Tyson Boellstorff wrote:
Once you fix basic problems like these, then we can talk about how to
redefine ease of use.
Bob McConnell
ease of use is always relative to the person using.
Ease of use is also relative to the training investment. In X, a moderate
investment some 20-odd years ago still pays, even through the evolvement of
interfaces like KDE, which follows the same general structure.
With certain other commercial products, you get to learn it again, and again,
and again. What I've had to re-learn to support Windows 1.1, 2.0. 3.0. 3.11,
95, NT, ME, 2000, XP, and Vista has changed dramtically over the years, and
they're not done making it usable for the lowest common denominator yet,
especially when you throw in de-enhancements like (un)FriendlyTree,
a.k.a. "Where the @[EMAIL PROTECTED] are my files?!?!?!".
This is why I can easily justify teaching my elders FreeBSD -- they
unquestionably have more to learn, but they only learn it once, so the
investment pays off.
you basically lengthened what i said. :-)
also, using classic menus from xp and up looks like win95
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
