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

[James Holden (WYLUG)]

Dave Fisher wrote:
> 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.

Maybe. Part of the problem is that people expect a PC to be as easy to
use as a VCR. Given the versatility and complexity that's never going to
be the case. There's no decent training around, and even adult ed
courses like ECDL are a joke.

I used to sell PCs for a large UK chain (oh what the hell, it was Time,
I admit it!) and most people would have been so much better off with a
typewriter and a playstation, but then the intarweb thing came along and
suddenly people wanted PCs.

I think I preferred home computing back in the good old Amiga days.
Simple enough to understand and not go wrong, capable enough to get your
work done without in depth knowledge or training.

> 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.

Been there... ;-) Even got access to the boardroom drinks cabinet a few
times at another ex-employer (who I won't name this time).

> 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.

True. Hey, I thought all the corporate types were used to "thinking
outside the box". Perhaps they aren't.

>
> Dave

James