Without stating any preferences on a thread which is likely to bring forth opinions: As i understand it, the current Unity Interface is (at least in part) the result of the sort of testing you are describing:
http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2012/02/mark-shuttleworth-explains-dodge-ditch-decision-in-precise/ https://lists.launchpad.net/unity-design/msg07682.html j On 22 February 2012 13:43, Kris Douglas <krisdoug...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > Linux Mint is higher in the rankings than Ubuntu. > I have just come off the phone with a customer, we write web > applications and we prefer they use Google Chrome because we're > planning to write a plugin and all sorts, but that is irrelevant. > > This customer called in, asked if he could install chrome on his new > Ubuntu desktop. I thought, "Great, another Ubuntu user in the world". > I got him to open Firefox and download TeamViewer (we have a premium > license) so I could show him how to install Chrome. We went through > the stages, got it installed and working, but then, he asked where to > open TeamViewer. He said "It's not on the desktop icons down the left" > and I directed him to open the applications menu "What applications > menu?". > > This person is not stupid, however he did not know where the unity > menu (or whatever it's called) was located. We spent around 15 minutes > trying to get to the stage where he could open TeamViewer. It ended up > me asking to type "Ctrl+Alt+T" to which he replied "Oh a terminal, > ok". > > We had TeamViewer running in seconds. > > Now what is the problem with this? A user that doesn't know how to > open the applications menu must raise alarm bells somewhere. He has > has this machine for 6 weeks thinking it only had the icons down the > left installed on it. (i.e the Unity Dock). Now someone could say to > me "why didn't he read the manual?" The answer to that question is > "Why should he need to?". Not even my Nan when she got her new Windows > 7 laptop (after previously never using windows 7) read a manual, or > needed to. > > Why is it that Unity requires the user to be an expert. A picture of > the ubuntu logo means a lot to us, but to someone who goes and buys a > cheap computer it means jack all. They wouldn't think to click there > there is no hit that explains it's existence. > > So the question, I ask, is why is Linux Mint higher in the rankings > than Ubuntu. The answer is simple, no joe average can use Ubuntu with > ease now! You login to mint, you have a menu that says, believe it or > not, "MENU" and when you click it, again, believe it or not, it shows > you the program categories you can choose from (e.g "Oh, I want the > Internet, oh look Firefox, I know what that is."). It makes sense to > the user, it is what they are used to and it is a very friendly and > comfortable environment. > > The electrician I work with on this software has been telling me for > two years now, meaning NO offence to anyone at all, but "The user is > stupid". I know this is not the most tactful way to put it, but after > hearing this for two years I know what he means. Basically the > principle is, the programmer is able to use the software, because he > made it, he is an expert. If you give that to a user, who has no idea, > he will have no idea how to use it. I am now writing software that > explains itself, that has buttons that are obvious to the user, and it > works. The number of phone calls we get are severely reduced, and the > customer satisfaction is up massively. Us geeks who are writing this > software have no idea how users think most of the time, this is > because we are in theory "more intelligent" which is not necessarily > true, but when it comes to the software we are, we understand the > terminology. > > I could talk about this for hours, and I am going to write a blog post > about it, people will have a go at me because I'm bashing the "perfect > distribution". But seriously, think about what I have said, and test > it on people, and then tell me I am wrong. Turn of the "I am a geek I > know everything about Ubuntu" for a minute, and imagine you had no > idea what ubuntu was or how unity worked. You wouldn't have the > foggiest idea. > > I would appreciate feedback, positive or negative on this. I don't > want another "Unity is better because it's better" or "gnome2 should > be brought back because it's what I like". That's not how it works. > > Unity is honestly broken, someone must understand this, I will happily > speak to people in person or on email in more detail about this. I am > willing to help, but you have to understand first that Unity is not > quite there yet first. > > > -- > Regards, Kris Douglas. > www.krisd.eu > > -- > ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/ -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/