It's time to change the way we use computers.

[Babbage]

Linux operating systems, and Ubuntu in particular, have done a great job of making the operating system easier to use. As far as the end user is concerned most of the improvement has been done by making the operating system Graphical User Interface (GUI), more intuitive, simple and consistent.

I think it’s time for a change in how the operating system works, from the user’s point of view. The Linux developer community has a unique opportunity to make the operating system better than ever before, way beyond the “window dressing” of Vista. The over bearing profit imperative does not prevent open source developers focusing on, what should be the true goal of a great OS; making the computer EASIER to use. Also there’s no great rivalry, neither is anyone competing for technical advantage, desktop space, glory or huge revenues. Collaboration, is the only way to achieve this, and that’s were the Open Source movement, and Linux in particular, have a huge advantage. Only Open Source software projects and developers can collaborate and cooperate without harming their income or competing with each other.

I teach computers, and those new to computing find it difficult to understand the idea of applications that do different things; for example, a web browser that only goes to addresses on the web, an email client that only sends and receives email, a word processing application that only produces and prints documents, and then there’s the computer browser that shows different places and items on your computer, like other network PC’s, disk drives and folders. It all sounds very reasonable and logical to us, but to the average person new to computing it’s all very confusing, unfriendly and overly complicated.

When I teach absolute beginners they click on icons, then on another, then another, and of course each icon represents a program that opens up with new functionality, that’s good; but also with a host of new buttons, commands and menus, most of which have to be learned, that’s very bad. The whole idea looks well, but the desktop metaphor with it’s trash can, windows and icons is time consuming, confusing, complicated and unintuitive.

Should we all go back to the command line or the terminal? No, that’s even worse, what I propose is a better alternative to what’s already there. The traditional GUI hasn’t evolved, while it looks better and more polished than ever, the desktop metaphor itself has remained virtually unchanged for over 10 years.

There must be a better way to accomplish the same everyday computing tasks, what’s needed is ONE user interface on the computer to do most the things I want to do. The easiest and most familiar user interface, by far, is the web browser. So why can’t we develop a unified/multifunction web browser that I can use to do all the things I previously had to open several separate applications to do? I should be able to surf the internet, send and receive emails, produce and print documents, search my computer and see files, folders, disk drives, and every other networked PC, from within my multifunction browser.

[CLI-Linux]

Read Jef Raskin's The Humane Interface.

Then go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archy

Yea, they've developing or trying to develop something that isn't a "desktop" for years. The only problem is that no one has gotten very far or very public with anything yet. But, there's always hope...

[apoth]

Web browsers do accomplish most things. Webmail, FTP, HTTP, online document editors, image editors, etc.

The problem with that though is that simple tools to do one thing and do that one thing well have won out so far - it's part of the whole way unices are designed.

I'm sure new interfaces will appear. I'm not sure a single application to cover every tool is it though without new developments in hardware.

[graigsmith]

people are just going to have to get used to the idea that different programs do different things. just like different tools do different things. ie a hammer vs a saw. you don't use a saw to hammer, so why try to use a graphics editor to send an email?

he easiest and most familiar user interface, by far, is the web browser.
is it? i disagree. it may be the easiest for viewing documents though,. but is it the easiest for file management? definately not. i have seen my parents struggle horribly with the web interface way of interacting with files. personally i think the easiest part of the interface is an object oriented window where you can drag drop things. for copying double clicking for starting things. etc. it's basic enough that every computer user understands these simple functions by now.

jeff raskin's idea is nice. but why zoom when everyone understands that doubleclicking is the same thing.

[elst]

If you haven't already, it's worth looking at "Sugar", the user interface designed for the OLPC machines:

"There are no software applications in the traditional sense on the laptop. The laptop focuses children around activities."

http://www.laptop.org/en/laptop/interface/principles.shtml

[Tundro Walker]

I'm all for making computers as simple as possible, but at their heart they are still complex things. Einstein said, make things as simple as possible and no simpler. Eventually, you reach a point where you can't make it any easier for the user....you can only make the wading pool so shallow before it's just a useless puddle on the ground. Eventually, folks need to learn SOME kind of interfacing skills.

That's not to say it can't get better. Computers keep changing, and how we interface with them keeps changing, too. My idea of teaching computers has always been to teach the concepts, not the buttons. If someone knows that "this is a spreadsheet", and knows the concepts behind what a spreadsheet does and how it works, then they can adapt to various spreadsheet programs. They will open a new spreadsheet program and say "hey, I was able to add 2 cells in another spreadsheet program...I wonder if I can do it in this?"

Of course, the next hurdle is to get folks to OPEN THE HELP FILE and READ THE HELP FILE. Those are 2 of the most adverse tasks in computing today. People don't want to read, because it's slow. If they absolutely have to learn something, they'd much rather WATCH A MOVIE on how something is done.

So, my proposal for a better computer interface would be making help files more robust by including MORE HELP MOVIES WITH PROGRAMS. You have a problem with XYZ? Ok, then search for the topic in the Help File, click on the various movies and watch them. Make them entertaining, and folks will watch. Many folks will learn more from a 5 minute movie than from 30 minutes of reading. Since tons of video screen recording programs are out on the market, and hard drive space is so cheap and abundant, and things come packaged on DVD's these days, I don't see Help File Movies as a luxury anymore...they're a necessity. And companies would provide more service to their product clients by handing them less written documentation and more visual movie "documentation". (Of course, some things should still be documented...I dont' want to have to re-type a 50 line function...I want to cut-paste that from a help file. And, I'd like to read the properties of it. But, I'd also like to see someone using the function in test cases, since I learn better from visual example.)

I think Microsoft really blew it on this, because they started with that stupid paper-clip, which danced around and was annoying. People hated it, so MS probably figured folks don't like visual aids. No. People don't like POINTLESS visual aids. They WANT to watch useful help movies. They DON'T want to watch some stupid icon prance around that's nothing more than distracting (and pops up questions at the most inconvenient time.) A good interface will help users without them even realizing it. And if they do need more help, they know how to click on the "Help" icon. But, they don't, because it takes forever to find the answer, and forever to read all the crap about the answer. If it was easy to find and answer, and quick to see a movie on it, more folks would help themselves.

[pmasiar]

what’s needed is ONE user interface on the computer to do most the things I want to do.

IMHO you are missing central idea of power of open source movement and root it's success: there is *no central authority*. Anyone can have a shot on improving anything without asking for permission. If solution is good, other people will adapt it, if it is bad, someone will create different solution.

As Linus famously said: "it is evolution, not intelligent design".

> So why can’t we develop a unified/multifunction web browser that I can use to do all the things I previously had to open several separate applications to do?

Because web browser as API sucks rocks. It is so simple because it's functionality is so limited. Now web2.0 and AJAX is becoming popular, and it is *lot* of hard work to make javascript-based apps to be half-usable in browser. And they are slow.

And part of the problem is that the guy whose picture you choose as in your avatar ignores accepted internet standards as business strategy :-)

Incompatibility between JS implementation in different browsers does not make task you want to accomplish any simpler.

> "I teach computers, "

It could be mightily hard to teach *anything* those dumb boxes. Just give up. Better teach humans how to use computers - it is not easy but humans at least can learn... :-)

To learn why mentioned problems are inherently hard, read No Silver Bullet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Silver_Bullet) and especially The Humble Programmer (http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~EWD/transcriptions/EWD03xx/EWD340.html)

[pmasiar]

Of course, the next hurdle is to get folks to OPEN THE HELP FILE and READ THE HELP FILE.

Exactly. I read somewhere that only 10% of users ever bothers to read help file - 90% will ask local expert, use awkward workaround, or do without functionality.

> So, my proposal for a better computer interface would be making help files more robust by including MORE HELP MOVIES WITH PROGRAMS.

No thanks I hate movies, give me help with wiki instead :-)

[amgeex]

I guess the OP doesn't want all the applications to be ajax based just because they're on a web browser. That's part of the problem, your minds are too limited. Imagine a web-browser-like application that could work as a file manager, open word documents, odt documents, pdf documents, pictures, could play all kind of movies and videos, handle your music as well as iTunes (or whatever you use) can. Imagine doing all that with ONE application, a "universal application". You could add extensions for added functionality, so say, you need to edit pictures like in Photoshop, so you add the "Image Manipulation" extension to get that. Its kinda like one app to rule them all. I can imagine it, and it would be awesome if it could be done. It should be open source of course!

[pmasiar]

Will it also be able to make coffee and fix flat tires? That would be nice too! :-)

[amgeex]

Yeah, you might think is impossible, but hey, we're allowed to dream aren't we? And besides that, imagine if all the different development teams that create open office, all the audio apps, video apps, codecs, encoders, decoders, pdf viewers, file managers, web browsers, etc. united to create this new application? I know it sounds next to impossible and is quite utopic, but it would be nice if it could be done.

[RawMustard]

There was a linux distro a while ago that tried this using mozilla technologies. I can't remember the name anymore. It was one something like onenet, or oneshot. Anyway, it was done using xul on redhat 7 a few years ago and looked very promising. If someone wanted to do this, using mozilla's xul wouldn't take long to whip up a makeshift desktop that allowed you to do anything you wanted. If only the mozilla folks would put more time into xul, it could be a fanatsic way for people to build their own desktop how they wanted!

I always wondered why everyone seems to copy each other rather than do something different and revolutionary, are all programmers that blinkered?

[aquavitae]

Yes, I can imagine a program that does everything - thousands of buttons and menu items to access all the different functions, or worse still, an ever changing interface like in MS Word 2007.

[CLI-Linux]

In response to a lot of the above commentary, I think the One App thing is a good idea. But feasibly, it is more utopic than realistic.

If you think about each app has having its own strength, then that's why we have so many apps and the desktop of now is so spread out into a million programs. Any idea for One App would have to incorporate the existing ideal that any "extension" would have to be doing its strength and only that. Add endless extensions if that's what you want; that's fine, but the idea is that we have quality in the extensions, not just quantity. An easy example is Photoshop or Premiere. Both of these apps are top of the line, do anything you possibly could with pictures/images and video, respectively. To include these apps as extensions in the One App would be ideal. However, realistically there are too many companies involved (based on all possible extensions), and there needs to be centrality in the basic level app, similar I would say to the way the Linux Kernel is central to any flavor of GNU. It could be done, but it would take time and cooperation from a lot of parties to make it happen.

Now, as for a web browser being that "basic level", I disagree. The only reason that people would be able to use it is because they already have and have gotten used to it. But then that limits your possibilities in this One App. You've started by confining yourself to an existing technology. Start with innovation, then make it friendly. There are endless possibilities here, all of which are possible, but not probable.

[ankursethi]

Let us first figure out what that "One App" will look like.

1. It will have a menu to access all the included functionality.
This is obvious. Otherwise there is no way to navigate the app. Another option : have a "home" screen that includes "links" to all the functionality. The third option will be to have a "toolbar" with all the program icons and/or menus that contain links to other programs.

2. It will look consistent.
It will have to look consitent and feel that way, too. Keyboard shortcuts for operations such as cut, copy, paste, save, quit etc. must be same across all applications.

3. Applications will not have separate names.
That means the spreadsheet will be called "Spreadsheet" and the word processor will be called "Word Processor". This is to avoid confusion to the new user who will probably not know what to do with "PowerWord" or "Write" (although end users are not *that* stupid).

4. It will be extensible.
Extensions and/or widgets will allow "power users" to customize the One App according to their needs.

Now let's take a look at the *>default<* Ubuntu desktop, or for that matter, any GNOME or KDE based desktop.

1. We have a menu called "Applications" for applications, "System" for system settings and "Places" to navigate the hard drive. We have the desktop as the "home screen", and the taskbar etc. can be used as a dock. Third party docks are also available, like Kiba Dock.

2. All GNOME apps look and feel the same, with the exception of Firefox which is not a GNOME app anyway (even Firefox integrates nicely with the GNOME desktop). Same goes for KDE. Consistency cannot be guaranteed if you install apps which were not meant to be part of GNOME (like AmaroK or aMule).

3. Most applications in the menus are labelled according to function. For example, GEdit is "Text Editor" and OpenOffice.org Writer is called OpenOffice.org Word Processor.

4. There are widgets (?) you can add to the GNOME panel. They are generally written in either C or Python. Any power user can easily write them. If that's not enough, apps like GDesklets are available in the repos to enable "widgets".

Therefore GNOME is the unified app we have been talking about all along! All we need is some sort of library that will make all KDE/wxWindows/X applications look like GNOME applications, and a standard set of rules that define application behaviour (like shortcut keys and menu layouts). In fact, we already have the Freedesktop.org standard and the Tango project which deal with two separate issues.

If you use Windows, then you really need to be worried because generally Windows developers will not care about the "unified" interface because there is none. On the other hand Linux developers, seeking to get their apps into the major desktop environments, repositories and major distributions, will try to follow the published standards.

[the_unforgiven]

I guess the OP doesn't want all the applications to be ajax based just because they're on a web browser. That's part of the problem, your minds are too limited. Imagine a web-browser-like application that could work as a file manager, open word documents, odt documents, pdf documents, pictures, could play all kind of movies and videos, handle your music as well as iTunes (or whatever you use) can. Imagine doing all that with ONE application, a "universal application". You could add extensions for added functionality, so say, you need to edit pictures like in Photoshop, so you add the "Image Manipulation" extension to get that. Its kinda like one app to rule them all. I can imagine it, and it would be awesome if it could be done. It should be open source of course!
I guess, we already have been using such an application - it's called an Operating System - all the apps as we know them are nothing but extensions to the basic operating system to allow you to do all these different things. :lolflag:

But seriously, the current design (OS v/s. apps) is nothing but the culmination of these ideas....
The problem with a universal APPLICATION capable of doing everything that is listed above is that there are no universal standards for anything - and it's difficult to come up with such a standard. The requirements for each task are substantially different than the other - the required standard would turn up into a spaghetti if it were to accommodate all these requirements.

Just imagine anyone of you coming up with such a requirement specification - let alone the implementation.

Just my 2 cents ;)

[CLI-Linux]

1. It will have a menu to access all the included functionality.
This is obvious. Otherwise there is no way to navigate the app. Another option : have a "home" screen that includes "links" to all the functionality. The third option will be to have a "toolbar" with all the program icons and/or menus that contain links to other programs.

Again, the idea here is not to publish yet again what's already been made. There's nothing obvious about a menu. In fact, survey any end user as to what any menu item means and they probably would be surprised when a window with a thousand options pops up. There's nothing concise about a menu. At the same time, a menu is too concise. By this I mean that a menu item doesn't tell enough about its functionality. And, the word "icons" made me cringe for the same reason. Icons give little detail as to what the functionality of whatever it represents is. And if you start talking about links, then you've lost the user altogether. From there they have to memorize a virtual map as to where each link goes, what each does, what program it invokes, etc. You can't just say that they will link to functionality, they need to spell out the functionality to the user.


2. It will look consistent.
It will have to look consitent and feel that way, too. Keyboard shortcuts for operations such as cut, copy, paste, save, quit etc. must be same across all applications.

Keyboard shortcuts are fine. But although the savvy know how to use them most don't. I agree they have to be the same across everything, but there still needs to be an intuitive interface, even if that means the keyboard houses copy, cut, paste, etc. keys.


3. Applications will not have separate names.
That means the spreadsheet will be called "Spreadsheet" and the word processor will be called "Word Processor". This is to avoid confusion to the new user who will probably not know what to do with "PowerWord" or "Write" (although end users are not *that* stupid).

Definitely agree with this. Uniformity is key.


4. It will be extensible.
Extensions and/or widgets will allow "power users" to customize the One App according to their needs.

I'm not so sure you need these if the One App is virtually using extensions which are basically apps (unless that's what you meant).



Now let's take a look at the *>default<* Ubuntu desktop, or for that matter, any GNOME or KDE based desktop.

1. We have a menu called "Applications" for applications, "System" for system settings and "Places" to navigate the hard drive. We have the desktop as the "home screen", and the taskbar etc. can be used as a dock. Third party docks are also available, like Kiba Dock.

2. All GNOME apps look and feel the same, with the exception of Firefox which is not a GNOME app anyway (even Firefox integrates nicely with the GNOME desktop). Same goes for KDE. Consistency cannot be guaranteed if you install apps which were not meant to be part of GNOME (like AmaroK or aMule).

3. Most applications in the menus are labelled according to function. For example, GEdit is "Text Editor" and OpenOffice.org Writer is called OpenOffice.org Word Processor.

4. There are widgets (?) you can add to the GNOME panel. They are generally written in either C or Python. Any power user can easily write them. If that's not enough, apps like GDesklets are available in the repos to enable "widgets".

Therefore GNOME is the unified app we have been talking about all along! All we need is some sort of library that will make all KDE/wxWindows/X applications look like GNOME applications, and a standard set of rules that define application behaviour (like shortcut keys and menu layouts). In fact, we already have the Freedesktop.org standard and the Tango project which deal with two separate issues.

If you use Windows, then you really need to be worried because generally Windows developers will not care about the "unified" interface because there is none. On the other hand Linux developers, seeking to get their apps into the major desktop environments, repositories and major distributions, will try to follow the published standards.

However much I would love for Ubuntu to be this perfect One App, it still falls under the category of a desktop OS. The idea is not to say "Ubuntu is the One App and the apps and software are the 'extensions.'" The idea is that the One App look different, behave different, and feel different than a traditional desktop. But the question of uniformity remains in all OS's, including Ubuntu.

[psychicist]

When the OP wrote what he did I certainly thought that my thinking was along his line. I agree that we in the free and open source world have achieved the majority of what previously only proprietary operating systems did. And we could go on for years perfecting these desktops until they surpass the Aquas and Vistas of this world, which they arguably already do. It has certainly enabled me to be a full-time Unix/Linux user for the last five years.

What I am a lot more interested in is leaving this tired desktop metaphor completely behind and start again from scratch. While many might see this as a big waste of all that we have achieved up to now, in reality it isn't. The current KDE, GNOME, XFCE etc. desktop environments can continue developing the way they do now and noboby will feel that he/she is at a disadvantage.

You can call me nuts but isn't it time for something like in the Matrix and numerous other movies? 3D environments in which you can be immersed and do all of your stuff using your brain and all of your body (if you want to). No more single finger mouse (an idea from the 70's) with an arbitrary number of buttons but a faster way of interacting with the internet community merely using computers as a means to an end. The Wii and its remote could be seen as a first step in the direction of this kind of interaction that requires more activity from its users, but also gives them more satisfaction and fun.

I believe the FLOSS community is more than prepared for this next wave of man-machine interaction in which man is put at the center and front and not the machine and its arbitrary ways of interaction anymore. FLOSS user interfaces are already decoupled from the operating system so we could easily substitute them for some thing entirely different and we don't have to care about more or less desktops being sold so as to maintain the status quo.

[Brendan Hart]

I dont think a browser like user interface is that out of the question, Ubuntu has already added exactly what i wanted in an interface, 1 place where i can view folders and websites etc, and then my other workspace where i code and design. and with a big monitor i can view 2 browsers at once, that is good for multibrowser testing.

and even if your a gamer or anything this workspace can work around it, I was also thinking frames based navigation but i spose they have that in windows and linux already, its called explorer or the regular file system in Ubuntu, but then again drilling down through all those folders for something like photoshop would be a pain. so where do we go from there.

I personally love the layout of Ubuntu Linux, but i love to get maximum control, i remember in Windows I have my whole bottom task bar was filled with lil shortcuts, I had every ordered so i didnt have to do any drilling through files:

down in my quicklaunch menu i had:

ie,firefox,safari,opera ---then---word,powerpoint,publisher ---then--- quicktime,windows media player, powerdvd---then---flash,dreamweaver, netbeans---then---mycomputer, mydocuments, d:\\drive, g:\\removable drive...

everything was set up to make things so much easier.

but i dont see it being hard to make an interface more user friendly, i believe the one they have currently would be harder to set up than a semi browser based interface, its just that they have already made their current one and it would take time to create a new one.

[ankursethi]

Many alternative shells for Windows exist that seek to change the way we use our desktop. Then there's project Looking Glass. But none of them seem "right".

I suppose the OP should post some kind of image or diagram of what he's proposing.

[supirman]

What's with everybody and wanting so much convergence? Not everybody wants a phone that's an mp3 player, which is also a media player, which is also an office assistant, which is a coffee maker, which can also be a car jack, etc. As somebody already mentioned, this unified application is called an OS. I like having a stand alone program for each task I do, as that's the way I like it. Do you dump all of your food into a bowl and smash it all together so that it all looks the same (like a big, gross mess)? Personally, I like to have my meat on one side of the plate, potatoes on another, corn on yet another, etc.

But, to each their own...

[Alex&Linux]

I consider Babbage's goal already accomplished,
To me, the desktop environment is a universal application.
Anytime you see your desktop wallpaper, consider that your universal application.
The personal computer itself is an answer to another layer of the same question, and Its fairly close to as far as its going to go.

I really enjoyed Einstein's quote earlier, explaining that simplicity can only be taken so far, and I believe that in regard to personal computers, and the operating systems that run them, the existing level of complexity is certainly not out of reach, and is very flexible.

I dont know what is commonly thought of this, but a simple desktop with a dock (avant window manager) and beryl window manager is absolutely perfect.
The dock allows all of my consistently used apps to be ready for launch, and keeps track of open apps on a separate devistion, allowing an "at a glance" understanding of the environment, and a 3d cube environment allows me to assign different sides to different tasks...making for a very efficient and organized workspace.
The only way I can imagine to make this more simple and convenient is to be able to control it with my mind, rather than a keyboard and mouse!

[slavik]

The browser that does it 'all' vs. separate things. In the Unix world, this has been fought over and beaten into the ground very long time ago.

Take Perl. It has ALL standard features of C and was designed for text processing. But, it is big and syntax is a mess. On the other hand, you have the small tools, like wget, grep, awk, sed which can replace Perl and even have more functionality (just look at the man page for wget, it can even act as a spider).

The battle of the 1 tool vs. many tools will always go on.

Sidenote: I am taking a basic music class in college, and we are required to use Rhapsody (part of book cost), this is why I realised that iTunes, Rhapsody and the rest are perfect for music classes. The problem is that the professor (not much of a tech, but knows about OSS, since one of the programs the Music Dept. wants on all public machines is Audacity) spends way too much time showing students how to use Rhapsody and I generally feel that the interface could've been better designed.

[aquavitae]

You can call me nuts but isn't it time for something like in the Matrix and numerous other movies? 3D environments in which you can be immersed and do all of your stuff using your brain and all of your body (if you want to). No more single finger mouse (an idea from the 70's) with an arbitrary number of buttons but a faster way of interacting with the internet community merely using computers as a means to an end. The Wii and its remote could be seen as a first step in the direction of this kind of interaction that requires more activity from its users, but also gives them more satisfaction and fun.

I agree, but this is more to do with hardware progression than software. I think if the hardware was available, the OSS would follow very rapidly.

[Pinger05]

My idea of teaching computers has always been to teach the concepts, not the buttons. If someone knows that "this is a spreadsheet", and knows the concepts behind what a spreadsheet does and how it works, then they can adapt to various spreadsheet programs. They will open a new spreadsheet program and say "hey, I was able to add 2 cells in another spreadsheet program...I wonder if I can do it in this?"


This sentance summs it up. It is about the attitude of the learners and the style of the teacher. Teaching which button to press when may not help them as much as teaching them the concepts behind the button.

If you really want to you can try this method:

At my work I have a web page that is nothing but a fancy looking link repository. Each link is clearly labeled with the task that it will help you accomplish. Some links are launchable databases, others are full fledged programs, and still others are links to other sites. As my technicans graduate from application to application they move further down the web page. When I consider them knolegable enough to work on their own all the links are there to accomplish what needs to be done. Perhaps something as simple as that may solve your problem?

Another idea is to program a Java application box that accomplishes the same thing as the above web page. While it is 40 times harder to do, perhaps the programming of it will help you develop exactly what you want...

[MeanderingCode]

This thread is interesting to me.

I would have to sound on the side of the statement that the OS is "the" app...That's what an OS is, a body of machine interface layers to allow programs to access functionality of the machines they're running on, as well as interact with each other and access universal code (i.e. the clock), without having to re-write everything, every time. A programmers maxim held by many is "write less code".

"Desktop Environments" seek to accomplish this seamlessness. Thank the divine there are so many choices, because everyone's needs are different. Yes, the "seamlessness" isn't the smoothest (i use a dark them with white text on my XFCE setup...even configuring for wrapping Gnome and KDE apps, some apps are written in ways that make my life difficult by specifying background but not text color or vice versa).

There are projects (Beryl, Looking Glass, i'm sure many i can't think of right now and many i know nothing about) seeking to revolutionize the interface and the way people think about interacting with their machines. Great. Innovation is what makes us human. I hope to see a revolution in interface, we're ready. Though i agree with some in this thread that it's mostly a hardware thing, much can be done with the two simple HIDs of keyboard and mouse/touchpad.

On that note...Please, i beseech the Open Source community (and even proprietary Scrooges) never to pander to the lazy. It encourages more laziness by saying "yes, we will put you on a sedan chair and haul you around to where you want to go...No, i wasn't doing anything important."

Of course, the next hurdle is to get folks to OPEN THE HELP FILE and READ THE HELP FILE. Those are 2 of the most adverse tasks in computing today. People don't want to read, because it's slow. If they absolutely have to learn something, they'd much rather WATCH A MOVIE on how something is done.

This is true, true, and true. If we do too much of this, however, we will be contributing to classism, not to mention wasting valuable time of programmers. Essentially, this is true because public school, et al, teaches people they shouldn't think and they're incapable of it. The more this is facilitated and we create ways for people to avoid having to think, the dumber we get as a species. As someone who does plenty of tech support for my local community, i'll say that telling people to "read the help file" meets with much upset..."But that's what i'm talking to you for"...My standard response is to inform them that, by reading the help file, not only will they have a better understanding of what their struggle is than they do now, they just might learn something unexpected that will give them even greater efficiency than they were going for. Yes, some folks are very visual learners...screencasts are on the rise, help movies are useful, above all, computer courses taught by live humans, in person, are a must. They are already readily available and will hopefully improve.

I'll stop ranting now, as i'm not being very elegant or complete, but i would like to plug:

In the Beginning...Was the Command Line, by Neal Stephenson.
Written in 1999 by a SF author who was (and is) a hobbyist programmer before authorhood, it is mostly about society and its need of interfaces. Funny reflection on Apple and Microsoft (though in a recent /. interview, Stephenson says that Apple's OS shift with OSX changes much of what he says about them in the book).

Thanks for obliging ;)

[pmasiar]

Gentlemen, OP apparently has no intention or interest to discuss this topic. It is dawning on me that we've been trolled...

[CopaceticOpus]

Kitchens, and modern kitchens in particular, have done a great job of making food easier to use. As far as the end user is concerned most of the improvement has been done by making the kitchen General Utensil Interface (GUI), more intuitive, simple and consistent.

I think it’s time for a change in how the kitchen works, from the user’s point of view. The kitchen developer community has a unique opportunity to make the kitchen better than ever before, way beyond the “window dressing” of Bed, Bath, and Beyond. The over bearing profit imperative does not prevent open kitchen developers focusing on, what should be the true goal of a great kitchen; making food EASIER to use. Also there’s no great rivalry, neither is anyone competing for technical advantage, counter space, glory or huge revenues. Collaboration, is the only way to achieve this, and that’s where the Open Kitchen movement, and modern kitchens in particular, have a huge advantage. Only Open Kitchen projects and developers can collaborate and cooperate without harming their income or competing with each other.

I teach cooking, and those new to cooking find it difficult to understand the idea of appliances that do different things; for example, a toaster that only browns bread, a refrigerator that only cools and freezes, a microwave that only cooks and reheats, and then there’s the kitchen counter that supports different devices and utensils in your kitchen, like cutting boards, cheese graters and bowls. It all sounds very reasonable and logical to us, but to the average person new to cooking it’s all very confusing, unfriendly and overly complicated.

When I teach absolute beginners they open one appliance, then another, then another, and of course each appliance is a device that opens up with new functionality, that’s good; but also with a host of new buttons, shelves, and doors, most of which have to be learned, that’s very bad. The whole idea looks well, but the tabletop metaphor with its salt, pepper, and napkins is time consuming, confusing, complicated and unintuitive.

Should we all go back to the campfire or the picking of berries? No, that’s even worse, what I propose is a better alternative to what’s already there. The traditional kitchen interface hasn’t evolved, while it looks better and more polished than ever, the countertop itself has remained virtually unchanged for over 10 years.

There must be a better way to accomplish the same everyday cooking tasks, what’s needed is ONE appliance in the kitchen to do most of the things I want to do. The easiest and most familiar user interface, by far, is the refrigerator. So why can’t we develop a unified/multifunction refrigerator that I can use to do all the things I previously had to open several separate appliances to do? I should be able to toast a bagel, slice and dice onions, reheat Thanksgiving leftovers, search my cabinets and see bowls, cups, spoons, and every other utensil, from within my multifunction refrigerator.

[kerry_s]

Linux operating systems, and Ubuntu in particular, have done a great job of making the operating system easier to use. As far as the end user is concerned most of the improvement has been done by making the operating system Graphical User Interface (GUI), more intuitive, simple and consistent.

I think it’s time for a change in how the operating system works, from the user’s point of view. The Linux developer community has a unique opportunity to make the operating system better than ever before, way beyond the “window dressing” of Vista. The over bearing profit imperative does not prevent open source developers focusing on, what should be the true goal of a great OS; making the computer EASIER to use. Also there’s no great rivalry, neither is anyone competing for technical advantage, desktop space, glory or huge revenues. Collaboration, is the only way to achieve this, and that’s were the Open Source movement, and Linux in particular, have a huge advantage. Only Open Source software projects and developers can collaborate and cooperate without harming their income or competing with each other.

I teach computers, and those new to computing find it difficult to understand the idea of applications that do different things; for example, a web browser that only goes to addresses on the web, an email client that only sends and receives email, a word processing application that only produces and prints documents, and then there’s the computer browser that shows different places and items on your computer, like other network PC’s, disk drives and folders. It all sounds very reasonable and logical to us, but to the average person new to computing it’s all very confusing, unfriendly and overly complicated.

When I teach absolute beginners they click on icons, then on another, then another, and of course each icon represents a program that opens up with new functionality, that’s good; but also with a host of new buttons, commands and menus, most of which have to be learned, that’s very bad. The whole idea looks well, but the desktop metaphor with it’s trash can, windows and icons is time consuming, confusing, complicated and unintuitive.

Should we all go back to the command line or the terminal? No, that’s even worse, what I propose is a better alternative to what’s already there. The traditional GUI hasn’t evolved, while it looks better and more polished than ever, the desktop metaphor itself has remained virtually unchanged for over 10 years.

There must be a better way to accomplish the same everyday computing tasks, what’s needed is ONE user interface on the computer to do most the things I want to do. The easiest and most familiar user interface, by far, is the web browser. So why can’t we develop a unified/multifunction web browser that I can use to do all the things I previously had to open several separate applications to do? I should be able to surf the internet, send and receive emails, produce and print documents, search my computer and see files, folders, disk drives, and every other networked PC, from within my multifunction browser.


install seamonkey, it has all that.

[BLTicklemonster]

But I thought the desktop was basically a configurable browser? You add links to it that you want, or remove ones you don't want. You have a link that opens up more links to stuff you want (start button), too.

I hear people saying stuff like that often, and keep wondering why bother?

The Desktop: It Just Works


:)


boooooo I know.

[pmasiar]

I think it’s time for a change in how the kitchen works, from the user’s point of view.
.

One word, CopaceticOpus: you are genius!

[amgeex]

Kitchens, and modern kitchens in particular, have done a great job of making food easier to use. As far as the end user is concerned most of the improvement has been done by making the kitchen General Utensil Interface (GUI), more intuitive, simple and consistent.

I think it’s time for a change in how the kitchen works, from the user’s point of view. The kitchen developer community has a unique opportunity to make the kitchen better than ever before, way beyond the “window dressing” of Bed, Bath, and Beyond. The over bearing profit imperative does not prevent open kitchen developers focusing on, what should be the true goal of a great kitchen; making food EASIER to use. Also there’s no great rivalry, neither is anyone competing for technical advantage, counter space, glory or huge revenues. Collaboration, is the only way to achieve this, and that’s where the Open Kitchen movement, and modern kitchens in particular, have a huge advantage. Only Open Kitchen projects and developers can collaborate and cooperate without harming their income or competing with each other.

I teach cooking, and those new to cooking find it difficult to understand the idea of appliances that do different things; for example, a toaster that only browns bread, a refrigerator that only cools and freezes, a microwave that only cooks and reheats, and then there’s the kitchen counter that supports different devices and utensils in your kitchen, like cutting boards, cheese graters and bowls. It all sounds very reasonable and logical to us, but to the average person new to cooking it’s all very confusing, unfriendly and overly complicated.

When I teach absolute beginners they open one appliance, then another, then another, and of course each appliance is a device that opens up with new functionality, that’s good; but also with a host of new buttons, shelves, and doors, most of which have to be learned, that’s very bad. The whole idea looks well, but the tabletop metaphor with its salt, pepper, and napkins is time consuming, confusing, complicated and unintuitive.

Should we all go back to the campfire or the picking of berries? No, that’s even worse, what I propose is a better alternative to what’s already there. The traditional kitchen interface hasn’t evolved, while it looks better and more polished than ever, the countertop itself has remained virtually unchanged for over 10 years.

There must be a better way to accomplish the same everyday cooking tasks, what’s needed is ONE appliance in the kitchen to do most of the things I want to do. The easiest and most familiar user interface, by far, is the refrigerator. So why can’t we develop a unified/multifunction refrigerator that I can use to do all the things I previously had to open several separate appliances to do? I should be able to toast a bagel, slice and dice onions, reheat Thanksgiving leftovers, search my cabinets and see bowls, cups, spoons, and every other utensil, from within my multifunction refrigerator.

I really loved this! And the OP seems to have fled the crime scene...

[longlegs]

While you are making a do-it-all tool, add in a 747 for flights to .... OOPS there are too many gauges/switches/controls in general in the cockpit.

Remember that at some level of functionality, the added menuitem/button/chooser needed to perform a new function actually makes the tool harder to learn to use, therefore less useful

I want a telephone, not a radio/tv/movieplayer/camera/recorder.
I want to write a letter, not generate an epic with sound and fury.

I want readable labels, not heiroglyphs that are generally too small to make out.

I want something that works, every time, the same way. (and hopefully, quits asking am I sure. quits saying it can't shut down because xxx is waiting for a response, quits saying access denied on my own damn computer,) and has a power-off sw that works instantly without waiting for the OS to write it's self notes. Any notes it needs should have been written between the last 2 keystrokes.!!!

Have a good day!
longlegs
PS don't add new features while any of the existing have bugs.