Linux.com

www.grokdoc.net could be a good resource . . .

#

I joined GrokDoc. Seemed like a good idea but seems way too focused on User Experience than APP/System Usability.
Usability is NOT just important for the GUI's. IMHO its pretty important for NON GUI apps in the sense that they have easy configs & such.

#

Isn't application/system usability based on improving user experience? And isn't a poor user experience indicative of a need for greater usability?

Just a thought.

#

I think what grandparent ment, is that system administrators, programmers and other unreal users (as opposed to real users) enjoy good documentation and sane behaviour too.

#

The reason why there is no usability data pool is that there is no data to be had. Useablilty is simply a matter of taste and choice, that's why when you ask a quesiton about useablilty all you get is opinions. Useablilty labs are like marketing labs; they are there to gather opinions from focus groups on useablility.

The closest that open source could come is to let people vote for interfaces etc. The only "best practice" is what do most people find most useable.

#

Useability is not a matter of taste -- "taste" is an esthetic, not functional consideration.

For instance, it's not a matter of "taste" or "opinion" whether the menu item mentioned in the article is overly technical and obscure for the lay user. It simply is incomprehensible to to anyone who doesn't know the term. It's a trivial task to give any menu item a self-explanatory name that any non-technical user can understand, and should be a matter of course for all developers no matter what platform they're developing for. Communicating in a language that the user understands is not a matter of taste, it's common sense (and common courtesy). (You wouldn't design a menu in Turkish for American users, would you?)

Similarly, it's not a matter of "taste" when it comes to what color schemes or screen layouts are optimally readable by sight-impaired users: those are proven technical issues. It only takes a bit of effort to search the web for guidance, or to contact organisations that advocate for those with special needs: many of those organisations have already done the useability work and are only too happy to advise developers.

"Choice" (and yes, ok, taste) can of course enter into which design scheme / menu structure / descriptive language to use if there are several choices that might serve users' needs equally well (or choosing to ignore users' requirements for whatever misguided reason).

In any case useability professionals definitely have their place but they're not necessary to design efficient, enjoyable, eminently useable applications.

I'm a developer. I don't have a degree in useability, nor do I consult with specialists when designing application interfaces. When I'm devising an interface I think about:
how to guide a user through the process of completing their task so that they provide the information needed in the order required to get the result they want;
with the clearest, cleanest visual experience;
presenting options and explaining steps in the easiest to understand, plainest language (hopefully with an occasional tasteful dash of humor).

Sure it takes a little extra work, but it actually helps the development process (highlighting trouble spots). Anyone can do it if they choose to put themselves in the non-technical user's shoes. It's not rocket science. Like I said, it's just common sense and common courtesy.

#

It's not a matter of taste when you're presented with a list of options, none of which make sense (or all of which seem to mean the same thing), and there's no accessible help button. Or the help button is on the previous screen (and it's useless anyway when you get back there) and the screen you're on is modal so you can't get back without hitting "cancel". (That was my experience last night of K3B, which seems to be totally useless<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-(

Read ESR's recent rant about CUPS for a perfect example of how to confuse *intelligent* users by actively hiding all the information they need to make a sensible decision<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...

Cheers,
Wol

#

Sorry, but this is totally untrue. Could I recommend that you read Card, Moran and Newell's 'The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction' (1983) or Noyes and Baber's 'User Centred Design'. Admittedly both were written long before the term 'usability' was coined, but they demonstrate a lot of empirical research that is applicable to usability. The field of usability is a multi-disciplinary field composed primarily of psychologists (after all, it is humans that are being measured), but also computer science, discourse analysis, graphic design and others.

I think maybe you confuse usable design with graphic design. It's a fairly common misconception which even large companies make.

#

Usability is the difference between finishing a task in a few minutes with a low but reasonable learning curve, and spending hours without the ability to finish the same task.

Usability is the core reason that MS Windows pulled ahead of any other OS from 3.x onwards. Microsoft Press has published numerous titles regarding the "Windows User Experience," in order to educate developers and their managers on the importance of a user having consistent and adaptable experience throughout their use of a vendor's software. Compared to contemporary competitors, Windows 3.x was crushing in all aspects of usability and has since been top contender. Regardless of MS business practices, this was their real strength as it was always just a little more convenient to use their products.

Consider MS Office, while it is possible to have some considerable problems to have it do what you want, most users will never know of them as their use is streamlined to their expectations of something like a typewriter. This is supported with interface elements that meet this expectation rather than requiring more direct knowledge of the application. A user needn't enter the em value of their word spacing, or the point value of their tabs. They can drag the options to their needed value and get back to the important things. Sure, you can set all of these things programmatically, but to expect a user to do this is unrealistic. Mention VBA to them and they will correct you saying the fish-fry is actually at the VFW.

This is part of the brilliance of Mozilla Firefox mimicking IE in the placement of Internet Options and KDE and GNOME provoding a Start Menu. Users are far closer to being "up to speed" immediately and are more likely to stay and contribute to whatever application they use.

While improving, Linix is most useful to developers and still abandons many users that would otherwise be interested.

When it comes down to it, people that need something to work --- particularly those that depend upon computing for business --- view initial and even yearly licensing of $500 or more as small change in the face of spending 2 weeks picking up a previously unneeded skill. They may have lost many times that cost by the time that they acheive their needed results.

It should also be considered that many simply can't afford to participate in a MS monopoly. Populations that have the most to gain from Linux are left to learning an entirely new vocabulary on top of an unfamiliar method of production. I recently had a visit from a cousin of mine from the 'old country'. She had never seen a pool table except on the only TV in her villiage. This TV was the richest household in her villiage of about 250 people. I don't expect her to know anything of using any computer --- let alone figuring out how to configure her new Linux kernal.

While man and help pages are wonderful for seasoned *nix users, they are useless for those that are new to the platform. While many a *nix user will boast (almost angrily) that they can enter a command in seconds that commits system-wide changes and that is why it is the best and most usable.

Seasoned users simply forget while saying this that this is exactly what horrifies most users. The command that they misspelled, forgot exactly how to use, or forgot completely can cost them weeks.

In the mainstream, people expect a computer to act as any other appliance would in their home. They don't need to know how fast their spin cycles run in their washing machines and shouldn't mess with it either lest it put them in very serious danger while toying with the washer. A washing machine needs two dials to do the job and users benefit from it.

Jumping back to the thoughts of the requirement in Linux to use the command-line: what holds a developer (corporate or individual) from offering the ability to install a package in the place that a user wishes rather than default locations that are actually numerous, and offering it with the choices of "point and click" progression in place of command-lining rpm, or make, or anything. For instance, offer a command's options in the form of check-boxes at the bottom of a dialog box on screen. At this point a new user wouldn't have to study to again study to use another piece of software, they could simply install it to study the application itself --- which is the point, after all.

Possibly creating a machine-based disclosure of the host machine's packages or hardware, and so allowing the right build every time without any user ever editing a text file; requiring such an edit --- even customizing a script or config file after installation --- should be considered embarrassing. If Linux and other OSS is encourage migration, then the use of that software should be at least, encouraging rather than discouraging.

#

For instance, the form of my original post failed to act as WYSIWYG removed all carriage returns even though the preview had preserved them...

#

That's strange.

The default comment posting style for NewsForge is "Plain Old Text," which is supposed to preserve line breaks.

Did you perhaps paste in a document created in another word processor or text editor?

I ask so that we can help our programmers make this site easier to use. This interface was originally designed for Slashdot, which is not intended to be easy for people who are not technically adept.

Thanks,

- Robin

#

No, although there were some hiccups in the writing process.

I wish I could remember more fully to describe the situatin more closely, however I received an error

I believe that the error suggested a relationship to the use of the back button, newsforge embedded within a frame, or viewing through a proxy --- something that is unavoidable when pressing a link from hotmail unless a site forces otherwise. For instance, I am currently viewing the URL

http://64.4.43.250/cgi-bin/linkrd
?_lang=EN&lah=b60f571e41314d5a04132dbddbd2940<nobr>e<wbr></nobr>
&lat=1089503780&hm
___action=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2enewsforge%2ecom%2
fcomments%2epl%3fsid%3d39129%26cid%3d94772

rather then the page link in the email directly. This is actually troublesome as the proxy isnt using SSL, and so I have to remember to get out of hotmail before offering up any potentionally dangerous info to a site (credit cards, ss#, etc.)

Although the proxy is happy enough with connecting with a secure page, I am sent an insecure one.

Who knows, maybe there is something to do with having my session expire from hotmail's side.

I remember then --- rather than through hotmail --- navigating directly to the original discussion, logging in, and then pressing reply to the same post that I had intended. I can't remember if I rewrote the post or held it in notepad to paste it. I do this often enough for long posts; I may have in this case, honestly.

This second time there were no errors attempting to submit, but the carriage returns were removed after I had posted regardless of their presence in the preview.

I hope that it helps. I would more often submit a bug report, but I am never sure if it is actually me that is doing something wrong or if I have the correct vocabulary to describe what was happening.

If this works, I will resubmit the original post with carriage returns. Thanks for prompting me to send it in.

#

******************
First, a note:

Interestingly, I received the same error, but this time I can paste it for you:

Invalid form key: 1xQAR1PK6f

Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, contact the site administrator.

I hope that it helps. By the way, I think grammar should be checked in the above error: Too many commas and conjunctions.

(i.e."firewall or proxy," should be changed to "firewall, proxy," and those are the only required commas in the statement.)

Please note that my last successful post was also submitted through a hotmail proxy, but this is the post that didn't work.
******************

Now for my actual post:

Usability is the difference between finishing a task in a few minutes with a low but reasonable learning curve, and spending hours without the ability to finish the same task.

Usability is the core reason that MS Windows pulled ahead of any other OS from 3.x onwards. Microsoft Press has published numerous titles regarding the "Windows User Experience," in order to educate developers and their managers on the importance of a user having consistent and adaptable experience throughout customers' use of their software.

Compared to contemporary competitors, Windows 3.x was crushing in all aspects of usability and Windows has since been top contender.

Regardless of MS business practices, usability was their real strength as it was always just a little more convenient to use their products.

Consider MS Office, while it is possible to have some considerable problems to have it do what you want, most users will never know of them. Their use of office is made similar to their expectations of something like a typewriter. This is supported with interface elements that meet this expectation rather than requiring more direct knowledge of the application.

A user needn't enter the em value of their word spacing or typeface width, or the point value of their tabs --- even though they are free to do so if needed. Instead, they can drag the options to their needed value and get back to the important things.

In fact, you can also set all of these things programmatically, but to expect a user to do this is unrealistic. Mention VBA to them and they will correct you saying the fish-fry is actually at the VFW.

This is part of the brilliance of Mozilla Firefox mimicking IE in the placement of Internet Options and KDE and GNOME provoding a Start Menu. Users are far closer to being "up to speed" immediately and are more likely to stay and contribute to whatever application they use.

While improving, Linux is most useful to developers and still abandons many users that would otherwise be interested.

When it comes down to it, people that need something to work --- particularly those that depend upon computing for business --- view initial and even yearly licensing of $500 or more as small change in the face of spending 2 weeks picking up a previously unneeded skill.

They may have lost many times that licensing cost by the time that they acheive their needed results.

The opposite should also be considered: while the usability of Windows is preferable, many simply can't afford to participate in a MS monopoly.

Populations that have the most to gain from Linux are left to learning an entirely new visual, verbal, and idea vocabulary on top of an unfamiliar method of production.

At this point usability takes on an economic tone as countries with deep poverty are exactly the places that open source software will prove needed as they develop as an economic fledgling.

I recently had a visit from a cousin of mine from the 'old country'. She had never seen a pool table except on the only TV in her villiage. This TV was in the richest household in her villiage of about 250 people.

I don't expect her to know anything of using any computer --- let alone figuring out how to configure her new Linux kernal or any other PC related skill. I have both Windows and Linux boxes at home. 3 of them. This was an impossible luxury to her and she was very curious to use them.

She was familiar enough with the idea of computing and the internet to get around and start digging.

She has seen PCs on the same TV and there is one --- ONE --- in the medical school that she attends to become a surgeon. She had never used it.

She tried both during the week that she was with me and was simply more comfortable using Windows regardless of the fact that she would never be able to afford it without a fight.

To give you an idea of the general impoverishment from where she comes: her yearly salary as a nurse is just over $230. You heard correctly: per year. That will nearly quintuple when she becomes a surgeon --- imagine that: a surgeon making less than $1500 per year. Even at a surgeon's income it would take her 3 or 4 years to be able to afford Windows licensing --- currently it would take her up to 10 years of heartbreaking saving.

That is not an option for her and will never be unless she is able to come to the US or some other affluent country. This kind of situation is just what makes Linux and open source so important to the world at large.

Regardless, she was more comfortable with Windows: worked more often even with no experience.

For instance, she discovered xKill (briefly: an app that kills a process under Linux --- it's actually really useful tool because you don't have to find the ID of the process to kill). While I was at work, she had killed the KDE taskbar accidentally simply by clicking on it with xKill.

She thought she had irrivocably ruined something and was horrified at what I would think or do. You must understand that this was A_COMPUTER, the same of which her medical school could only afford one. It had the same value as a house from where she comes. She seemed to react with the same gravity as if she had killed A_PERSON. When I got home, she looked as if she had been crying for hours:

1. Restart: problem solved.
2. Comfort the crying.
3. Get dinner somewhere other than at my home office.

Anyway...

(By the way, xKill immediately killing the taskbar? Seriously... have mercy.)

(PS: It's true that you can acheive the same effect in Windows by killing explorer.exe from the task manager, but it does warn you first.)

Back to my original discussioin: man and help pages are wonderful for seasoned *nix users. This is because grep is their friend. (Grep is NOT my friend.) This kind of self-help is virtually useless for those that are new to the platform.

While many *nix users will boast (sometimes surprisingly angrily) that they can enter a command in seconds that commits system-wide changes and that is why this method is the best and most usable.

The problem here is that a user must know explicitly what to do - that point is at the top of the learning curve.

Seasoned users forget while saying this that this is exactly what horrifies most mainstream users. Entering a command that commits system-wide changes is, well, a commitment. The command that is misspelled, forgotten how to use, or forgotten completely can cost them weeks.

Mainstream users expect a computer to act as any other appliance would in their home. They don't need to know how fast their spin cycle runs in their washing machine.

Frankly, they shouldn't mess with it. This is because it could put them in very serious danger. A washing machine needs two dials to do the job and users benefit from it. If a user wished to overclock the spin cycle, they can learn more when they feel the inescapable need to do so.

Regardless, this is an idea for someone other then a househusband/wife to discover.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...

rpm -ivxzf forTheLoveOfGod

This isn't good enough for ME --- let alone anyone without any computing experience. I would change this torture in my spare time if I knew how, but I unfortunately don't.

Frankly, I personally hate installing anything in Linux. This is mostly because I have to find the thing once it is installed. Time. Searching for it is difficult because there is no common extension for an executable under Linux. If I search for it I receive hundreds of files with the same filename and I have to find the one missing an extension.

This assumes that it is actually missing an extension which isn't always the case.

A user should never be forced to edit a text file in order to get anything to work; requiring such an edit such as customizing a script or config file should be considered an embarrassment to the idea of usability.

If Linux and other OSS is to encourage migration, then the use of that software should be at least encouraging rather than discouraging.

#

"Useablilty is simply a matter of taste and choice, that's why when you ask a quesiton about useablilty all you get is opinions."

No, this is simply untrue. Usability is not only a matter of choice. There are rules how a human mind works, how it reflects what one sees and how everyone out there handles his workflow.

I know some interface designers at SAP/Germany, and they are all graduated psychologist - mostly with programming skills, but they know much more about human standards then technical ones.

I think one reason why we fail so badly is because there are no people "checking" the interface design. All big companies that are successfull in interface design *seperate* program logic and interface design, because it's much easier to do one thing at a time.

I always ask out-of-project people when I'm unsure if they can navigate through "my" interface without having to think "where to click next". If this can't be done, there's a flaw in the interface.

One of my worst experiences was xcdroast; this program is simply horrible. It works great, it has all features, but the interface logic sucks as much as possible. There are important buttons on the lower left of a page, you have to SWITCH from the first to the second tab to add things first before you can continue on the first tab. All this is simply *stupid*.

I know very well how this happens, I make the same errors almost every time. But I try to improve steadily.

The first step for all of us should be learning to step back and think "could I use this without knowing anything but the goal?"

Big companies simply throw money at the problem, we have to use our own brains. I think it can be easily done, because we have superior ones. Don't we? Let's 0wn them<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)

#

And you are an Engineer! You won't listen to anyone else. Whenever anybody tries to provide you with advice you will put forth your own arguments why your design is better. You lack the ability to distinguish 'which idea is better' so you consider all ideas junk.

The sorry thing is that if you just took a few minutes to do some research and opened your mind to suggestion you would learn a lot and your software would improve.

As the CEO of a software company we often have this problem with companies we have acquired. We have even fired lead engineer for some projects and taken his 'baby' away from him because he refused to make the product user friendly. When the engineers in the world realize that without the marketing guys their salaries won't get paid software industry will be a better place.

By the way. I am an engineer and a marketing guy.

#

Useability is for wimps and morons?
To all those who replied, "Useability comments come from whiners, morons etc [insert your favourite disparaging term of contempt here]" I suggest you check
a) Hall of Fame/Shame already mentioned
and
b) Jakob Nielsen's http://www.useit.com/
for hard-nosed 'software acceptance' research plus commentary on the benefits of improved useability.

If you want to win the war against the dark side, you have to make your software more attractive to use.

Technical competence (or their umpteen engineering patents which demonstrate same) doesn't sell Mercedes Benz cars - the desire to own one *more than to own a humble GM/Ford/etc* is what does it. Their technical competence is necessary but *not sufficient* to generate the requisite consumer demand.

Technical competence beyond the ken of MS has never been an issue: even Bill is not interested in technical excellence, he just wants world domination. Mediocrity will get him there as long as the latest version is [or appears to be] "easier" than whatever people were doing before.

So my recommendation: do not attempt an open frontal attack on the MS hegemony; rather do an outflanking job - make it so that using OSS becomes a no-brainer because it is just so nice to use.

That's what has kept Steve Jobs and the Apple-wagon rolling...

It also happens to account for a large slab of the equally faithful OS/2-eCS user community staying with a platform which has been declared dead (by MS) annually since 1989<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-).

John Angelico
OS/2 SIG
Melbourne PC User Group Inc
talldad@kepl.com.au

#

Some of the simplest rules for usability are:

1. consistency (learn once, use many times)
2. focus on most typical use (advanced needs are for advanced users)
3. elegance (minimal steps to do typical tasks)

It doesn't take a lab to design according to these rules. It takes a whip to ensure the rules are obeyed and it takes restraint to avoid turning something elegant and powerful into a monolithic Frankenstein's monster.

Labs make sense for polish but a lab is as simple as loading the software for someone to play with, someone who hasn't got used to quirks, and watching them try to do everyday tasks.

#

Interesting thought here - has anyone considered a tool which could (VOLUNTARILY) be installed on someone's computer when they use a new program for the first time, that would watch what they do and send "video" (think VNC rather than xine) of their mouse movements and screen contents back to the developers?

It would need to be VERY prominently displayed onscreen that everything you do is being recorded, but it could be useful (especially in conjunction with a list of tasks to try to accomplish, which is apparently what professional usability studies do) to let the developers see what the user is having difficulty with.

The same software could perhaps be used for parental computer-use monitoring for small children (not-so-small children would figure out how to get around the monitoring just like they figure out how to get around other parental restrictions...)

#

This could be similar to the Debian popcon package. It checks the popularity of packages installed, used and upgraded. It is then used to decided what applications need to be on the first install disk.

applied to UI it could check to see what people do the most and would allow developers to concentrate on those things for useability and optimizations. This would be almost like a user profiling thing.

#

Interesting though but not practicable. It is nearly impossible to come from the mouseclicks and the screen to the intentions a user had while performing these interaction steps.
The most powerful instruments in usability labs is the "speaking aloud thought protocol". The "test user" is speaking aloud his thoughts while performing different tasks. So you have to provide an audio track.
But the biggest problem is the amount of data. You need hours to analyze a task solved in minutes.

#

ever heard of the Gnome HIG? The same principles could easily be used in KDE apps, and produce very usable apps!

#

There is some stuff in the Gnome HIG that really shouldn't be there. The Gnome HIG is also a lesson in how people create some good guidelines, but then try to follow them in a static and formulaic manner. It's as if people think that by preaching HIG compliance it will somehow make everything usable.

Read any good book, such as the excellent Elements of User Interface Design, and you'll find that this is bad usability. Look harder.

#

I used to be a Gnome fan. Its so-called "user-friendliness" push has made it unusable and a pain to deal with. Havoc Pennington needs to take a 4-year break in a room with nice padded walls until he gets his mind back and goes back to real coding rather than pushing bad UI rules and convoluted frameworks all of which he must have made up while on crack.

#

my first computer had win98 it took a little time to learn to be proficient using it, after trying Linux it took a little time to be proficient on Linux, this is only natural with learning anything new, whether learning to speak a foreign language or learning a new trade, etc...etc...

i been using Linux for 100% of my computing needs that if i get on a Windows computer i feel awkward on Windows now...

some people just have a hard time using a computer no matter what OS is installed, i have a few family members that own a computer and they are just as clueless on Windows as they would be on Linux or any other OS...

the ability to adapt is crucial to learning anything...

#

the ability to adapt is crucial to learning anything...

But we should do what we can to avoid putting obstacles in the way of learning.

#

Part of the problem is the idea that 'they just aren't used to the system'. Too often it is used an excuse to not change something. "What? You don't know all the keystrokes for vi? Well you just need to learn the difference between vi and Word."

Ever run across a 'feature' that just really annoyed you? How about "are you sure you want to exit" when you have done nothing to create or change data. For a casual user, it's not a big deal. But for a daily user it can be real annoying.

Ever worked with an application that kept forcing you to move from keyboard to mouse and back to keyboard? Data entry, navigation... Web pages are notoriously bad at this.

And from the article, there should NOT be a menu item called 'smbUmount'. As a user, I don't care what smb is Umounting. Why not 'Disconnect this network location'?

The article sends us on some random detours. Usability has nothing to do with code check-ins, privacy, or OS independence.

It's pretty simple really; take a group of target users, have them point out things that are unclear or difficult, follow through with making the changes. This is the process we need instead of: 'well, there's a learning curve, you'll get used to it'.

#

Unfortunately it is more complicated than that.



OSS suppose to be a superior technology, but it does not work out of the box and in many cases it takes a lot more time and effort to make it work. This is true for commercial software too, but often in a different way. In commercial software it is more often a technical problem. Software is written using non-standard proprietary methods with the $$$ in mind instead of "Better for users".



OSS usually does not have this problem, but it is still difficult to use. And the reason is USABILITY (or lack of it)


OSS usually does not have this problem, but it is still difficult to use. And the reason is USABILITY (or lack of it)

#

The problem here is the same problem we experience with marketing: Write a commercial, news article, or movie with words and concepts that an average citizen can understand, and you rapidly loose everyone under that IQ level. So most media is written at about an 80 IQ, with an occasional sophisticated or enlightened quip to keep the intelligent from shutting you off.

At what range would you place the majority of developers? Certainly above average. If they are just average, their IQ and familiarity spikes in logic and programming.

Asking developers to increase usability is roughly equivalent to asking them to dumb the interface down. That's a big hurdle, but one that's important to broach.

Certainly decent How-To-Make-My-App-User-Friendly tldp's would be useful. But a simplified method for newbies to submit 'I don't understand feature X on version Y' messages to developers or perhaps an intermediary clearing house like bugzilla might yield promising, realtime results.

#

Usability is not about dumbing down. As with all design it is really difficult. It is about understanding what the user wants and making real choices, based on understanding of the user. This often results in simplicity and really has nothing to do with stupidity.

This dumbing down mentality is really keeping KDE back IMHO. It takes courage to make real UI choices.

#

Think of usability in terms of an iceberg: for the computer novice/newbie, there is a simple, stream-lined interface with relatively few options on the surface. These users are less likely to get confused and (hopefully) will be happy.

However, for the power users, there is another, greater, deeper layer of options lying underneath the surface of the GUI. Here is the expert's playground, the place to tweak to one's heart's content. Even better, the expert can find and understand this layer because he or she is, after all, an expert/power user.

This is the way GNOME is trying to approach this debate. GNOME certainly does not have everything right in this regard, but I think it's a promising direction. (Hopefully, with searching enabled for gconf-editor in GNOME 2.8, things will be easier to find under the surface.)

KDE has the flexibility and power (in spades). It just needs to provide the simplied interface on top, and let the power users play beneath the surface.

#

If my users look dumb to me, doesn't that mean that I am simply not trying to look at things from their point of view? Remember, Eric Raymond has trouble configuring his printer sometimes.

Usability makes things easier regardless of your "IQ", because the less mental power you have to devote to dealing with the mistakes the author of your program made, the more time you have to do what *you* want to do.

#

Yes,

http://usability.kde.org/activity/usabilityreport<nobr>s<wbr></nobr> /usability-report-guide.php

btw bugzilla is a good usability candidate.

It's not only usability, it is also: how to make the workflow faster. I.e. why do I need x pages in order to submit a bugreport and so on.

Mailman is a good candidate for usability improvement.

Gcc is a good candidate for usability improvement for knownots.

#

This is a very big misconception, and it comes from not understanding of what usability is.

The same way:

People want to have safe streets and parks not to promote lower physical fitness. Even best karate masters armed with machine guns prefer safer streets. And they have mothers and daughters that prefer safer streets.

#

This is a very big misconception, and it comes from not understanding of what usability is.

Looking back on it, I really just wanted to incorporate the idea of an easy to use 'I don't get this' reply method/app for the users who find certain 'features' incomprehensible.

Unfortunately, there isn't a usability project interface for what I had in mind, and you don't want thousands of emails from newusers spamming dev lists with these types of problems. I think categorizing user problems in real time would have a tremendous value for dev teams however, and inherently address usablility issues.

#

That's the coolest comment about usabilty i have read in a long time!

Can I quote you?

marius.

PS: coudn't find the find the submit button for a sec...
What does it say about my IQ?
Or... what does it say about its absense... i'll go and click preview i guess. (like it says underneath)

PS2: You could say that i'm obviously stupid cause I didn't instantly know what to do even though it's written.
I say there's very obviously a problem when you have to explain.

#

find someone who uses the microsoft version of whatever program you're copying and then sit them down in front of your project. watch them and see what they can't figure out. remember that they have no fucking clue that their mouse has two buttons much less how to use the right click.

also remember that they have no concept of drag and drop, and only a vague understanding of saving files. actually, you might as well say that file and folder locations are just as lost on them as right clicking.

keep in mind that they will only use about 3% of the features of your particular program, and all those extra buttons you had to have little tiny icons made for will go mostly unused.

don't forget this either... even though your job as an open source programmer is to make your application look EXACTLY like the microsoft version, even microsoft doesn't always do it the best way. you could actually improve your program's usability by NOT making it look exactly like a microsoft application

#

> don't forget this either... even though your job as an open source programmer is to make your application look EXACTLY like the microsoft version...

Looks like Open Source is doomed if Microsoft goes under!. Help keep microsoft alive - buy Windows XP or Longhorn NOW!

#

don't forget this either... even though your job as an open source programmer is to make your application look EXACTLY like the microsoft version, even microsoft doesn't always do it the best way.

What the hell are you talking about? Since when are we, open source developers, trying to copy Microsoft. I have no intention of doing that. It's is an idiotic and pointless activity. If we are just cloners, then we might as well just just MS products. I work with open source because I feel I can do something better.

Good lord!

Daniel.

#

I was totally being sarcastic with the last paragraph, although I was thinking about Ximian Evolution when I said it. But sarcastic or not, there are too many similarities between so many windows apps/interfaces and so many open source projects. You can tell that in many instances the quick/easy was out was taken, and the interface is more or less a ripoff of an existing app.

Actually, I remember the first time I saw someone demoing Evolution. I remember him saying "see, it looks almost JUST like outlook!" And they said it like it was such a great thing.

#

I fully agree with all of your points, except for one: I have met users who do know that there are two mouse buttons and could maybe use it. They may use it by accident, but they could use it.

#

Yes, but what about three buttons?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)

#

Hey, I have 5 buttons on my mouse and I know how to use them, but only in Windows --- they are even configured to act differently within different applications.

Unfortunately, I still can't get Linux to use them. Any help?

#

http://koala.ilog.fr/anyboard/MouseWheel/posts/21<nobr>3<wbr></nobr> 0.html

The end of the url should read "2130". Newsforge mangles it.

#

Of course, maybe if you spent a little time understanding the expectations of the users, you wouldn't have such a low opinion of them.

Why would you write OS software for people you apparently despise? I could understand if it was your job, maybe, but only for a short time.

You need to realize that users are only interested in performing tasks. They don't care if some uber coder built an application with so many features that 97% of them will never get used.

You need to figure out who your target audience is and what they want, and then design with that goal in mind.

#

Perhaps you remember Mr. Cronenberg's film "The Fly" and how a certain dialogue went (don't know the exact words):

-- "It's missing something. I'm almost there, but I don't know what goes wrong..."
-- "Maybe some final detail... I know you'll find it."
-- "I don't know... I walked through everything, checking all possible errors... still..."<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-/
-- "Hey, maybe what's missing is that granma touch, you know, they kind of pick up a baby, look all over him, hug them and pronounce them ok."
-- "Well, I'dont... yeah! You maybe into something there..."

That's what I think. Developers understand a lot about computers -- but not about people! If it feels like noise, it's not because it's just noise. It's difficult to understand what users say, just like whales. One has to master other areas, not pure IT, to make sense of them. Psychology, human factors, aesthetics, art, common sense etc. all play a role.

For this to work a sculptor is needed, not a project manager or an engineer. We need guys that do beautiful things... guys like Everaldo, though he's a designer, not a GUI expert... but who knows about the future.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)

Or guys like this one: http://www.ferryhalim.com/orisinal/ . We need people who can cook delicious plates, beautiful and tasty. We need someone who wants to please. Just like KDE guys know about software excellence, we need someone concerned about visual/audio/immersion excellence.

I guess we need a grandmother...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)

Take care.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)

#

What's needed is a formal usability review.

And substancial reports like this one
http://usability.kde.org/activity/usabilityreport<nobr>s<wbr></nobr> /usability-report-guide.php

What's not needed are insubstancial idea flames by newbies on the mailing list that are excited with each others ideas. Nobody has time for this. At least a usability maintainer is needed who writes studies or a usability list weekly report.

German Linux magazine started a Usability column, no analyst trash talks/opinion paper but a substancial article about an application.

#

One has to master other areas, not pure IT, to make sense of them. Psychology, human factors, aesthetics, art, common sense etc. all play a role.

Quite, the arrogance of the original author is shocking, as if programmers are omniscient. And the mini rant about how usability experts are external specialists, and how that compromises openness is beyond me. The guy obviously has a chip on his shoulder. He should shut up, read some of Nielsen's stuff, and then come back.

#

Apple has always been praised as a leader if not THE leader in software usability. They have devoted countless hours and dollars to making their systems some of the most user-friendly ever.

No, they aren't perfect and no, you can't please all of the people all of the time. But...they are by far and away the furthest along.

So, why not just "borrow" tricks from their HIG? I *DON'T* mean clone Aqua or OS/X. I mean review and consider the sections on such things as how menus and windows operate; where to place buttons; color scheme recommendataions; when to use transparancy; audible and visual feedback; etc.

A perusal of the Gnome HIG would also be a good idea, but I wouldn't get too hung up on compatibility with either guide.


  -Charles

#

This may be a good idea if we would not run into claims of "IP" theft but please don't give me a one button mouse any time soon.

A Nony Mouse

#

Because this way is very expensive and that is because there are no "tricks".

Apple uses a lot of time and money to test their software in usability labs. This is very expensive. I do not think this is a practicable way for open source software, expecially for smaller projects.

#

I bought my parents (in their 70's) iMac (top of the line at the time of purchase) and they still don't 'get it' on its usage. I even bought an iMac intro book with lots pictures but it still doesn't help.

(I've purchased a total of 4 Macs over the past 20 years, so it's not like I'm not familiar with it... I currently own and use mainly wintel boxes, but that's a different story<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)

#

GNOME did some usability studies, funded by Sun, and found that they need to remove flexibility from GNOME. This is all well and good, if the result is a good UI design for both novices and power users. However, as their move to "spatial" Nautilus, and their villifying anyone who dares challenge the most obvious wisdom of spatial Nautilus (despite it being tried and discarded by Mac *and* Windows), shows, usability studies aren't always accurate but open source developers aren't always pragmatic enough to look at the usability studies with a critical eye. Some would rather bask in their self-labelled brilliance than deal with the fact that they might be WRONG.

#

If you don't like spatial Nautilus, change it.

Spatial browsing is supposed to help the low-level users (e.g. my grandma). It makes sense to make the default settings match what is best for the least techie users, because techies are precisely the ones whom you can expect to change a setting they don't like.

Cheers,
Daniel.

#

What it's supposed to do and what it does are two different things. I introduced the user from hell to gnome, he knows absolutely nothing about computers. He is in his late 70's. He did all his writing on a typewriter because he didn't know how to use a computer. He screwed up his windows machine he got for a present, he "accidently" deleted the windows system directory! He had so many pop-up ads previously when he tried to go to a web page, he didn't even want his computer fixed. I put him on the linux machine so I could log in remotely, he has cable broadband and so he couldn't delete anything serious. I tried him for about a month first on GNOME. Then switched him to KDE because he was complaining alot. He hated gnome's filemanger! He hated having windows all over his screen. He is now using evolution,Firefox and MS Word under codeweavers and KDE. I no longer have him rushing to my house every day with a computer problem.

#

Well, I have no problem with the default settings being set to what is deemed best for clueless newbie users.

What I have a serious problem with is the removal of the possibility to change the settings, something which seems to have become popular at Gnome recently. It seems that some people think that we should dumb down preferences dialogs to the barest minimum of options, as including too many options makes the application too confusing.

This defeats the object of *having preferences* in the first place. The truly clueless don't change preference settings anyway, since they are too scared to touch anything.

For anyone above that user level, even a relative newbie, there should be no difference (difficulty-wise) between two options and twenty options, as long as they are all clearly and sensibly labeled and categorised. A rich preference set helps people adjust the application's behaviour to the way that they like to do things, thus making it easier for them to use the program.

If you don't know what something means, or you don't care which way it behaves, you can just leave it alone.

I am extremely frustrated by the dumbing-down of Galeon's interface. An option to put tabs on the left or right is hardly an arcane power-user requirement, yet gconf is still the only place where you can set this option, as apparently the developers think that normal users can't handle the confusion.

If they take out the gconf option, or mouse gestures, I'm bailing for Firefox. I don't know whether the millions-of-extensions model is wise in the long run, but in practice it's doing a better job of giving me what I want.

#

Yes, yes, yes! Gnome's arrogant "WE know what YOU want" attitude just sucks.

It is wonderful to see that I am not the only person on this planet feeling that way.

#

You are so wrong its not funny. The spatial metaphor is based on theory that has no relevance in the real world. People do not want many windows all over the place. They want to rearrange each window for that particular purpose at that moment in time, not have it appear in the same place. They want on screen tools like folder views and navigation buttons to help them move around.

This is based on my experience as an advanced user who mostly uses the shell, and a sympathetic viewing of every novice I have ever seen use a computer, and everyone in between, including, apparently, the entire Window and Mac user bases, who abandoned this model.

Tbe fact there are a bunch of hot keys in the Gnome spatial implementation to fix its many issues shows how flawed it really is. Sure its for the novice user. What a joke.

This all shows one of the big flaws of open source, especially when there needs to be an effort like this to make a consistent desktop. I imagine working on Nautilus pays. One hot shot after another steps up with their theories, and fascistically implements them. Then they realize it's not actually going to work, and more importantly is boring, so they walk away. So we end up with a bunch of "solutions" that aren't well rounded and never really finished. We end up with a bunch of "solutions" that are designed for theoretical users that don't really exist. The techies won't use it, and the novices are lost in the woods, especially since they can't ask the techies, who have all turned the spatial model off, or use the shell.

The part that does make it work is designing component oriented software. Then at least the next person to come along can build on other people's work, and ultimately Nautilus is fairly useable because of this. Once you turn the spatial model, which is designed for nobody, off.

#

You must be nuts if you think novice users are benefitted by being pushed into such a terrible unusable interface. If you'd ever tried asking a statistically significant group of *REAL HUMAN USERS* rather than just deciding that "this must be right for them" you'd know spatial nautilus is TERRIBLE for new users, more so than for anybody else.

#

I like KDE and IceWM. I'm productive in them. The interfaces are consistent from app to app. The interfaces are consistent across upgrades. Gnome is a nightmare of radical changes and brokeness in each release.

One example: Galeon used to be the Perfect Web Browser. I adore the Smart Bookmarks Toolbar, it's a fast and convenient way to do searches. In early editions of Galeon, you could easily edit the Smart Bookmarks Toolbar by running a wizard. Fast and easy. Now, at version 1.3.15, I can't even begin to figure out how to change the damned thing.

And the freakin toolbars are HUGE, with no way to reduce their size that I can find. This is NUTS. And Galeon is no longer themeable- you're stuck with the Gnome theme.

And when will Gnome discover right-click? right-click menus are a huge timesaver.

I don't know about these studies that Gnome is supposedly following. But they are wrong and bad. Removing functionality and hiding configuration options is really foolish. That's not simplifying, that's vexing.

#

And when will Gnome discover right-click? right-click menus are a huge timesaver.

Not sure what you mean - Gnome does have right-click menus, and always has. The only restriction the HIG places on them is that they should never be the *only* way of doing things. What's your problem?

#

Speaking of GNOME the DBus / HAL development is going pretty well. Yet another improvement for the usability, user friendliness. Think of it as "Configuration -> Hardware". See http://www.freedesktop.org for source, screenshots, fearure list.

#

Ergonomics my friend. It can be quantified. It can be done. Measure how long, how many mouse clicks, keystrokes, and mouse movements it takes to perform a task. And name software, so that people know what it does. Gimp? Konqueror(SP)? etc...

#

There is an immediate tradeoff between useability and features. The KDE and Gnome project have different stances on that tradeoff -- Gnome preferring simplicity and useability before gee-whiz features, and KDE preferring the opposite. Complaining about the usability of KDE is as useless as complaining that Gnome doesn't have the latest gee-whiz feature. I say to both of them: examine where you sit on the useability/features balance and choose the desktop environment that best suits your personal style. And yes, having either as an option is a good thing, because there are legitimate reasons why different people have different sets of preferences.

But please don't complain about the makeup of the projects that help define them -- that's just plain silly.

#

The "tradeoff" between usability and features is for the most part a myth, or should I say more of a "self fulfilling prophecy". When a piece of software is designed well, simple basic functionality remains easy to use even when more advanced functionality is also available. There is no reason for a basic task to become harder just because extra functionality is also available. It seems to happen like this in the real world because designing usable software is difficult, and designing a bigger piece of software (read: more features) is even more difficult. So what people do is dumb things down by removing functionality. So that when they screw up the design, the software is less screwed up compared the even greater mess they would have made if they had to put the extra functionality in there as well.

Simply put, it is harder to screw up the design of a program with limited functionality compared to a program with lots of functionality. But this doesn't mean that the way to make usable software is to dumb things down (better design is), after all a dumb and usable program isn't much help if the feature you need just isn't there.

--
Simon

#

Oh, I think KDe is more usable than Gnome. And Gnome lacks the options at the right place although they are there. They chose the wrong guidelines. Sad but true. KDE is a usability dream compared to Gnome.

#

Is that all the "Useability" crowd can do these days?

Just how seriously should people who's basic goal in life seems to sit around whining about something rather than actually getting off their fat lazy asses and actually doing something to improve the world.

I hate to break this to you so-called "Usability Experts", but Open Source wasn't created for you losers to build your so-called careers on.

Most people in the Free Software/Open Source community are *NOT* interested in being suckered
into working on you half-baked "suggestions" only for you to come along later and claim all the credit the while the Free Software/Open Source community did the actual work.

And let's face it, this is what 99% of the whining
concering Free Software/Open Souce is really about.

The "Usability" community is upset that they can't get FS/OSS developers to do the dirty work of actual development of their "suggestions"

#

Look at http://developer.gnome.org/projects/gup/ , GNOME Usability is there to look at

#

Articles of this nature keep popping up over and over again. This one has some merit, though.

If you look at Apple's old HIG - the one that corresponds to the likes of System 6 and System 7 - you'll see all their specifications about the placements of elements on the display, and about the way in which the computer should respond to user input. But what you'll also see at the beginning is a series of statements, a "HIG Prime Directive" if you will, being the principles behind the specifications laid down in the rest of the document.

Usability isn't something that a group of creative people suddenly will into existence; it's something that's built, from the ground up. You start with the foundations, of course, which is why the comparison between solving usability issues and solving technical issues is apt; obviously not the same skills are used, but the procedure is not dissimilar.

The foundations - the principles I refer to above - have already been well-laid elsewhere, so re-inventing them is not necessary. However, OSS should feel free to set new directions; no-one is beholden to make everything look and act like it would if it were running under the Microsoft Windows platform.

One principle that would make a big difference from the get-go: in Apple's old HIG, it states that "The computer should not ask the user for anything it doesn't already know.", meaning of course tha