KDE 3.3 UI, Evaluated By 7 Real Users 141
sgtrock writes "UserInstinct has an article that documents the reactions to KDE 3.3 by 7 users with limited or no Linux background. By and large, they found KDE intrguing, but far too busy. They all complained about some pretty basic UI issues; no stars echoed while the password was typed, anti-aliased fonts off by default, far too many options shown by default, etc. Most had minor UI issues as well; some of which were KDE specific, others that weren't.
All in all, I would have to regard this test KDE 3.3's UI as somewhat disappointing. Especially since KDE strives so hard to provide a consistent and easy to use UI.
IMO the single biggest issue is probably the overwhelming number of options that are exposed to a first-time user. Personally, I'm a guy who likes to tweak almost everything on a UI, so I love the way that KDE works. However, I have seen myself just how quickly beginners get turned off by the very busy option screens. There must be a better way of showing a sane number of options while still allowing power users to access the more esoteric ones. Anyone have any thoughts?"
Two tiered Configuration (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Two tiered Configuration (Score:1)
Re:Two tiered Configuration (Score:2, Interesting)
There are two options: implement an 'Advanced' button for every configuration page/tab, or have one global 'Advanced' button. If you're an advanced user, then you would really hate to have to click the 'Advanced' button on every new configuration page/tab.
I think you should have one global setting (normal/advanced), and an 'Advanced' or 'Normal' button on every configuration page/tab, dependent on the global setting.
Back in the old MS-DOS days, many progr
Re:Two tiered Configuration (Score:2, Insightful)
The best idea is to just provide a concise UI for basic users, and customisation options and lots of keyboard shortcuts for the advanced ones. MS Visual Studio is a good example of this sort of UI design.
It's called (Score:1, Redundant)
Hide everything in there.
No standardized UI (Score:4, Insightful)
It is also a strength, because of the different choices developers have, but as a user, it is annoying to not have a consistant UI.
If you just use a mouse, it's not a problem, but the keyboard shortcuts are a big deal to me.
A lot of good programs are GTK and a lot of good ones are QT. You almost have to CHOOSE if you want to have a consistant UI.
Chris
Re:No standardized UI (Score:2)
Also, there are not guidelines in regards to ALT-F4...well, just for Windows I guess. ALT-F4 will get you desktop number 4 on my system.
As far as keyboard shortcuts, kde has an option where it mimics the keyboard shorts of different UI's if you wish...or if you wish you can configure them to anything you want...how YOU want y
Re:No standardized UI (Score:2)
before bluecurve [otierney.net]
after bluecurve [otierney.net]
why in gods name every distro doesn't do this for the defaults is beyond me. it makes your desktop look 100% cleaner if you utilize different toolkits. however i'd say that gtk runs champ. every gtk app is better than the qt equivs i've found with one exception: k3b.
Re:No standardized UI (Score:2)
Don't know where (Score:5, Interesting)
This would have been much more interesting if they had tested the users on 4 or 5 different linux desktops. Maybe Gnome, KDE, Xfce4, then throw in ion or ratpoison for fun.
I'm still waiting for some sort of objective comparison of major X11 environments against OSX and Windows XP. But I don't think that sort of thing is possible in this day and age.
Personally, while I like and have found good things in just about every desktop ( and I've used them all ) I've pretty much fallen for fvwm2. Fvwm2 allows me to customize everything by forcing me to customize everything. Hell, I had to configure the focus policies by hand. Of course, now that I've done it and made several backups of the configuration so I never have to do it again, I have created what is the closest I have ever gotten to my ideal graphical environment. It also looks really cool too.
Re:Don't know where (Score:2)
Re:Don't know where (Score:3, Funny)
the problem with Xfce4 is that it's not as easy to install because you have to make special effort to start using it. This turns off aunt Tilly.
If installing Xfce4 turns off Aunt Tilly, I'd like to know what turns her on..?
Re:Don't know where (Score:2)
Re:Don't know where (Score:2)
PS: I'm a GNOME user and you can flame me as long as I'm being unbalanced. Oh hell, this is slashdot, flame away!
Re:Don't know where (Score:2)
Re:Don't know where (Score:5, Insightful)
KDE is more volunteer driven, hence it aims to appeal to fellow developers and home power users, for whom configurability and features are wanted.
As a biased KDE user, I think it has the potential to be better than Gnome on the corporate desktop. However this study is right, there are too many 'in your face' options. I agree that KDE needs to cut back on the number of buttons, menu entrys, context menu entries and configuration options shown at the top level. Examples:
There are items in the study I think are dumb, KMail is a fine name for the KDE email client, much better than Kamel (or whatever the suggestion was).
The KDE project is making movements in the right direction, there is a nascent KDE-Usability project. Gnome has gone too far in usability through streamlining, KDE hasn't gone far enough, yet.
Of course all that's opinion, but I say it anyway.
Alex
Re:Don't know where (Score:2)
I think it should be:
Delete ->
To Recycle Bin
From Disk
To Shredder
With a subment. Except that DOES make it slower...
Re:Don't know where (Score:2)
Re:Don't know where (Score:2)
Re:Don't know where (Score:2)
Re:Don't know where (Score:2)
I disagree. I find it a perfectly usable hacker desktop as well, and I know quite a few other developers who like it also. If I had to give a Linux desktop to a non-technical friend or family member, I'd choose GNOME. It looks and feels a lot more professional - more like Windows or MacOS in terms of usability ethos.
KDE is more volunteer driven, henc
Re:Don't know where (Score:2)
Re:Don't know where (Score:1)
I agree... That would definitly be useful. However, it would be almost impossible. You'd have to find a dozen similarly intelligent people who had never used a computer. You couldn't use the same person on multiple systems. The systems are too similar. They'd learn tricks from 1 that they could use on 2, tricks on 1 and 2 t
Re:Don't know where (Score:3, Insightful)
Not at all! Don't let the laziness of amateur usability researchers fool you. Double blind study of user interfaces is still possible. Take ten OSX users and put five in front of KDE and five in front of WinXP. Or take ten WinXP users and put five in front of GNOME and five in front of OSX.
I work with some award winning usability engineers, and they perform some very rigorous studies. They will take the a group of exper
Re:Don't know where (Score:2)
My beef is that these Open Source usability studies do not follow any sort of rigorous research methodologies. You might as well be reading chicken entrails or consulting with Miss Cleo for all the good some of these "studies" do.
Re:Don't know where (Score:2, Informative)
If you spend some significant time customizing KDE it turns into a beautiful desktop environment. But the average user isn't apt to customize anything beyond maybe the desktop background so I believe KDE needs to see some more sensible defaults in the future.
Too many options (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't want to make 101 decisions when I work on my computer. I want sensible defaults and not have to care about plethoras of unneeded options.
Re:Too many options (Score:2, Funny)
You pick one of 101 options everytime you press a key on your standard 101-key desktop keyboard. I recommend the F1 key as a sensible default.
Re:Too many options (Score:2)
It is basicially a Windows 98/XP ripoff with the kitchen sink thrown in, bad defaults and far too many options presented in a flat format. The control center is an absolute disaster - trying to find a single option amongst the many dozens of pages (each with their own tabs) is a frustrating exercise. The Konq prefs are no better.
Even the basics such as the default 'single click to launch' behaviour are just wrong, wrong, wrong from a usability stan
Re:Too many options (Score:2)
False. A "flat format" would be one big list, with no hierarchy. KDE's controls are sorted in a 2-level tree. The Microsoft(tm) Windows(r) Control Panel, on the other hand, is a flat format, since each control panel icon is just sitting in a big window with all the others.
Honestly, I don't see how any of your complaints against the kde control center couldn't be applied even more strongly to Microsoft's control panel.
Even the basics such as the default 'single clic
Re:Too many options (Score:2, Informative)
What's an unneeded option for one user can be a must-have option for another user.
E.g.: if you don't have old software (or buy/download new software when you get a new OS), then having an option for backward compatibility is unneeded. But if you use old software, and want to / have to continue the use of this old software, then a compatibility option is a must-
Re:Too many options (Score:2)
The best option? (Score:3, Insightful)
Real people don't like options. Weirdos like options.
Re:The best option? (Score:2)
Am I the only one that sees the irony in this post?
Re:The best option? (Score:2)
Re:The best option? (Score:1)
Both Kde and Gnome definitely need a control center (listen up Gnome guys!), but with the advance options categorized and hidden until manually "unhidden" by the user(listen up Kde guys!). This is because most people will probably be interested in only some of the advanced options.
This is no brainer s
Re:The best option? (Score:1)
Why one-size-fits-all? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why does everybody try to be one-size-fits-all? Maybe infinite customizability is possible, allowing in a single code-base to be used by both novices and experts, but that may be a bad engineering tradeoff.
There is room on Linux for different desktop environments for novices, experts, Windows refugees, Macintosh refugees, Motif refugees, keyboard fanatics, disabled users, kids, gamers, computer labs, and many others.
I think XFCE and Gnome are a good example of two desktop environments that share a lot of code but are targeted at different user communities.
I use both Gnome and KDE. Gnome strikes me as a more "UNIXy" kind of desktop environment, but KDE's strength could be that it feels more comfortable to people coming from Windows or Macintosh. Maybe that's the user community KDE should target more aggressively, rather than trying to be all things to all people. That would mean removing some customizability from KDE, making its interface more Windows/Mac-like, and simplifying the UI.
Re:Why one-size-fits-all? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Why one-size-fits-all? (Score:1)
Yes, and that's not as ridiculous as it sounds
Re:Why one-size-fits-all? (Score:2)
Real men don't use Desktop Environments.
I don't agree (Score:2)
The UNIX IPC approach to building a desktop under X11 would have been to rely on X11's IPC mechanism: atoms. Unfortunately, neither Gnome nor KDE
Simplistic 80/20 advice... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Simplistic 80/20 advice... (Score:2)
Choice Quote (Score:3, Interesting)
"So this is UNIX? I like it. I'd totally use it. As long as I could use Photoshop"
Should we clap or cry? Dunno, but it's progress.
Re:Choice Quote (Score:2)
Details on Photoshop 7 support can be found here [codeweavers.com]. However, it has been listed as a "Silver Medal" in terms of support, which in Codeweaver's language means: "This application installs, and runs well enough to be usable. However we find it has enough bugs to prevent it from running flawlessly. "
Yes, some thoughts (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, some of the more sophisticated user interfaces I've seen have a concept called "tabs". I know it might be hard to visualize, but imagine that you could split the configuration screen into two separate screens, and only show one of them at a time. The first screen could have the basic configuration, and the second could have the more advanced, "esoteric" ones.
Why, you could even label the screens "Simple" and "Advanced"! What a revolutionary concept!
[/sarcasm]
Re:Yes, some thoughts (Score:2)
Password screen (Score:1, Interesting)
an 'advanced options' checkbox? (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems like this is a better method than eliminating features from a preference dialog box [ala Gnome].
From a GNOME and MacOS X user (Score:3, Interesting)
Good heavens, yes. I'm sure you can turn it off, but that's not the point. By default a new user's desktop should be like a blank slate with some well-marked, obvious signposts to where you can find the tools you need.
Back when I was insane^H^H^H^H^H^Hcompiling Gentoo every couple of weeks, I remember that I was really pleased to see what GNOME 2.0 looked like out of the box, without all the stuff Red Hat was putting on the desktop. Simple, powerful, easy to configure (from the point of view of a long-time configuration file editing user). I switched to KDE a couple of times (although I can't recall if I did so under Gentoo...I think I did) and was blown away with all the stuff that was sitting in the way of recognizing the desktop's important features.
Call me a GNOME zealot, if you must, but I really think they've hit just what I want from a desktop.
Here's the kicker: I still wish I had a way to make MacOS X on my Powerbook more like GNOME 2.6. By default the dock had about twice as many applications as I could reasonably want. I want more keyboard combinations, and I want to configure them as I wish (like I can in GNOME's configuration editor). On the other hand, I'd like GNOME's nautilus to pick up some tips from Finder and I'd like to have application groups in Metacity. (Or whatever they're called where you Atl-Tab to an application and then Alt-` among the windows for that application. I think Metacity has something similar to this, but I'm not sure how good it's working and last I checked it wasn't on by default.)
Flame on!
Re:From a GNOME and MacOS X user (Score:2)
Re:From a GNOME and MacOS X user (Score:1)
HID 101 (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's a better question.. how dow we sell open source to HID people?
Re:HID 101 (Score:4, Funny)
Second, please show me the progressive disclosure on my automobile's interface. As near as I can tell, every driving control is initially displayed, and remains displayed for the duration of my driving. Perhaps the concept of progressive disclosure isn't a basid human interface design. Hmmm, it doesn't exist on my microwave oven either.
Re:HID 101 (Score:3, Interesting)
That's the basic simple interface.
The configuration is what you get when you open the hood, or swap out the radio, or check the fuse box, or change your tires. Note that none of these interfaces are visible by default, and casual drivers don't need to worry about them very often.
The advanced configuratio
Re:HID 101 (Score:2)
I also never said that progressive disclosure was necessary for a good user interface. Despite what has already been posted here there is very little progressive disclosure in an automobile's interface. It simply isn't needed. There are a few simpl
Are "Advanced Options" really advanced? (Score:5, Insightful)
Many times, options are offered as a lazy hack instead of making a UI really usable. If 9 out of 10 users need some advanced option checked, why isn't it on by default? Why is the alternate behavior even needed?
I also think that checkboxes are sometimes offered by the programmer who can't decide how he wants his app to behave. By offering multiple behaviors, he escapes having to commit to one or the other under the guise of offering the user more. But unless you have nothing better to do than to twiddle checkboxes on and off all day, most users won't touch the defaults, meaning that all those options the programmer thought he was offering are in fact unused.
The better way to UI design is to decide what the task is and then to offer a default behavior that best offers it. If there is indeed an alternate that could be prefered by some, perhaps multiple options can be ganged together and toggled with one switch. I do this in my text editor configuration: The option to type with the words wrapped at the window margin is coupled with not setting an auto-textwidth (auto-truncation of lines at a given length) and with using tabs as true tab characters. The opposite is to auto-truncate at a set width, ignore the window margin, and use spaces instead of tabs since the two most basic behaviors are to enter text to preserve line formatting and to ignore it.
Most options aren't really options. And you have to realize that those offered have the potential to confuse more than to help. Once you develop a highly conservative perspective about offering options, you begin to value each one offered more. Besides, if the so-called power users really are, let them fiddle with configuration files, registries and source code like they claim to understand. Just don't bog down the average user!
Re:Are "Advanced Options" really advanced? (Score:2)
Because one out of ten users don't want the default?
My take on a few things... (Score:5, Interesting)
This is the desired behaviour from a security point of view. It's something that people can get used to fast too, it only confuses on the first try. And it's only the default, you can change it if you think security is stupid, it may even be slack-kde specific default but I wouldn't recommend changing it.
Yes they should be on by default
This is where it gets interesting. Do you want to please people who will only ever use kde once, or do you want to please people who will use kde all the time?
Yes, kde has enough options to be confusing on *the first time you use it*. This is the only sample group they tested. Why don't they have these same people use kde everyday and come back and say if they still want all the options hidden.
This is where the gnome ui designers went wrong. They took away all the options and messed up their desktop trying to be the best DE for first day users. Then the users use it for a few weeks and are no longer first time users and switch to something more meaty. This is a complicated thing to think about and I don't think it's worth it to change the interfaces based on sloppy investigations. You have to look at much larger groups of users and see how you can please them all. I'm thinking it's impossible to please everyone, but it's possible to please 90% of new users and 90% of experienced users as well.
Besides all of this, isn't there something called kde-kiosk that lets you turn off all the options? isn't this something done at a distribution level rather than kde-project level?
I say let the kde group fix upstream fixes and let the distributions fix their own bugs. IE if you're a distro targetting users who've never used kde, you fix the ui the way you need it, while if you target advanced users, you fix the ui the way you need it. Let the kde project make kde more maleable and let the distros do the final moulding of the user experience.
Re:My take on a few things... (Score:2)
Why don't they have these same people use kde everyday and come back and say if they still want all the options hidden.
This is where the gnome ui designers went wrong. They took away all the options and messed up their desktop trying to be the best DE for first day users. Then the users use it for a few weeks and are no longer first time users and switch to something more meaty.
I have to disagree with you. In the last 8 years or so, I've used Solaris (on UltraSPARC), OpenBSD on x86, Red Hat Linux, Windo
Re:My take on a few things... (Score:2)
From what I found, the only cvs integration in KDE is Cervisia, which comes in kdesdk.
First, that's not one of the core packages, so the fact that you have it installed is either one of your or your distribution's fault.
Second, it looks like Cervisia is a standalone app. However, like many other things in KDE (kghostview, koffice, kwrite) it's probably written as a kpart so that Konqueror and other apps
Re:My take on a few things... (Score:2)
I don't see why it's so hard to have a switch that says, for the entire KDE desktop, apps, etc, "enable expert options" mayb
Re:My take on a few things... (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re:My take on a few things... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think this might be more of an early adopter/pragmatic adopter dichotomy than an experienced user/first time user dichotomy. Products go through a natural cycle, starting with early adopters, switching over to pragmatic adopters and finally ending up with late adopters. Each of these groups have different characteristics and needs. Early adop
Re:My take on a few things... (Score:3, Insightful)
What essential options do you think GNOME has taken away?
Re:My take on a few things... (Score:2)
Then you're wrong, because that option is there.
And why would you not want it?
Re:My take on a few things... (Score:2)
Go into the Foot menu, then applications, select the icon that says "Browse Filesystem"
Long Term Solution:
fire up gconf, app -> nautilus -> preferences -> always_use_browser
click the box. I just put the browse filesystem launcher in the pannel with the main foot menu guy dealy thing, and have shortcuts to the folders i want to use spatial browsing with on my desktop. Got one for home and one for my nfs share. Like you, I dig both methods of browsing for different
Re:My take on a few things... (Score:1)
This is actually the only thing i liked about Lotus Notes. It would output three stars per character typed.
Unless you have a 1 charater password, it's very hard to glance at the password length, yet the u
Re:My take on a few things... (Score:4, Informative)
far too many options shown by default:
An example of KDE having too many options:
There is actually an option "draw borders around maximized windows" and it's on by default. It's not actually called that of course, it's called "allow moving and resizing of maximized windows", but it has no effect on moving any more. Why would anyone want a border around a maximized window, making the fitt's law violations even worse? Let alone an option for it. Why not just replace the option with a sensible default.
My favorite UI (Score:2)
There must be a better way of showing a sane number of options while still allowing power users to access the more esoteric ones. Anyone have any thoughts?"
*smile* Give them names, and let people type the name of the thing they want? You can have a bazillion options at your fingertips, yet never see the ones you aren't interested in that instant. That's why I love the command line so much.
For that matter, that's why I like the phone (I don't need to find a picture of someone and click on it to call
Mostly distribution issues (Score:4, Insightful)
no stars echoed while the password was typed,
This is a global option in KDE. It's up to the distro how they want their defaults. Personally I like the stars *off* so a casual passer by can't see how long or short my password is.
anti-aliased fonts off by default
Again, a distribution thing. If you compile KDE from source yourself you'll find them (surprise!) on by default.
Kopete send messages by pressing enter
Again, default config thing a packager could easily change. And in current KDE CVS it is already changed.
far too many options shown by default, etc.
A distro could easily change the default KControl link to point to settings:// instead, which is far less confusing.
Mostly an uninformed article IMO. If the reviwers want to test the newbie usability of *KDE* itself, not of whatever distro they happen to be on, they should at least spend some time learning how to do things in KDE so that they can set up the system to be newbie-friendly *before* the newbies test it.
Re:Mostly distribution issues (Score:1)
Re:Mostly distribution issues (Score:2)
Again, a distribution thing.
Again, default config thing a packager could easily change.
A distro could easily change the default.
However, Slackware did not change any of these KDE defaults. But they are "mostly distribution issues"?
Furthermore, you're wrong about anti-aliased fonts working by default if you compile from source. I compiled KDE 3.3 from source and have observed the exact same bug. When configuring a new KDE account, whether you get anti-
Re:Mostly distribution issues (Score:3, Insightful)
The review is bogus.
A Solution (Score:1, Interesting)
The simple fact is that you can't please everybody, and trying to do so in a complex UI results in an interface that is *not* ideal.
Bad study (Score:5, Interesting)
While it is a worthwhile goal to create a desktop that creates an initial good impression on a newbie, it should not be the primary goal, or even a major goal. That is because the newbie will NEVER be the primary user! As heretical as it sounds, no one ever stays a newbie forever.
Usability studies need to be directed towards intermediate users. Those who have been exposed to the system for more than thirty minutes. I don't give a stack of meadow muffins how easy a system is for a newbie if it turns out to be difficult for me. I don't want to make a choice between the newbie and the expert, but if a choice had to be made, I would rather reward my long time loyal customer than someone just sniffing around for a good deal.
So here's how to do the next study. Don't base it on the anecdotal statements of a few people. Give the test subjects the destkop a week to get acclimated with the destkop. Don't ask them their feelings but observe their actual behavior (use a video camera if you have to). Try to get a control group or control desktop in place. And don't confuse the user with a usability expert
Re:Bad study (Score:3, Insightful)
You have to remember that _selling_ open source (I mean, getting people to use it) requires that they perceive immediate benefits. (In fact, they sometimes say, to get people to change your product needs to be TEN TIMES better than their existing choice.)
Now if you use something for half an hour and you find it difficult, you are not going to assume "hey, I bet once I get used to this it will be fantastic". You will assume, quite rationally, that it is going to carry on being difficul
Re:Bad study (Score:3, Insightful)
But everyone was a newbie once. You can't ignore either side of it: design only for newbies, and only newbies will use it. But design only for experts, and NOBODY will ever use it.
Every UI designer must aim for the right balance of accessibility and power.
I would rather reward my long time loyal customer than someone just sniffing around for a good deal.
That makes sense if you actually have those long-term customers. Microsoft does; KDE
How many "real users" are there? (Score:2)
I'd a thought that maybe there'd be say 6 or 7 hundred real users!
Easy to use? (Score:1)
MERCY (Score:1)
Please, MERCY, stop putting pressure on the KDE developers so that they turn KDE into a Windoze kind of sh*tty UI, just in order to please the newbs.
> However, I have seen myself just how quickly beginners get turned off by the very busy option screens.
Yes, but we don't care for lazy newbs, ok ?
> There must be a better way of showing a sane number of options while still allowi
Re:MERCY (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem now is that KDE is too much like Windows. I've been a KDE user since 1.x (and am typing this in KDE 3.3.0), and even I can admit that KDE suffers from largely the same UI problems that plague many Microsoft apps.
Specifically:
1) Lots of toolbars full of lots of cryptic, hard-to-decipher icons. It was the UI-disaster called MS Office that made this style of app popular. Most KDE apps copy this style. Konqueror is laid out like Internet Explorer (> 10 icons in toolbar), instead of like Firefox or Safari (~5 icons in the toolbar).
2) Ultra-long menus and context menus. It's Microsoft and Windows that popularized the 20-item context menu, which KDE faithfully copies.
3) Multiple places to configure functionality of application. KDE's settings menu copies this nicely, though it's not as bad as what Microsoft does with Visual Studio (which puts configuration both under the File menu and the Tools menu).
Re:MERCY (Score:1)
No, I am not missing something. I am a KDE user since 0.9x if you want to know and if you re-read my post, I never claimed that KDE is perfect the way it is now, neither that it hasn't copied some annoying features from Windoze.
What I'm trying to say is that the developers need to find a unique style of solving these usability problems. If they have a constant pressure about "n00bs can't this and n00bs can't that", then the only thin
Re:MERCY (Score:2)
By having more buttons everywhere and not laying out menu options logically, you make every UI action interfere with the user's train of thought. The user isn't using the desktop environment - they're trying to get some work done.
If they have to keep breaking their concentration to figure out where the zoom out button is because it's hidden amongst loads of other icons, and looks just like
gender (Score:1)
It isn't just a conincidence that women prefer Mac and men like PCs.
KDE and Usability (Score:2, Insightful)
So, what?
I chose KDE because it wasn't as simple as gnome. I like KDE and Konqueror because they are full or options and advanced menu choices.
gnome is a great business desktop. It is what a company should have on its PCs so that the employees would not pay attention to anything else except
Re:KDE and Usability (Score:2)
That said, I can't stand KDE. To be totally honest with you, i get a headache after more than 30 minutes working with it. This isn't a troll, KDE is great for some people. But I can't stand it. I use gnome because it's simple, it's easy on the eyes, and I can tw
Simple. (Score:2)
Copy what windows does.
Strange Errors (Score:2)
They also seemed to be looking for differences from Microsoft windows, and not judging KDE on its own merit consistently. This is a real problem that does need to be addressed. Like it or not, 90% of converts will be com
Article header should be... (Score:1)
{
My thoughts (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, like anything there is a lot of room for improvement. I think as more apps are moved over to the new KconfigXT system it will be easier for folks to tweak and improve dialogs. This library lets people describe the settings instead of coding them into a dialog.
I also don't think the invisible password thing is a KDE default. It might be slakware's. I compiled (emerged) kde from source and my login screen shows the stars.
a computer is like a car (Score:4, Insightful)
Simplified, standard business UIs are like station wagons--practical, easy to use, automatic transmision all the way.
KDE is more like a Porsche--fine tuned control, manual transmision, yet still fully polished, appealing to a broad category of enthusiasts who take their vehicle more "seriously". You can argue all you want about manual transmission not being necessary anymore, the people who drive these cars *want* it and don't care that it's less 'accessible' to others.
The smaller, more exotic WM's are like the cult classics--Ford Cobra, classic Mustang, etc. These are for people who have a fascination with mythical features that goes far beyond the desires of the general public. The fans of these cars look down on the mainstream "enthusiasts" as wanna-be's, and take pride in the long and esoteric learning curve that has allowed them to develop this closeness with their machine. Try explaining to one of these guys that an automatic transmission station wagon is a superior design!
My point is that none of these groups are 'right' or 'better'. The only way to go wrong is in trying to be all things to all people.
(With apologies to "In the beginning was the command line" for stealing a good metaphor.)
Two major mindsets (Score:2)
usability is no longer the issue... (Score:4, Interesting)
But in the long term, I am sure KDE will make strides - the Akademy seems to have focused on this area, and KDE are a great project which can develop at lightning speed.
In any case, the real issues for the "free desktop" as a whole are now elsewhere. This would be my first approximation:
* office suite. OpenOffice is good... it's almost as good as MSOffice. But it needs to be BETTER, in order to get people and institutions to switch. After all, 90% of ordinary people's computer time is spent working with office-type applications.
* hardware. I have this sweet Gnome desktop... but I have just spent a day trying to get my printer to work, with NO help from the GUI. Hotplug and HAL are a start but it's not just about recognizing hardware, it's about an easy way to troubleshoot it. Is my problem hardware related, or a kernel problem, or a driver, or is it CUPS or foomatic? I don't know!
* Help systems. Gnome and KDE have great manuals for individual programs. They don't have task-based HOWTO guides, or troubleshooting guides, saying "how do I connect to my friend's workstation" or "I can't get online, what's wrong?"
* Stack integration. We have a great kernel. And we have (at least) two great desktops. And in the middle we have... well, an assortment of GNU and BSD tools, distro-specific stuff, little programs that someone wrote, each with their own config file.... Again, the Novell stuff and the freedesktop stuff isn't a bad start, but we really want *one single way* to manage startup services, for example, so that GUI tools can be written which will work with every distribution (without writing 10 distro-specific backends). The advantage to this is that when there is "one true way", it is much easier to build stuff that can assume the "one true way" is being used. (Note: this is perfectly compatible with diversity, experimentation, Gobolinux etc. etc. - just remember, experimentation can be aimed at *improving the next generation of the standard*.)
* In general: "finish". This is related to the stack integration point but it is more abstract. Let me give you an example. I use Debian. I need to change the time, due to an obscure 2.6 bug relating to APM which makes my clock run at 4x speed. I read "man hwclock". It tells me about how to use hwclock to set the time, and that I can automatically adjust to make up for a slow clock. So I do that. Then, by chance, I read "/usr/share/doc/util-linux/README.Debian.hwclock.g z"...
and it tells me all about how hwclock is dangerous and must not be used! You see? The same distro is giving me inconsistent information in two different sources!
Another example: network interfaces. I can access these in so many different ways. "ifconfig". "ifup" and "ifdown". The scripts in "/etc/init.d". And each of these different levels is built upon the others... and I often don't know which one to go in at... and if I use one level, I may break the assumptions of the other level. Similarly, how do I configure samba?
So IMHO "finish" is the big one. It's about turning a big heap of user-contributed software, into a single consistent centralized system. That's where distros come in, but at the moment, those distros aren't really doing their job. They are just whacking out 6-monthly releases with the latest cool stuff all chucked in there. Debian is better - kudos for a slow, careful release cycle and a high standard for package maintenance - but still, as a desktop, it ain't there. We should be aiming for a distro release to be usable for *years*, not months - my Mum still uses Windows 98, why is this seen as "old-fashioned" if it
Re:usability is no longer the issue... (Score:2)
I disagree. This is the "appliance" mentality. We don't want a centralized heap of software, we want a *platform* on which 3rd parties can build with confidence. Right now we're sort of teetering between the two.
Re:usability is no longer the issue... (Score:2)
I have this sweet Gnome desktop... but I have just spent a day trying to get my printer to work, with NO help from the GUI.
The Ubuntu gnome desktop uses ximian's printer tools and they're pretty good - it's similar to the Windows wizard, but a bit easier to use. There are a few teething problems, but it's definitely an improvement over the web-page CUPS configuration.
Re:usability is no longer the issue... (Score:2)
Still waiting... (Score:2, Funny)
I'm still waiting for the KDE Universal Networking Tool...
Options Option (Score:3, Interesting)
Simply put, make the default set of options the ones that are most commonly used and easiest for beginners to understand. Add in an editor for "Experience Level" or something like that, and have that editor provide a slider (or whatever) that, when set, will gradually reveal more or less detail in the options presented to the user.
The result: new users aren't overwhelmed with settings they don't understand and probably shouldn't mess with, and advanced users can set the experience level once, and forever have every configurable setting at their fingertips.