On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 12:39:42PM +0200, Alfons Adriaensen wrote: > On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 11:05:36AM +0200, Thorsten Wilms wrote: > > > My take on this, I hope I can bring this discussion to a friendlier level: > > I have no intention to be unfriendly. And most people who know me would > say I'm in fact a gentle person... :-)
I wasn't refering to anyone specialy, but there were several instances of quite agressive tone around here, and it helps no one. > > Linux would 'need' an unified gui (look and feel, not so much implementation) > > for better usability. > > Again the magic word. If by 'usability' you mean that there should be no > perceptible learning curve, no effort involved, no conscious choice to > dedicate your time to learning to master something, then this just a dream. I guess the word is misused and misunderstood quite often. I think a nice and useful definition is this one: - Effectivity - Efficiency - User satisfaction The fact that users are total noobs only once lowers the need for easy learnability. In many cases allowing efficient use is more important. But having to learn various means to reach the same goal is bad (at least if there are no clear advantages to each variation). The maybe most central aspect of usability, consistency, is not only good for having to learn stuff only once, but also allows habituation: subconcious handling, so full attention can go to the actual task at hand. One can perform several tasks at once if they are automated/subconcious, but concious attention can only go to one thing at any time. Therfore good ui is careful not to distract the user's attention and tries to step into the background as far as possible. > There seems to be a belief that computers and software would eleminate the > need for education and training, that sitting at a DAW turns you instantly > into a sound engineer, and clicking the mouse on soft synth makes you a > qualified musician. This is a complete fallacy, and IMHO just one > manifestation of the global dumbing-down exercise that's happening all > around us, and that is driven by those who make money out of it. As user of professional audio, graphics and 3d apps ... do I need to say more? I'm not in it for the money (allthough I might put gui work in my portfolio), I'm quite idealistic about human-computer interaction, as it is a important aspect of my life. I'm against dumbing down, but much for making things as simple as possible, but not simpler. Or by another way, there must be a clear advantage for every complication. Any complexity should bring possibilties, not just confusion. > Programs have a different look and feel because that is part of the > functionality they provide. I've never seen a qualified user complain > about this - indeed it's often just what they appreciate. The only > complaints I hear are from those that believe in the fallacy I referred > to above. Differences coming from functionality are not the problem. But having to deal with various ways how knobs react, scales are implemented, pulldown menus behave and so on doesn't bring an advantage to anyone. There would be still much space for differences in concept and behaviour untouched by unification on widget level (and always room for totaly new widgets, if they make sense in a special case). > I play keyboards, and I'd love to be able to play string or wind instruments > as well. Unfortunately, these are fundamentally different, and it would take > years of training and exercise. Do you think I can skip this if you give > me a violin with a keyboard interface ? Why do you think I might have some strange ideas that would give asking such questions to me any sense? Oh, and: No! Interface aspects that allow special control/expression/results can of course not be replaced by ones that do not have such characteristics. But a volume slider is a volume slider, and there's more to be gained than lost by standardizing such things. Different interfaces for different results. But please not different interfaces for the same results without specific advantages (besides experimentation). The comparison to physical musical instruments is rather lacking, but it would be great to have software that actualy feels like one. > > > Talking about choice: some people would like to have the choice of using > > any (Linux) app with one and the same look and feel. > > Some people like all their food to taste like an MD hamburger. It's their > choice, and they have the freedom to go out and eat that stuff each day. > But if you want to taste the richness of what the world has to offer, > you'd better take a different attitude. What's wrong with the 'attitude' of liking to have highest usability for concentrating on getting work done / transforming inspiration into music with least obstacles? And in many varying details in guis I don't see a 'flavour', but rather not knowing better / random decisions. > > Freedom and individuality are great, but the power that comes from bundling > > efforts (marching in one direction) ... > > I'll restrain myself, and just say that I'm not interested in power. Bad wording on my side. I mean the ability to achieve more and better things by working together. I did not say that you would have to be interested in anything, and I'm not about world domination or just copying commercial stuff (should be left behind in the dust in all aspects :) I don't rant, I rather use 'should', not 'must'. No bad word about this list / the community from me. I don't want to push people around (actual I could only try and fail, it's funny how marketing was mentioned in a mail being an example how not to do it). I would like to see more cooperation, and I offer to bring my time and skills in. --- Thorsten Wilms
