On 2/21/07, Christian F.K. Schaller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>
The problem is and have never been that the GNOME community thinks people
shouldn't be allowed to tweak their UI, instead the idea was that we keep the 'core' slim and clean and then people who want more control can install extra tools to get extra configureability.
I think this may be the core question. Generally the perception of GNOME vs. KDE is that if you want to configure everything you should take KDE - and if you like it simple (KISS) take GNOME. Although this is true in many aspects from my point of view and although this may sound like a good idea I think that this truely hurts the free desktops. It is not so much the question what Linus thinks or what GNOME.org thinks. The question is what is in the interest of the users? The problem I see is that users are just not acting like we expect. So there are KDE users who sometimes like simplicity - and also the GNOME lover who likes things to be simple sometimes needs a very complicated configuration in order to get his job done. I think a desktop that wants to be of any impact must target every user and every usage. As a desktop you can not really focus on some user preferences or desktop usages. A desktop lies the base ground for every possible activity of a user - so it can not act like an application like Inkscape or Jokosher that focus on a specific user group. This is in contrast to the common marketing views. I think GNOME has, in the past, not targeted all those user groups. Also I think the question is if it is really better to reduce the diversity of solutions. I don't really think that every decisions that where made with usability in mind where always based on hard usability data. GNOME has the reputation of rejecting patches often (I hear that every day) - be it true or not (i have not made any statistics). For me it is still the most usable desktop, nontheless. One can not really question the reception of GNOME of users (like Linus). It is what it is - if GNOMEs policies are misunderstood or lead to frustration we must accept and understand that. And learn. Sure there will never be the perfect desktop without any frustrated users. But it is important to understand the criticism. To get more practical I think the user should be able to select his experience level and preferences and then get the interface he likes best (also should have the opportunity to switch later). From what I have seen so far there can never be the one desktop or user interface that does usability best. Some users will be happy most of things look and behave as much as on Windows XP or Mac OS (where they come from) and for some even GNOME is much too complicated. I think it is plain wrong if a desktops decides for the user. He should decide if this is the users choice. I myself like the desktop to a) be very intuitive right from the start and b) making decisions for me so i just have to find out how things work and do not have to waste my time to customize. Others think just the opposit is best. Summary. GNOME or any other desktop who likes to be of any impact can not focus on specific user preferences but must find a way to support as much possible user wishes and desktop flavors as possible. This is VERY difficult but I think the other direction is wrong, unless you want to provide a minority desktop (like a desktop for music makers,...) regards, Thilo -- Thilo Pfennig http://wiki.foresightlinux.com/confluence/display/~vinci/
_______________________________________________ Desktop_architects mailing list Desktop_architects@lists.osdl.org https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop_architects