On Monday 04 February 2008 04:43:03 am John Beardmore wrote: > Roger wrote: > > In reality it doesn't matter what the UI looks like, simply because the > > ones who use it will become accustomed to it over time. It seems as > > though many programs have 'all of the same problems', and this is > > because all UI's are based on the "fundamentals" of program layout and > > not on "how does the user actually use it". > > > > Thanks > > Sonia > > OK, but for an app such as Scribus, how would you design the UI to > reflect how it's actually used ? > > And there's a chicken and egg issue here as the way the user actually > uses the software at the moment is coloured the present and historic > UIs. The real question is perhaps, > > "If you were designing a ui for somebody who had never touched a > computer, where would you start to best meet their needs ?" > > Or is this hopelessly naive given how few people start from that initial > state ? > > And do you make an app quick to learn by using conventional common > controls, or do you make the ideal user interface for the job, which > most user will not want to engage with initially ? > > This isn't a new dilemma in the GUI environment. It seems analogous to > the lack of uptake of powerful but cryptic tools like APL whose syntax > scared off most users. > > > Cheers, J/.
I am less concerned with interface than with capability and reliability. Better H & J is a must, and I think the algorithms of plain pdftex (not pdflatex which has too much textual overhead) represent a sensible path. If the TeX approach works for InDesign can we settle for less with Scribus? -- John Culleton Resources for every author and publisher: http://wexfordpress.com/tex/shortlist.pdf http://wexfordpress.com/tex/packagers.pdf http://www.creativemindspress.com/newbiefaq.htm http://www.gropenassoc.com/TopLevelPages/reference%20desk.htm __________________________________________________ D O T E A S Y - "Join the web hosting revolution!" http://www.doteasy.com
