plain C. Can you imagine how pure hell it must be to write documentation for it? Or to maintain such software? To help a user which is confused because he switched from the keyboard to the mouse halfway a command, and wanted to finish with a mouse gesture? Probably, if I did my job of explaining these things well, by now you can. Then why all those efforts? Colliding visionsBecause - after all - learnability, or approachability is only half of the story. "Ease of use" is the other. Like the AutoCad example shows: For me, it may be easier to use the CLI. For someone else, it may be easier to use the newest and smartest bleeding edge interface. It changes from person to person. And moreover: It changes depending on how much you use the program! Surely, when one starts learning AutoCAD, the first time one draws a line it will probably be done from the mouse-button in the standard button-menu displaying a big fat line. But if one uses it everyday, it's kilometres of mouse traveling!Also, the Gnome interface guidelines state if the "undo" button sometimes doesn't work, better remove it from the program. Well, on a daily basis I use a program with an untrustworthy flaky undo function. But whenever it functions, on those rare occasions, it saves me minutes not having to start over! I'd rather have something flaky than nothing at all. So, learnability may be 'orthogonal' to 'ease of everyday-use'. That's something which is sometimes lost in these discussions. Approachability is not equal to usability! Recently, I tread to learn vi. It's really, really hard. On the "learnability"-component of usability, vi scores really sub-zero. But then, if you discover great commands like the global function 'g', how to use registers and macros, you really learn cool stuff. And you're really orders more productive. Probably the same as learning C# or VBA. Both of which I still don't master at all, even if multiple times getting my hands wet with VBA. But I know, if I master them, I can do great things and avoid the human having to do boring, repetitive and error prone tasks. One would almost conclude learnability and ease of use are almost complementary: Programs which are among the most 'easy' to use for daily users, may be the hardest one to learn! And those who are easy to learn, may be a nightmare to use everyday. Now, putting both components of usability and both above approaches 1) and 2) together, let's see if we can reconcile: ConclusionUsability really depends on how much the user will use the program. And it depends if the user easily adopts to new shiney great ways of doing things. Or on the other hand stubbornly continues to use the seventies-way of doing things, like yours sincerely. Who by the way was born about a decade after said seventies, which goes to show how effective some seventies-interfaces were. If you use software for hours and days consecutively, it's not a big problem it's hard to master and a hell of a job to learn. No problem if the help looks 'scary', because the program is so flexible. Because eventually, all that confusing flexibility will save time. However, for those programs one only uses from time to time, like say - for most people - retouching photos, it would be better to take the first approach. Now say, Gnome or Unity, or maybe Apple or whatever adopt only 1): Then those who use it for hours a day and for several days a week will probably feel like their usability was not a concern. However, if programs like AutoCAD or SolidWorks only adopt 2): Then there's a huge threshold for people to start using the program. It's really almost impossible without a multiple-day training! If Linux only adopts way 2), the usual complaining is the result: "It's to hard to learn, the help is not complete, there are bugs, I need the CLI to do things!" In the ideal world, a program would have a Lite / learning mode, which enables for any task one only one way of doing things. It should come with matching "lightweight"-help, which only displays the most easy way to do something. And then the user can put the program in "advanced" mode, progressing from way 1) to 2). However, that would be a monstrous task. So, those who develop user interfaces could probably better take into account how much the average user may use something. And - hopefully - have several apps to do tasks: Notepad for those who only once in a while type texts and change configuration files. Vi for those who do it hours a day. Image viewer for those who only view some photos, and stuff like GIMP/Photoshop for those not minding learning Scheme or using it day in, day out. Paint for those only drawing a box once in a week, and AutoCAD / Solidworks etc. for those who do it daily. Also: "Which users do you aim for?" If you aim at those who normally wouldn't touch a computer, learnability is more important than everyday-ease-of-use. If Ubuntu wants 100 million users, they have to attract lots of those people. Hence, they emphasize on learnability. And not those pesky types with rectangular 16:10 eyes who spend hours a day behind a desktop, like yours sincerely. If Apple or some company want to create a media consumption device where the user only rarely has to 'interact' because most of the times they're consuming information, of course way 1 is much better, as there's far less overhead and confusion. Now, for those LXer types who in this 'mobile-hype' world swear the desktop will not die and desktop programs will remain relevant, way 2 is much better. When you switch between the two paradigms, some conflicts may arise however. Which explains why a Gentoo-user would probably not be happy with an iPhone, et vice versa. In all honesty: I'm pretty satisfied with the result of my contemplation myself. Now, next time if there's a flame-war about the direction Gnome or KDE is going, or if Windows or Mac OS X is easier to use: you my dear reader know how such a flamewar can be resolved. Namely: By taking into account how much a user uses certain features. Only by means of taking into account how much they use it, and how much time they want to spend learning / using it, would it make sense to discuss usability - of any software project or program. Recently I joined the bandwagon of blaming the ones dumbing down interfaces. Of course because ranting is fun. Especially when you can join a whole gang of ranters. But probably also because I use software multiple hours a day, and also use it to create and change lots of information. But taking a closer look at it, both ways have their value. When I were to invest my money, it sure as hell wouldn't be in desktops or liaised companies. And when I were to learn new programming languages, it wouldn't be 'legacy desktop programming' languages. Of course, when a program changes from one way of interfacing to the other, conflicts occur, but that doesn't have to be the end of it. Because eventually there will always be both the people new to certain or all software, and people who use software day in day out, so there will always be software for both type of people. Given enough volunteers, patience and participation we'll all be able to happily sing Kumbaya together** - and live will be great. ed 16-07-11: OK, I forgot to add my explanation of the bold title, but I hope you got it by now: Gnome and Ubuntu really, really understood the 'learnability' component of 'usability'. And they did a great job when it comes to that part. When it comes to learnability, other projects can really take an example. But the other part, ease of everyday use, it seems they lost that aspect out of sight. So, they only did usability 'half'. Still a terrific job, but still half. * "beloved" refers to the software, NOT the behaviour of the company! AutoDesk - just like Dassault, PTC, Siemens and those other CAD-programs offer their users lots of choice, as long as it's Windows. You're on UNIX? Bad luck. Microsoft successfully lobbied all those companies into ditching UNIX, because otherwise I can't explain how those companies support 10 different ways of doing things - but not UNIX ** Thanks - my fellow LXerers - for learning me this phrase! |
|
|
Comments (26)
You lost me... can you dumb it down a bit more...???
I might have to give Unity a try.
At least it doesn't have the stigma of KDE.
At least it doesn't have the stigma of KDE.
deano*,
You are so impatient. Just give it a bit more time, please.
YBT
* So as to avoid confusion brought on by mispronunciation of your alias leading to the belief you are somehow related to those ferocious beasts of yore. That is, despite your menacing ROAR, you are a sweet singer at heart.
Quoting:I might have to give Unity a try.
At least it doesn't have the stigma of KDE.
You are so impatient. Just give it a bit more time, please.
YBT
* So as to avoid confusion brought on by mispronunciation of your alias leading to the belief you are somehow related to those ferocious beasts of yore. That is, despite your menacing ROAR, you are a sweet singer at heart.
> At least Canonical is making an effort to welcome into the Linux fold those people who are casual users...
Agreed. I have no idea if their Unity interface will be successful or not. But if that's their goal with it, it's worth trying. They should try not to alienate their existing user base in the process though, so maintaining the old interface for those who want it is probably a good idea.
Agreed. I have no idea if their Unity interface will be successful or not. But if that's their goal with it, it's worth trying. They should try not to alienate their existing user base in the process though, so maintaining the old interface for those who want it is probably a good idea.
kwint said it right - learnability and usability are orthogonal for any advanced technique. Kitchen physics is easy to learn, but doesn't fit many situations. Quantum is truly a PITA to learn, but think of the power!
@masgeeks: tl;dr is no excuse ;-)
@masgeeks: tl;dr is no excuse ;-)
[very serious]
jd,
I can argue a business model where sending most of the former base users of Ubuntu to the exits can and should be viewed in a positive light. What does retaining the base (of more knowledgeable) users contribute to a new direction when on average those are mostly skeptics? Perhaps only in a negative sense can they be seen as contributors. That is, should those users revert to the older UI and then post to the new, casual users on the superiority of the older Ubuntu how does the new direction and priorities gain by their presence? If the more skilled are not enamored with Unity (or whatever), who helps these users when they encounter problems? In such a scenario the retention of the unconvinced base undermines Canonical's goals and its chances of being successful in its pursuit. Thus, sometimes it is better to retain only the committed, believers and suffer the loss in raw numbers when the change in course is radical.
In a more philosophical view, I remember the term either 'Beggars [should | could] not be choosers' and since I have never contributed financially to Linux or a distribution what I am taking is a gift. While I have been a fairly long time user of Ubuntu i have known I was going to exit. However, without rancor or claims I was being abandoned. My last update was not even to the former LTS, because I could see their direction, instead I chose a version that had a shorter life and near its end I installed Mint. Soon I will upgrade to the latest version of that distribution. Nonetheless, I can see they intend to follow Ubuntu's model for the windows manager, hence, when that version becomes unavoidable I shall change distributions again. It's not that I am so skilled that I spend time tweaking my installation, but I just do not wish to lose the option to make my own changes when I perceive the need. Moreover, making changes without resort to deep searches for the hidden keys that allow such changes is my base requirement.
I will try to keep the last point brief, however, let me apologize for the length of this screed.
As we have seen in another thread, converts or true believers can unintentionally create a storm of ill will with their demands that Linux actually be set on the road of World Domination. The latter should still be perceived as spoken in jest, since the creator of Linux said (approximately) all operating systems suck, but Linux sucks less. Moreover, that is not an unalterable law of the world or the universe, hence, a bit of humility is warranted.
Let me arbitrarily end here.
[end of very serious]
As always jd,
YBT
jd,
I can argue a business model where sending most of the former base users of Ubuntu to the exits can and should be viewed in a positive light. What does retaining the base (of more knowledgeable) users contribute to a new direction when on average those are mostly skeptics? Perhaps only in a negative sense can they be seen as contributors. That is, should those users revert to the older UI and then post to the new, casual users on the superiority of the older Ubuntu how does the new direction and priorities gain by their presence? If the more skilled are not enamored with Unity (or whatever), who helps these users when they encounter problems? In such a scenario the retention of the unconvinced base undermines Canonical's goals and its chances of being successful in its pursuit. Thus, sometimes it is better to retain only the committed, believers and suffer the loss in raw numbers when the change in course is radical.
In a more philosophical view, I remember the term either 'Beggars [should | could] not be choosers' and since I have never contributed financially to Linux or a distribution what I am taking is a gift. While I have been a fairly long time user of Ubuntu i have known I was going to exit. However, without rancor or claims I was being abandoned. My last update was not even to the former LTS, because I could see their direction, instead I chose a version that had a shorter life and near its end I installed Mint. Soon I will upgrade to the latest version of that distribution. Nonetheless, I can see they intend to follow Ubuntu's model for the windows manager, hence, when that version becomes unavoidable I shall change distributions again. It's not that I am so skilled that I spend time tweaking my installation, but I just do not wish to lose the option to make my own changes when I perceive the need. Moreover, making changes without resort to deep searches for the hidden keys that allow such changes is my base requirement.
I will try to keep the last point brief, however, let me apologize for the length of this screed.
As we have seen in another thread, converts or true believers can unintentionally create a storm of ill will with their demands that Linux actually be set on the road of World Domination. The latter should still be perceived as spoken in jest, since the creator of Linux said (approximately) all operating systems suck, but Linux sucks less. Moreover, that is not an unalterable law of the world or the universe, hence, a bit of humility is warranted.
Let me arbitrarily end here.
[end of very serious]
As always jd,
YBT
masgeeks: I don't have to explain it, because in fact you explained it far better than anyone!
There were Windows-users, and they were easily able to learn how to use Ubuntu. Just like I said, Ubuntu is aiming for 'new' users, offering a low threshold to enter.
And like you said:
That's exactly what I was trying to say! They're welcoming new, casual users. Because otherwise there's no way for them to reach the 100 Million Mr. Shuttleworth wants to reach.
However, though, if you would really heavily use the software day in day out, like doing lots of multitasking, switching between windows and applications, starting and quitting lots of programs, would it still be the best solution possible?
Yes, I'm thankful to Canonical for making Linux approachable! And for them to really, really look into the 'learnability' aspect of usability. And spending time and efforts of choosing the best way to do things. That's all great! And something other distro's haven't done to the same level, as of yet. Maybe Linspire, but sadly it failed. Errr, sad for the 'casual Linux user' who's mostly experienced with Windows, that is.
And yes, I'm thankful there's also other distro's which are a PITA to configure, a nightmare to update but once done, you know all silly details you shouldn't care about, you know there all settings are - more than you ever liked to learn about and most of them never used, and you can use them for about eight years without having to reinstall once (if you're on a rolling scheme). OK, have to admit, in eight years I reinstalled twice, but one of those times was because I bought a new computer and the other time because I accidentally pulled the power cord when glibc was installing, and having no decent backup. You see, everything has its benefits, and the article was not meant to celebrate. Though we should.
No, the article was meant to put those flame wars about UI's in a better perspective. Like "Linux is not for everybody, and I have to use the CLI!" Well, AutoCAD is not for everybody too. But it's still a great program. The casual user doesn't want to use it and is better of with MS Paint (or XPaint), the everyday user would detest paint. Once I tried to do a quick technical drawing in MS Paint... What an enormous nuisance!
So if you as an experienced Ubuntu user feel at home but so do new users, all the better. The article is more aimed at those complaining about Gnome and KDE dumbing down, and those complaining about programs like 'vi' and /etc-files being hard to use.
Looking back at it, the title doesn't cover the article, I'm a bit sorry about that. But clearly it seems, there are those two ways of thinking like described, and clearly, projects / companies like Apple, Ubuntu and Unity belong to the first category.
I'm sorry, I'm a bit done with 'dumbing down' today, as today in a discussion I actually had to explain most botnets exist of Windows computers. So no more Jip-en-Janneke language for me today. But if you still don't understand what I'm trying to tell and want to discuss, that's okay. It's because people like you who critizise what I write, I see my own writings were flawed, and because of such eventually become a bit wiser. And older... Ouch.
There were Windows-users, and they were easily able to learn how to use Ubuntu. Just like I said, Ubuntu is aiming for 'new' users, offering a low threshold to enter.
And like you said:
Quoting:At least Canonical is making an effort to welcome into the Linux fold those people who are casual users...
That's exactly what I was trying to say! They're welcoming new, casual users. Because otherwise there's no way for them to reach the 100 Million Mr. Shuttleworth wants to reach.
However, though, if you would really heavily use the software day in day out, like doing lots of multitasking, switching between windows and applications, starting and quitting lots of programs, would it still be the best solution possible?
Yes, I'm thankful to Canonical for making Linux approachable! And for them to really, really look into the 'learnability' aspect of usability. And spending time and efforts of choosing the best way to do things. That's all great! And something other distro's haven't done to the same level, as of yet. Maybe Linspire, but sadly it failed. Errr, sad for the 'casual Linux user' who's mostly experienced with Windows, that is.
And yes, I'm thankful there's also other distro's which are a PITA to configure, a nightmare to update but once done, you know all silly details you shouldn't care about, you know there all settings are - more than you ever liked to learn about and most of them never used, and you can use them for about eight years without having to reinstall once (if you're on a rolling scheme). OK, have to admit, in eight years I reinstalled twice, but one of those times was because I bought a new computer and the other time because I accidentally pulled the power cord when glibc was installing, and having no decent backup. You see, everything has its benefits, and the article was not meant to celebrate. Though we should.
No, the article was meant to put those flame wars about UI's in a better perspective. Like "Linux is not for everybody, and I have to use the CLI!" Well, AutoCAD is not for everybody too. But it's still a great program. The casual user doesn't want to use it and is better of with MS Paint (or XPaint), the everyday user would detest paint. Once I tried to do a quick technical drawing in MS Paint... What an enormous nuisance!
So if you as an experienced Ubuntu user feel at home but so do new users, all the better. The article is more aimed at those complaining about Gnome and KDE dumbing down, and those complaining about programs like 'vi' and /etc-files being hard to use.
Looking back at it, the title doesn't cover the article, I'm a bit sorry about that. But clearly it seems, there are those two ways of thinking like described, and clearly, projects / companies like Apple, Ubuntu and Unity belong to the first category.
I'm sorry, I'm a bit done with 'dumbing down' today, as today in a discussion I actually had to explain most botnets exist of Windows computers. So no more Jip-en-Janneke language for me today. But if you still don't understand what I'm trying to tell and want to discuss, that's okay. It's because people like you who critizise what I write, I see my own writings were flawed, and because of such eventually become a bit wiser. And older... Ouch.
Actually Txt, your are absolutely correct that it sometimes necessary to abandon existing customers when seeking to take your product in a new direction. However, it's not something a company should undertake lightly, and they should always be upfront with their existing customers about what they're doing and why. So far, I don't think Canonical has done that.
> I remember the term either 'Beggars [should | could] not be choosers' and since I have never contributed financially to Linux or a distribution what I am taking is a gift.
Well, I've paid for at least a couple of Slackware versions over the years (3, I think). That's nowhere near the number of used, but I haven't been a complete freeloader. And I've offered support in various forums for both Slackware and Red Hat (back before Fedora) over the years, though not anytime recently (mostly because those forums have largely disappeared).
And I agree that for non-paying users, if Ubuntu's new direction doesn't please you, then you should simply move to another distribution. it's not like there aren't lots out there to choose from.
> Well, AutoCAD is not for everybody too. But it's still a great program.
I know a number of people who would argue that point, Hans. :)
> I remember the term either 'Beggars [should | could] not be choosers' and since I have never contributed financially to Linux or a distribution what I am taking is a gift.
Well, I've paid for at least a couple of Slackware versions over the years (3, I think). That's nowhere near the number of used, but I haven't been a complete freeloader. And I've offered support in various forums for both Slackware and Red Hat (back before Fedora) over the years, though not anytime recently (mostly because those forums have largely disappeared).
And I agree that for non-paying users, if Ubuntu's new direction doesn't please you, then you should simply move to another distribution. it's not like there aren't lots out there to choose from.
> Well, AutoCAD is not for everybody too. But it's still a great program.
I know a number of people who would argue that point, Hans. :)
I partly agree with you. From a users point of view, yes, you're certainly right. But not necessarily from a developers point of view. I try to explain what I mean. My own project, you can use it in the same way as you would have 15 odd years ago. But that is, because it still blends in perfectly with the current architecture. However, if you do a complete makeover with a complete new architecture you might - as a developer - not have that choice and, true, your users have to go through the transition. That's painful, but often not avoidable. Rather that than to make an ugly kludge that will come to haunt you later - see the Bell Labs reports on software decay. I think it is in the users interest too to have a clean design. Less bugs, now and later after maintenance.
Still, a radical change in design has its own risks. Your program may in the first stages not have the same stability and features as the "old" version, simply because you started from scratch. That's what happened with KDE4. In that case (I've been through a similar transition when I changed an entire VM) you'd rather wait a bit longer than to release it before its time. Another lesson that KDE4 learned the hard way. I hope Gnome3 doesn't make the same mistake. That would be a shame, because it shows IMHO some really new and daring DE paradigms.
Still, a radical change in design has its own risks. Your program may in the first stages not have the same stability and features as the "old" version, simply because you started from scratch. That's what happened with KDE4. In that case (I've been through a similar transition when I changed an entire VM) you'd rather wait a bit longer than to release it before its time. Another lesson that KDE4 learned the hard way. I hope Gnome3 doesn't make the same mistake. That would be a shame, because it shows IMHO some really new and daring DE paradigms.
Can't argue with that Hans (B)! It's also about resources.
I think both AutoDesk and Dassault have the money and capabilities to - when they introduce a new way of interfacing - also add the 'old' methods to their 'new' program. Even when they do a partially rewrite, they put back in the old abilities - most of the times.
But demanding from a bunch of developers who just code because that's their hobby - to keep all old interfaces intact as a backup / alternative to the new ones, might have been a bit too much to ask. It's a difficult decision, because it's a bad idea to build on something which is 'decaying' - nice way to phrase it by the way. So, many people are wondering on why KDE4 was not gradually 'added' to KDE3, because by such means the old interfaces /functionality would have stayed intact for longer. But that's probably another discussion, one we had a few times too many.
JD: Yeah, the ACAD dislikers, tell me all about them! I spend at least 24 hours a week next to one of them. The type of people wondering why you would enter the length and angle of a line before you draw it, because with todays parametric drawing programs you can change them later on, and add relations. Thing is, once I found myself working with Pro/Engineer, and if I did more than 20 lines at a time, I wasn't able to draw a line anymore because the program could not decide which of 120 relations to add. Because if it added one relation, the other 20 lines also changed - and they tried forming new relations among each other, leading up to a number of possibilities among the level of the faculty of 120 I guess. No need to say it brought my dual core workstation to a grinding halt! Something which AutoCAD never does, I honestly have never been able to make it 'stuck'. I even drew 100k lines back in '05 or so on a single-core, and still no problem. You could make great 'spirograph'-like stuff, something the modern programs are not able to do! Ah, why preach to the choir; you as a Slackware user probably know why some people enjoy the CLI and doing it the old fashioned trusted way.
So I really came to like AutoCAD, as it's one of the only programs in which you can draw using the keyboard a lot, and it's WYSIWYG. I have to work with some CAM-program daily now where 'keyboard' was an afterthought. Sometimes there's some way to do it with the keyboard, but which key's may be different from minute to minute, and lots of time, there's no keyboard shortcut defined for menu items at all. Neither is there a way to appoint keyboard shortcuts.
Which means if I want to script it, the easier way out is to just write an AutoIT script (after all this is on Windows 7) to fire VI opening the plain-text file in which the all CAM-operations are listed, and then performing some vi-macro magic on it. Because I'm not familiar with vi-scripting though, but this 'ugly hack' works pretty well for me. And it makes me like the 'ease of use' of vi, even if it's about the hardest things I ever tried to learn(ed). And it's not because documentation lacks!
I think both AutoDesk and Dassault have the money and capabilities to - when they introduce a new way of interfacing - also add the 'old' methods to their 'new' program. Even when they do a partially rewrite, they put back in the old abilities - most of the times.
But demanding from a bunch of developers who just code because that's their hobby - to keep all old interfaces intact as a backup / alternative to the new ones, might have been a bit too much to ask. It's a difficult decision, because it's a bad idea to build on something which is 'decaying' - nice way to phrase it by the way. So, many people are wondering on why KDE4 was not gradually 'added' to KDE3, because by such means the old interfaces /functionality would have stayed intact for longer. But that's probably another discussion, one we had a few times too many.
JD: Yeah, the ACAD dislikers, tell me all about them! I spend at least 24 hours a week next to one of them. The type of people wondering why you would enter the length and angle of a line before you draw it, because with todays parametric drawing programs you can change them later on, and add relations. Thing is, once I found myself working with Pro/Engineer, and if I did more than 20 lines at a time, I wasn't able to draw a line anymore because the program could not decide which of 120 relations to add. Because if it added one relation, the other 20 lines also changed - and they tried forming new relations among each other, leading up to a number of possibilities among the level of the faculty of 120 I guess. No need to say it brought my dual core workstation to a grinding halt! Something which AutoCAD never does, I honestly have never been able to make it 'stuck'. I even drew 100k lines back in '05 or so on a single-core, and still no problem. You could make great 'spirograph'-like stuff, something the modern programs are not able to do! Ah, why preach to the choir; you as a Slackware user probably know why some people enjoy the CLI and doing it the old fashioned trusted way.
So I really came to like AutoCAD, as it's one of the only programs in which you can draw using the keyboard a lot, and it's WYSIWYG. I have to work with some CAM-program daily now where 'keyboard' was an afterthought. Sometimes there's some way to do it with the keyboard, but which key's may be different from minute to minute, and lots of time, there's no keyboard shortcut defined for menu items at all. Neither is there a way to appoint keyboard shortcuts.
Which means if I want to script it, the easier way out is to just write an AutoIT script (after all this is on Windows 7) to fire VI opening the plain-text file in which the all CAM-operations are listed, and then performing some vi-macro magic on it. Because I'm not familiar with vi-scripting though, but this 'ugly hack' works pretty well for me. And it makes me like the 'ease of use' of vi, even if it's about the hardest things I ever tried to learn(ed). And it's not because documentation lacks!
Quoting:I'm a power user of Ubuntu, love the new Unity interface (warts and all), there's a lot less mousing...
And therein lies the difference. I've spent a goodly amount of time over the years perfecting a desktop that does not require that I memorise special key combinations. If I can't navigate around my desktop (with multiple monitors and 9 virtual desktops) with only the mouse, then it can't be done. I prefer it that way, there no special key combinations required.
Both Unity and GNOME Shell take that necessary functionality away from me. Neither filts particularly well with my Multiple monitors, and GNOME Shell, at least, does not recognise any monitor other than the primary one, I can not get previews of the other monitors.
On the other hand Unity is a pretty good tablet/touch screen desktop.
Actually Usability != Learnability (at least for some)
Hans,
nice article and well thought of. There is no full consent to see Learnability as part of usability. The ISO definition doesn't mention it: "The extent to which a product can be used by specified users to achieve specified goals with effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction in a specified context of use". A "specific content of use" could very well be: "After user went through a specific and intensive training".
E.g. the command line has a very high usability when "specified users = Linux power users" and "specific context of use" is "after memorizing the command line options". I fully agree that dumbing down user interfaces neglects the state most users end up being in: "perpetual intermediates". I've trained senior citizens and we found that using a mouse is actually hard to learn (low learnability), but once mastered quite easy to use. Or: the addressbar in a browser is easy to learn, but hard to master (knowing how to manipulate URLs) to its full potential....
So the aim must be: basic tasks need to be completable by novice users while enough features can be discovered (or looked up) to go to intermediate use. Finally it mustn't get into the way of a power user. Easy said, not an easy task.
Well said!
Sadly, lots of users don't look further than "Oh, for the CLI I have to learn all commands and codes, it's really hard to learn, there are no icons and no symbols to click on, so it doesn't offer usability".
And indeed, I saw my mother and grandma struggle with the mouse in the beginning. I started using a mouse at about the age of 12 or so, having no problems. That's why I think lots of users underestimate how difficult it actually is to operate a mouse, especially double clicking is sometimes hard to learn to people.
Sadly, lots of users don't look further than "Oh, for the CLI I have to learn all commands and codes, it's really hard to learn, there are no icons and no symbols to click on, so it doesn't offer usability".
And indeed, I saw my mother and grandma struggle with the mouse in the beginning. I started using a mouse at about the age of 12 or so, having no problems. That's why I think lots of users underestimate how difficult it actually is to operate a mouse, especially double clicking is sometimes hard to learn to people.
Does anybody remember the "old days" (ie. DOS - Win 3.1), when a good secretary would figure out incredible CLI tricks, to make her (yes, it was always "her") own job easier.
And those "programmable" typewriters could be fairly tricky, too.
But today, everybody is just too dumb to learn anything but clicking a few buttons and drop-lists (if they're really bright they can cope with the odd check-box and radio-button, too).
What happened?
And those "programmable" typewriters could be fairly tricky, too.
But today, everybody is just too dumb to learn anything but clicking a few buttons and drop-lists (if they're really bright they can cope with the odd check-box and radio-button, too).
What happened?
Quoting:What happened?
Microsoft.
Dr.G +1
We conduct computer and internet 101 classes within the HeliOS effort and many of our students are adults. Where we think we are going to start by teaching effective search techniques and various Firefox extensions and addons to make life easier, we soon find out that many of them don't have any concept of the differences between right and left mouse clicks. The majority don't know how to use the keyboard to cut/copy or paste. We had one 60 year old lady almost break down in tears when we taught her copy and paste. She had been typing in entire paragraphs verbatim in her email fields when she wanted to send something to a friend or family member.
While Microsoft may have been the main culprit in dumbing down the operating system, I lay a lot of the blame on people simply being intimidated by their computers...afraid they are going to mess something up.
We conduct computer and internet 101 classes within the HeliOS effort and many of our students are adults. Where we think we are going to start by teaching effective search techniques and various Firefox extensions and addons to make life easier, we soon find out that many of them don't have any concept of the differences between right and left mouse clicks. The majority don't know how to use the keyboard to cut/copy or paste. We had one 60 year old lady almost break down in tears when we taught her copy and paste. She had been typing in entire paragraphs verbatim in her email fields when she wanted to send something to a friend or family member.
While Microsoft may have been the main culprit in dumbing down the operating system, I lay a lot of the blame on people simply being intimidated by their computers...afraid they are going to mess something up.
Quoting:I lay a lot of the blame on people simply being intimidated by their computers...afraid they are going to mess something up.
It is that mentality that companies like Microsoft pander to, instead of helping them become more knowledgable and more self sufficient, they see this fear as a marketing opportunity, and make those people more dependent.
I think giving people the power to install any .exe they find on the web, pretty much equals giving them the power to screw up.
My hypethese: In more confined areas where some "network of trust" exists, like Linux repositories or Apple's Appstore, people are less afraid to try and install new stuff.
My previous job, I wanted some program, but couldn't install it because I didn't have permission. So I searched for a "portable" app, found it, and it came with a virus. Gladly, my virusscanner refused it to install.
This shows two things: Users like me find dangerous ways around those 'security issues', and making users able to install / execute stuff from any place of the net or email may be dangerous.
My hypethese: In more confined areas where some "network of trust" exists, like Linux repositories or Apple's Appstore, people are less afraid to try and install new stuff.
My previous job, I wanted some program, but couldn't install it because I didn't have permission. So I searched for a "portable" app, found it, and it came with a virus. Gladly, my virusscanner refused it to install.
This shows two things: Users like me find dangerous ways around those 'security issues', and making users able to install / execute stuff from any place of the net or email may be dangerous.
> Users like me find dangerous ways around those 'security issues',
We knew that, Hans. :) But we've all been there. Sometimes on both sides of the issue.
> ...making users able to install / execute stuff from any place of the net or email may be dangerous.
You think. :)
The company I now work for is looking at implementing thin clients and a VMware View environment for their employees. They'll be using standard user accounts and providing a white list of programs which the users can install. It'll work, but it's going to be a royal pain getting all of the necessary applications white listed and maintaining the list. I don't think they understand quite how difficult it will be, or how much user resistance they're going to get.
We knew that, Hans. :) But we've all been there. Sometimes on both sides of the issue.
> ...making users able to install / execute stuff from any place of the net or email may be dangerous.
You think. :)
The company I now work for is looking at implementing thin clients and a VMware View environment for their employees. They'll be using standard user accounts and providing a white list of programs which the users can install. It'll work, but it's going to be a royal pain getting all of the necessary applications white listed and maintaining the list. I don't think they understand quite how difficult it will be, or how much user resistance they're going to get.
jdixon: We're doing that here at the hospital. We use vmware view client for most of the remote access that some doctors, workers, etc. need, and a few remote clinics are all using "thin" comp setups with vmware view connections.
Of course, we're a full domain setup so everything is setup for them and they have no access to install anything (well, I guess they could install stuff that installs to user profile, but fortunately I haven't seen much of that - at least on the normal PCs I work on). :P
> jdixon: We're doing that here at the hospital.
Yeah, it's definitely doable at this point. When they first brought our site online last year (they bought our division from our previous company), they had us all using View sessions from our existing machines, and the 150 or so users here gave the system a pretty good stress test. :) They found out it wasn't as resilient as they would like, to put it mildly. But it looks like the newer versions have increased reliability considerably. I've already discussed the various thin client options (Windows embedded, Linux, and "No-OS" units) and the trade offs with each with my boss. I think he found my analysis "informative". :)
The problem is going to be getting user buy in. I don't see that being an easy sell to users who are used to having their own desktops and laptops, but we'll see how it goes. There are a lot of details to be worked out, if they in fact decide that's the way they want to go.
Yeah, it's definitely doable at this point. When they first brought our site online last year (they bought our division from our previous company), they had us all using View sessions from our existing machines, and the 150 or so users here gave the system a pretty good stress test. :) They found out it wasn't as resilient as they would like, to put it mildly. But it looks like the newer versions have increased reliability considerably. I've already discussed the various thin client options (Windows embedded, Linux, and "No-OS" units) and the trade offs with each with my boss. I think he found my analysis "informative". :)
The problem is going to be getting user buy in. I don't see that being an easy sell to users who are used to having their own desktops and laptops, but we'll see how it goes. There are a lot of details to be worked out, if they in fact decide that's the way they want to go.
Quoting:I don't think they understand quite how difficult it will be, or how much user resistance they're going to get.
That's what you get for hosting your own 'package repo'. There's a massive amount of time going into - for example FreeBSD ports / Gentoo's portage.
Debian (etc.) even more, as they build their own packages, but for Windows that's not an issue.
Especially when there's a company of only "20 office employees" or so, like the one where I worked, it's not worthwile the hassle. I still don't understand why Microsoft didn't try the idea of 'trusted repositories' and md5-hashing the exe's before. Probably, because they're still stuck in the time where you transferred programs via a floppy which you received from somebody you trusted. As far as I'm aware, they still don't provide net-install for their operating system / office suite, while even "conservatives" like AutoDesk nowadays do so.
@jdixon:
I apologize - I don't want to be a grammar nazi, but it's a bit difficult to parse that sentence with the typo, particularly considering the sentence wraps for me after the "pu". :)
Back on topic...
The problem with thin clients is that generally speaking, the list of allowable software is decided by a committee, and generally speaking that committee has no freaking idea what actually goes on in the general user population. They just think they know.
If the folks that decide whether or not a program is acceptable actually listen to constructive criticism, then it can work. Otherwise, the end users will once again be forced to do an end run around the IT system simply to get the job done.
Quoting:They found out it wasn't as resilient as they would like, to pu tit mildly.
I apologize - I don't want to be a grammar nazi, but it's a bit difficult to parse that sentence with the typo, particularly considering the sentence wraps for me after the "pu". :)
Back on topic...
The problem with thin clients is that generally speaking, the list of allowable software is decided by a committee, and generally speaking that committee has no freaking idea what actually goes on in the general user population. They just think they know.
If the folks that decide whether or not a program is acceptable actually listen to constructive criticism, then it can work. Otherwise, the end users will once again be forced to do an end run around the IT system simply to get the job done.
> ...but it's a bit difficult to parse that sentence with the typo...
I've been putting off getting new glasses for a while now, and it shows. It's getting difficult to catch all of my typo's. :(
I've corrected the typo.
> Otherwise, the end users will once again be forced to do an end run around the IT system simply to get the job done.
Yep. We'll see how it goes. At least IT is never boring.
I've been putting off getting new glasses for a while now, and it shows. It's getting difficult to catch all of my typo's. :(
I've corrected the typo.
> Otherwise, the end users will once again be forced to do an end run around the IT system simply to get the job done.
Yep. We'll see how it goes. At least IT is never boring.
Hey Easy Rider,
You know, of course, that was not an accurate quote you exhibited. More like you[r] reading comprehension is being warped by prurient thoughts, I presume. So come clean and stop violating TOS. Ok?
YBT
P.S. Hey jd, why didn't you say you edited that line before I went into attack mode? Well I still like what I wrote. Anyway since when do I hue to facts? It's the thought that counts.
Edits: inserted missing r between brackets so the correction is obvious. Second: P.P.S. E.R., if you ever change your quote, I will be forced to put a contract out on you. Remember the flying cycles at the end of the movie?
You know, of course, that was not an accurate quote you exhibited. More like you[r] reading comprehension is being warped by prurient thoughts, I presume. So come clean and stop violating TOS. Ok?
YBT
P.S. Hey jd, why didn't you say you edited that line before I went into attack mode? Well I still like what I wrote. Anyway since when do I hue to facts? It's the thought that counts.
Edits: inserted missing r between brackets so the correction is obvious. Second: P.P.S. E.R., if you ever change your quote, I will be forced to put a contract out on you. Remember the flying cycles at the end of the movie?
Maybe I should correct the typo in my quote as well, while leaving the rest alone. That way anyone in the future reading the thread will wonder what the heck I'm talking about.
LOL
LOL
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
I'm a power user of Ubuntu, love the new Unity interface (warts and all), there's a lot less mousing... and I find ways to do what I need to get done within this interface. People I've showed Ubuntu to with Unity, who are CASUAL computer users running Windows, were very excited to realize that they could use the same Linux distro I do... because of the dash. With a few pointers they can navigate Ubuntu and do what they need to do... and NOT feel hopelessly lost...
And they feel like kings and queens to think they can use the same Linux distro that I do, and I am a power user.
Is Unity a *dumb down*...??? Maybe, but it makes MY experience more pleasurable, and if it can sway others to dump Windows, then more power to it... And I am a big proponent of *less is more*... and Unity is simple and dare I say elegant...??? Well, if not elegant yet, then its well on its way...
At least Canonical is making an effort to welcome into the Linux fold those people who are casual users...