[Wylug-discuss] Linux GUI design [Was CUPS]

[Dave Fisher]

On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 04:32:19PM +0000, James Holden (WYLUG) wrote:
> Although I've not seen it myself, Xandros seems to be gaining a
> reputation for cleaning up the GUI design to produce a desktop-oriented
> distro for the clueless.

I'm quite interested in what I've seen of Xandros, but I don't think
that commercial distros can really solve the fundamental problems until
the major package developers (plus the Gnome and KDE shells) lift their
game.

Otherwise, the effort to produce a consistent, effective and integrated
GUI would require the distros to re-write elements of just about every
package, i.e. a prohibitively expensive prospect.

> As you say, some may find the concept of trying to ape Windows a bit
> disturbing, but like it or not, MS products have the polish that our
> own apps often lack. That's a serious issue.

Just to clarify,  I do not advocate aping the Windows GUIs themselves
and I am relatively unconcerned with the purely aesthetic elements of
'polish'.

The fundamental question to be answered is always: does the GUI enable
the intended user to carry out the operations s/he wants/needs to with
the minimum effort and maximum effect?  Ugly but functional always
trumps pretty but useless ... indeed, the Linux dustbin of history
contains more than a few pretty toys.

In fact, I am not entirely convinced that the replication of Windows
metaphors, key bindings and window operations in many recent Linux apps
is the wisest option.

Familiarity is certainly an important issue for Linux GUI design, and I
accept that virtually every new Linux user has prior Windows experience,
but (on balance) I am inclined to give it less weight than issues like
discoverability, consistency and navigability.

... which is why I can't usually be bothered to argue strongly against
the Windows-like key bindings in Gnome  ... even though Galeon's recent
propensity to override Emacs-style key bindings was a big factor in my
personal decision to drop it.

What we really should be copying from Microsoft or, better still, Apple
is the proportion of resources, effort and attention they give to their
end-users' needs.

> Linux is mostly there for the corporate desktop where you actually do
> have a sysadmin to make it all work for you, but home users are where
> the roots of the evil empiroe are firmly embedded.

I am not entirely convinced of this.

Home desktop use is, arguably, more homogenous than corporate desktop
use, e.g.  Office Suite, Internet, Multimedia and Games covers the vast
majority of home use.  I am quite convinced that Macs sold at Wintel
prices would wipe the floor with Microsoft in the home market.

It is true that the legal and technical framework enables those
businesses who wish it, to implement dedicated, restricted and
well-supported desktops, but a surprising proportion don't do so ...
indeed the proportion of unrestricted and frankly stupid Windows
desktops seems to increase as you climb up most corporate hierachies!

Most decision makers tend to form their opinions from personal
experience.  Many top managers can't use computers at all, and many who
can, are inclined to treat their desk/lap/palmtops as personal toys ...
except, of course that they always have priority access to
over-stretched tech support when they cock-up.

That said, I think that you are entirely right to emphasise the way in
which desktop use in general dominates strategic perceptions about what
computing is and aught to be ... sadly.

Dave