Thunderbird & Evolution Usability Testing

[sffvba[e0rt]

Recently we hired an external consultant to compare the usability of 2 email clients: Thunderbird and Evolution. I have taken some highlights from the report (http://ubuntuone.com/p/18N0/) to compose this blog...

Source (http://design.canonical.com/2011/08/thunderbird-evolution-usability-testing/)

What I found very interesting and profound was the statement...


One major fact to keep in mind is that, especially as the majority of participants were new to Ubuntu, they saw the email application they used as a representative of the operating system. This is particularly pertinent to the email system that is a system default and it should be ensured that, before either one of these products is chosen for this purpose, the severe issues reported here are addressed.

Wonder how true this holds for many other applications installed by default?

[samstreet101]

Very Interesting report. Thanks for posting. I think this is an issue that needs a lot of attention and one that canonical needs to address as do a lot of linux users. First impressions in terms of usability, how clean an application looks, etc.. is vitally important to a lot of people. I think it's easy for long time linux users to dismiss those issues as they know how to get around them. I sympathise with that point of view myself, part of the charm of linux is learning how to actually use a computer on more than a superficial level and I wouldn't have it any other way, however, if canonical wants ubuntu to be widely adopted by joe public then this needs to be seriosuly addressed.

One of the reasons I haven't adopted thunderbird or evolution is that I find it difficult to get them to work with microsoft exchange (only an issue at work mind) especially as the work's server runs exchange 5.5 which is not well supported by open source email clients to the best of my knowledge.

[frncz]

One of the reasons I haven't adopted thunderbird or evolution is that I find it difficult to get them to work with microsoft exchange (only an issue at work mind) especially as the work's server runs exchange 5.5 which is not well supported by open source email clients to the best of my knowledge.

Have you found another email client that runs in Ubuntu and supports Exchange?
I have the same issues at work,

[samstreet101]

Have you found another email client that runs in Ubuntu and supports Exchange?
I have the same issues at work,

Well yes and no. Thunderbird doesn't directly support exchange but it will work if your exchange server is configured to support POP or IMAP. Evolution has good support for exchange but won't work on the latest version (exchange 5.5) - the trick is knowing what information you need to put in, i.e. server address or host name etc...

I tried 'The Bat' too, but couldn't get that to play ball either so I've resorted to just using a browser to get my mail from exchange using OWA (outlook web access)

[aysiu]

There were a bunch of issues people had with both Evolution and Thunderbird, but this conclusion jives with my experience as well:
As discussed, users gave both positive and negative feedback on their interactions with Thunderbird and Evolution, with Thunderbird consistently being perceived by users as easier to use and fit for purpose than Evolution.

Thunderbird was widely liked for the perceived straightforward set-up and facilitated access to contact save, search and open windows features. In addition, users commented on the familiar language used in the application. What I like about Thunderbird additionally is its cross-platform nature. The Evolution for Windows is severely crippled, and I don't think there is a native Evolution for Mac, at least not one easily installable (maybe through Fink or something).

In terms of how much defaults matter to new users, I also agree they are extremely important (http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/defaultsmatter/). Defaults are the first impression new users get. Even if you tell them later "Oh, you can change that," they won't want to change it. And, more importantly, the more bad defaults you have, the more time people have to spend configuring options and the less time they have to actually enjoy using the software.

It's one thing if you choose to tinker with things and explore options. It's another if you have to tinker in order to make something basically usable or appealing. The defaults should be usable out of the box.

[LowSky]

The defaults should be usable out of the box.

Agreed.