Re: Complexity and user confusion (was: Red Hat's Bluecurve)
In a message dated: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 09:07:25 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: >>> I have seen user levels implemented in only two places: Once was the >>> venerable GeoWorks (nee PC/GEOS) GUI for MS-DOS. The other is in the >>> "Nautilus" system browser. >> >> If this ever did exist in Nautilus, it's been removed. > > Well, it exists in every version I have seen. Likely, it was lost with >GNOME 2.0, which is a complete re-write of almost everything. Whether it >will be added back in is, apparently, in some doubt. > >> Actually another place this existed is in the Sawfish WM. > > Oh yeah. I forgot about that. I believe it also existed in MacOS at some point, didn't? Nautilus was originally developed by a bunch of ex-Mac developers, including Andy Hertzfeld (sp?) who is the "mastermind" of the Mac interface (supposedly). My understanding was that the nautilus design came from stuff they had worked on at Apple for the Mac. -- Seeya, Paul -- It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing, but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away. If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right! ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Complexity and user confusion (was: Red Hat's Bluecurve)
On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, at 1:59am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> First, I agree with you,. Removing options just for the sake of >> dumbing-down the UI is, well, dumb. > > The GNOME developers don't agree... Is there a URL to information on this stated goal of eliminating features? I am curious to learn more about it. >> I have seen user levels implemented in only two places: Once was the >> venerable GeoWorks (nee PC/GEOS) GUI for MS-DOS. The other is in the >> "Nautilus" system browser. > > If this ever did exist in Nautilus, it's been removed. Well, it exists in every version I have seen. Likely, it was lost with GNOME 2.0, which is a complete re-write of almost everything. Whether it will be added back in is, apparently, in some doubt. > Actually another place this existed is in the Sawfish WM. Oh yeah. I forgot about that. >> Lastly: Many corporations do, in fact, consider removing options to be >> an advantage. Why? It decreases training costs. > > I wonder how true that is, in practice. ... a corporate computer training > class ... only cover[s] the (extreme) basics anyway... Ah, but the options still exist, which means someone will find them, (mis)use them, and break them, and call in the techies to fix it. I'm not talking about end-user training; I'm talking about the training costs of the support and administration staff. One of the reasons MS-Windows is so popular in corporations is that it lets people who should not be administrating a network administrate a network. The barrier to entry is lower. This lets them hire less experienced people with lower salary requirements. Of course, it also leads to many Windows networks being a disaster waiting to happen. Or, more accurately, a disaster that does happen, repeatedly. This syndrome saves the company money in the short term, but costs them more in the long term. Unfortunately, corporations (in this country, at least) have a history of sacrificing long-term success for short-term profit. > Corporations are the ones that make software sales profitable, by and > large, so the actual users of the software suffer. True. Unfortunately, recognizing that the situation is unsatisfactory does not automatically cause it to improve. :-( -- Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not | | necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or | | organization. All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Complexity and user confusion (was: Red Hat's Bluecurve)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 At some point hitherto, [EMAIL PROTECTED] hath spake thusly: > First, I agree with you,. Removing options just for the sake of > dumbing-down the UI is, well, dumb. The GNOME developers don't agree... > Second: The way to solve this problem (for the end-user) is with what I > (and others) call "User Levels". Basically, you tell the software what your > experience level is, and it adjusts the UI accordingly. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me, and has been suggested in several threads on the GNOME usability list. They're not interested... > I have seen user levels implemented in only two places: Once was the > venerable GeoWorks (nee PC/GEOS) GUI for MS-DOS. The other is in the > "Nautilus" system browser. If this ever did exist in Nautilus, it's been removed. Actually another place this existed is in the Sawfish WM. It's apparently been removed from there as well. Incidentally, by default Sawfish isn't even installed on RH8 systems... > Lastly: Many corporations do, in fact, consider removing options > to be an advantage. Why? It decreases training costs. I wonder how true that is, in practice. It makes a certain amount of sense; but I suspect the reality is that the same amount of time (and therefore money) is/would be spent on user training. Why? Ever been in a corporate computer training class? I have. They only cover the (extreme) basics anyway. The extra options are, well, extra (and therefore not covered). One more point: corporations are not users. They are abstract entities. Their employees are the users. Unfortunately, corporations' decisions about what to run or what is good has nothing to do with what makes their employees (the users) happy (and in theory more productive); only money does. Corporations are the ones that make software sales profitable, by and large, so the actual users of the software suffer. - -- Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9onRWdjdlQoHP510RArYzAJ9xlH/mwN6vaqSQf05v+N94NVJVdwCgiw6Q iZTeTjpp9MFVjPep9iXvfZQ= =Zjxf -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Complexity and user confusion (was: Red Hat's Bluecurve)
On 7 Oct 2002, at 2:55pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > ... Apparently, it is a friggin' *stated goal* to remove many > configuration options from Gnome. This is supposedly to prevent confusion > among non-technical users. ... My question is, what pray tell, does having > more options have to do with confusion?!?! I mean, if you want to hide > the options and relegate them to the old way of ... dot-files, then fine. > REMOVING the configurability accomplishes nothing but aggravating the > technical user. Several points here: First, I agree with you,. Removing options just for the sake of dumbing-down the UI is, well, dumb. Second: The way to solve this problem (for the end-user) is with what I (and others) call "User Levels". Basically, you tell the software what your experience level is, and it adjusts the UI accordingly. Newbies get the least features, more steps and separation, and more prompting. As the level of experience increases, so does the density and number of exposed features (while prompting is decreased). For best results, there should be a general user level, and a per-application user level which overrides the general one. (That way, e.g., I can turn down the user level of a particular app while learning it.) I have seen user levels implemented in only two places: Once was the venerable GeoWorks (nee PC/GEOS) GUI for MS-DOS. The other is in the "Nautilus" system browser. I think the industry should take a good look at these two examples, and learn from them. They could go a long way toward equalizing the "easy-to-use vs easy-to-learn divide". Lastly: Many corporations do, in fact, consider removing options to be an advantage. Why? It decreases training costs. More bluntly, it allows them to reduce qualified personnel and replace them with trained monkeys. Sure, it may be uniformly bad, but at least it is uniform (or so their thinking (I use the term loosely) goes). -- Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not | | necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or | | organization. All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
