> I completely agree with Jonas. I think that there is too much focus on > what can be customized rather than basic usability. Making /sane/ defaults > for users is not such a bad thing.
Having the option of customizing something doesn't hinder focusing on usability. Sane defaults are good but when hard-coded they can be very limiting. > I do think though that gnome does a good job of having quite a bit of > flexibility for power users that want to dive into gconf which leads to > cause for having a separate plugin or application for "advanced" settings > beyond the basic options. I think it is an excellent compromise between > simplicity and power. With the paradigm of KDE vs GNOME things get more clear. While rasher likes GNOME better others find KDE more close to their usage patters. The matter of preference is very hard to resolve. The gconf analogy might be a conciliatory approach in the end. > The biggest complaint that I hear on Rockbox from non-techies is the > usability; adding more settings does not solve the problem. I think that's irrelevant. Usability will remain as it is in both cases unless someone starts improving it. (that was a project idea for GSoC 2008 BTW).
