betterdesktop.org (healthy debate please?)

[crypto178]

I don't know if I'm allowed to create a subject after an other one has been locked, but I wrote a quite lenghty answer to the original post and was a bit disappointed with the "this thread has been locked" when submitting it.

if you don't know what this subject is about, you can start with the slashdot story : http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/05/10/11/146202.shtml?tid=223&tid=106 or directly go the website : http://www.betterdesktop.org/welcome/

I think that the betterdesktop.org initiative is quite a needed one. However, I think there are some aspects of their 'philosophy' that I don't agree with.

1. the fisher price effect (thanks Stormy Eyes for the formula, that's exactly my thoughts) : I don't think dumbing down too much is such a good idea. There were some times (I don't remember specific examples, sorry) where I thought that I really should be given an option, and can feel that the option was sacrified at the altar of simplicity. Really annoying.
I'm certain there is a better approach. For instance, use the current technique to identify usability problems, but instead of deducing the improvements from the average windows user's behavior with a default gnome interface, put different people in front of different interface prototypes and see which one works best. "How to make it easier to change desktop background? let's see how we can offer that option to the user. Ok we've got 5 different ideas, let's make some prototypes and test it on users". Too much work to be feasible maybe, but a more sane approach in my opinion.

2. "make it look like Windows" : it started to tick me off when I saw the recommandations at this page : http://www.betterdesktop.org/welcome/reports/report-date-time.html
I don't like the fact that they took average windows user as a 'target' for better gnome usability. This isn't right. I can't explain it very well (limited english), but I think it's a first step in copying windows to respond to a specific crowd (ok, the majority of PC users) instead gnome should strive for true usability, things that make sense in a os-agnostic way, that doesn't depend on an user's previous experience with a specific system.

What I agree with is making things feel more natural. There may be some things that can be easily fixed and make things easier for beginners without alienating veteran users (for instance the "Send/Receive" button in evolution which name isn't appropriate).
One last idea could be to try to educate the user in a way or another. This may be very bad (and turn off some users) but some concepts (multi-desktops, taskbar, home folder, etc. ) simply have to be explained or otherwise be "abstracted" (but that is, most of the time, dumbing down).

Well there it is, I thought gnome (and linux in general) usability's future was something that deserved more than a locked topic.

[poofyhairguy]

Well there it is, I thought gnome (and linux in general) usability's future was something that deserved more than a locked topic.

Good point and good post.

[aysiu]

I don't like the fact that they took average windows user as a 'target' for better gnome usability. This isn't right. I can't explain it very well (limited english), but I think it's a first step in copying windows to respond to a specific crowd (ok, the majority of PC users) instead gnome should strive for true usability, things that make sense in a os-agnostic way, that doesn't depend on an user's previous experience with a specific system. Ideally, you would take five-year-olds or six-year-olds who had little computer experience (as opposed to the five-year-olds who are mini-hackers in the making) and ask them to accomplish certain tasks. They're the only ones who could possibly be untainted by Windows or Mac--the closest to "natural" intuition, if such a thing exists.

For adults, or even teenagers, what's "intuitive" or "easy" depends too largely on what they're used to, not the inherent "useability" design of the OS.

I'm still very interested to see how Symphony OS turns out after it gets officially released (right now I think it's still in Alpha testing). Presumably, the Mezzo desktop is designed specifically for useability.

[Stormy Eyes]

1. the fisher price effect (thanks Stormy Eyes for the formula, that's exactly my thoughts)

Hey, no problem. There's another saying, which I quoted elsewhere in the original thread: "Make a system that even a fool can use, and only a fool will want to use it."


I'm certain there is a better approach. For instance, use the current technique to identify usability problems, but instead of deducing the improvements from the average windows user's behavior with a default gnome interface, put different people in front of different interface prototypes and see which one works best. "How to make it easier to change desktop background? let's see how we can offer that option to the user. Ok we've got 5 different ideas, let's make some prototypes and test it on users". Too much work to be feasible maybe, but a more sane approach in my opinion.

I agree that this is the more rational approach. I don't see why it would be unduly difficult to have a set of users try a set of prototypes and record their experiences with each prototype.


2. "make it look like Windows" : it started to tick me off when I saw the recommandations at this page : http://www.betterdesktop.org/welcome/reports/report-date-time.html
I don't like the fact that they took average windows user as a 'target' for better gnome usability. This isn't right. I can't explain it very well (limited english), but I think it's a first step in copying windows to respond to a specific crowd

I understand, and I agree with you. If GNOME is going to be innovative, then catering to Windows users is counter-productive.

[crypto178]

For adults, or even teenagers, what's "intuitive" or "easy" depends too largely on what they're used to, not the inherent "useability" design of the OS.


Yes, that's certainly true.
But I also think that if you present the options/information in a clear and cohesive way (which is already quite the case), they might avoid acting by repeating actions from previous experience.
For instance, in one of the videos you clearly see a woman rushing to the closest thing ressembling the Windows "my computer" icon on the gnome desktop when asked to change the desktop background (it's on Suse, that icon is not present on Ubuntu). Then a nautilus window with the removable media and drives list pops up without the configuration panel in it, and she's lost. I think it's a trap. Lure the user in a windows-like interface, and then as soon as something is different, they're completely lost. That's why copying windows might start a vicious circle in my opinion.


Hey, no problem. There's another saying, which I quoted elsewhere in the original thread: "Make a system that even a fool can use, and only a fool will want to use it."

Excellent quote indeed!

[phen]

Originally Posted by Stormy Eyes
Hey, no problem. There's another saying, which I quoted elsewhere in the original thread: "Make a system that even a fool can use, and only a fool will want to use it."

i don't agree with that. in my opinion, a machine has to help it's user to accomplish the task he is supposed to accomplish. nobody is stupid because his telephone just does what it is supposed to do.

since a computer is a more complex system, it will never be as easy to use as a telephone (at least in the near future). it should be possible to create a system that is easy to use if you like, but also extendable to become more powerful, if the task needs it.

take linux for example (a set up system!). gnome desktop is relatively easy to use. open a terminal and you get the whole power... thats the way i like it!



Lure the user in a windows-like interface, and then as soon as something is different, they're completely lost. That's why copying windows might start a vicious circle in my opinion.

I have never thought about it that way, but i agree with you. thats a good point in my opinion!


2 days to go....

[Stormy Eyes]

i don't agree with that. in my opinion, a machine has to help it's user to accomplish the task he is supposed to accomplish. nobody is stupid because his telephone just does what it is supposed to do.

Phen, I think there's a difference between getting out of the user's way and helping her do what she wants to do and insulting the user's intelligence by basing all UI design on the premise that the user is a moron who needs to be led by the hand through every task.

For example, there's a difference between the relatively unobtrusive help given by GNU nano (common keystrokes are shown at the bottom of the screen), and Microsoft Word (have you met Clippy yet?).

[poofyhairguy]

Lure the user in a windows-like interface, and then as soon as something is different, they're completely lost. That's why copying windows might start a vicious circle in my opinion.

That is 100% of the reason why I recommend Ubuntu over Kubuntu for new users. Default KDE might feel more "comfortable" and "familiar" at first, but then when it deviates from Windows the user gets frustrated. Gnome is different enough by default that the user has to notice "hey this is really different" and it forces them to think differently about how the system should work.

Those that get over the "Gnome Shock" -as I call it- will be more open to new ways to do old tasks. It gives Linux a distinct face different from Macs or Windows PCs. Those that can't get past the Gnome Shock won't probably like desktop linux in its current state over the long term anyway- why waste their time?

[lerrup]

Hey, no problem. There's another saying, which I quoted elsewhere in the original thread: "Make a system that even a fool can use, and only a fool will want to use it."

Well, no. It all depends what you want to do and shows the dangerous dichotomy at the heart of most IT development and linux in particular.

Most people want to accomplish the things that they are told they can accomplish with a tool. They do not care about learning anything and neither in an ideal world should they. The problem is that the tools they wish to use are designed by people who just love to tinker and fiddle with these things and cannot believe anybody wouldn't want to. Indeed, they think it is a moral imperative to find out and know how computers work.

Think about VCRs and how many are still flashing 00:00 as no one could figure out how to set the clock. Designed by engineers, used by non-engineers and the point of the device falling down the gap between them. So it is with software. Just because something is easy to use doesn't mean it can't be flexible; it just needs to be well designed.

[aysiu]

That is 100% of the reason why I recommend Ubuntu over Kubuntu for new users. Default KDE might feel more "comfortable" and "familiar" at first, but then when it deviates from Windows the user gets frustrated. I may be the only one stubbornly clinging to the premise that KDE is no more Windows-like than Gnome is. In fact, I found a lot of things more disorienting in KDE than in Gnome (as a former Windows user myself), not the least of which was single-clicking to open files, as opposed to double-clicking. Sure, you can change this setting, but single-clicking is the default for KDE.

[Wolki]

Ideally, you would take five-year-olds or six-year-olds who had little computer experience (as opposed to the five-year-olds who are mini-hackers in the making) and ask them to accomplish certain tasks.

Children don't always think and behave like adults. I'm not sure those results were really interchangeable, especially because theit level of and knowedge and skill (like reading) is likely to be less.
Adults who have never used computers are good subjects, but have their own problems (like sometimes having problems following the mouse movement with their eyes and so on.) and are becoming really rare.

Usability tests like these are very important, but flawed; Often, instead of discoverability (which is a good goal), it measures "intuitivity" (which is a fake goal). Then there's learnability (how well the program is suited to people becoming better at using it), error-stability (how likely and how destructive user errors are), and efficiency (how fast is usage of the program for an experienced user). All important goals; which one the most important depends on the task.

For example, Wizard-type programs are often discoverable and stable wrt errors, but not efficient and not really learnable. vi on the other hand is not discoverable and has a high chance of errors (due to the two-mode user interface), but is learnable and very efficient if you're used to it.

Usability tests like these (as far as I've seen, did not get to take a closer look yet) are very good to find problems in discoverablity and error stability, but less good at learnability (not enough time) or efficiency (no expert subjects).

And always take such tests with a grain of salt, mice are generally considered to be easy input mechanisms (and they are), but at the first usability test people tried to speak into them, or held it in one hand and moved the ball with the other... :)

[AgenT]

gnome should strive for true usability, things that make sense in a os-agnostic way, that doesn't depend on an user's previous experience with a specific system. No matter how well someone's English may be, they could not have said it any better than you.

[poofyhairguy]

I may be the only one stubbornly clinging to the premise that KDE is no more Windows-like than Gnome is. In fact, I found a lot of things more disorienting in KDE than in Gnome (as a former Windows user myself), not the least of which was single-clicking to open files, as opposed to double-clicking. Sure, you can change this setting, but single-clicking is the default for KDE.


I don't argue that KDE is more like Windows that Gnome in the hands of an experianced user. Only KDE can copy OSX's "global menubar."

I will contend that Kubuntu in its default mode it much more like Windows than default Ubuntu- if only because it has the "start menu" in the bottom left corner that cascades upwards. Since many users don't get too much deeper than their program menus, its very similiar as far as basic experiance goes. As soon as the person has to go to a different corner and sort through THREE menus in Gnome, they are forced to think "this is really different!"

[Lovechild]

Phen, I think there's a difference between getting out of the user's way and helping her do what she wants to do and insulting the user's intelligence by basing all UI design on the premise that the user is a moron who needs to be led by the hand through every task.

For example, there's a difference between the relatively unobtrusive help given by GNU nano (common keystrokes are shown at the bottom of the screen), and Microsoft Word (have you met Clippy yet?).

Clippy is of course classic symptom of bad usability, the system was to complex so they had to add a helper to guide you - instead of simplifying the environment.

Wizards are a step back not a step forward in terms of usability.

I think observing average users is important, I make it a point to sneak a peak at my mothers computing use as she is basically scared of the computer. Her pattern of use is very simple - if there's not an icon on the desktop the program she wants is not installed, and they must be clearly labelled like Internet, Email, Productivity applications (read: games), Write stuff (Openoffice writer).

Only recently after maybe 3 years of use has she ventured into the Kmenu - I have yet to convert my parents to GNOME, mainly because being Mandriva users for ease of use in terms of violating patent law and such it includes all they need - while dad is an old Solaris user he prefers stuff that just works out of the box.
She still thinks there's a massive difference between what she calls "the Internet" and her bookmarks and closing the Internet merely means closing down Firefox. The scary bit is that her PC knowledge is revered amongst her co-workers who are just about as unexperienced as users come (trust me their unions most succesful IT course... the "how to switch your computer on - a 3 hours course"). At least the days of her politely asking for help haven't been replaced with admissions of defeat or downright giving up yet.

Does this seem scary, do you think I made it up - well you are welcome to stop by my household and see for yourself.

The amount of users we are not reaching is vast because the entry level is way to high, luckily we are changing and it's not about emulating Windows or Mac OS X - it's about making the best possible system we can for users, the great common benefactor user, not the lowest common denominator - this means we cater to power users mainly via the extensive amount of Nautilus scripts and neatly tugged away settings that these people might find useful in their every day life.

For the first time user, GNOME is still not good enough unless they are willing to spend time learning the interface, and every input they can give us can make this all work better for everyone. Like the Evolution send mail thing.. why do we even have a button for that, clearly this should be an automated process with the time limit set in gconf and it should check of there's a connection using NetworkManager - totally transparent to the user. Would anyone object to this being the default setup.
Even in reality this is not really good enough, Evolution needs to be split up into an always on desktop service that merely uses libnotify to tell you that you can new mail and the composer needs to be seperate via a human top level interface using evolution-data-server. I want to go to the people menu mark Stormy Eyes->flame Stormy and it should tell me if Stormy is online using his IM and/or SIP contact so I could chat with him or call him if I liked.

[Wolki]

great post, Lovechild.


this means we cater to power users mainly via the extensive amount of Nautilus scripts and neatly tugged away settings that these people might find useful in their every day life.

Also, having programs that are extensible, similar to firefox with its extensions. Have all the required functionality and nothing more. then add the ones you want.


I want to go to the people menu mark Stormy Eyes->flame Stormy and it should tell me if Stormy is online using his IM and/or SIP contact so I could chat with him or call him if I liked.
And people not in your menu? have a general "mail people" entry?

Not a bad idea... I could imagine Topaz to support such an interface.

[aysiu]

I don't argue that KDE is more like Windows that Gnome in the hands of an experianced user. Only KDE can copy OSX's "global menubar."

I will contend that Kubuntu in its default mode it much more like Windows than default Ubuntu- if only because it has the "start menu" in the bottom left corner that cascades upwards. Since many users don't get too much deeper than their program menus, its very similiar as far as basic experiance goes. As soon as the person has to go to a different corner and sort through THREE menus in Gnome, they are forced to think "this is really different!" Except that KDE's default setting is single-click, which is kind of hard to avoid, as new users click on just about everything. Kubuntu also has the bouncing cursor when you launch apps (more of a Mac thing than a Windows thing), which is its default behavior. The truth is that Windows users who are used to Windows are likelier to discover that they can delete a panel in Gnome (say, the top one) than they are to discover that they can have a global menu in KDE.

[viniciustp]

Except that KDE's default setting is single-click, which is kind of hard to avoid, as new users click on just about everything. Kubuntu also has the bouncing cursor when you launch apps (more of a Mac thing than a Windows thing), which is its default behavior. The truth is that Windows users who are used to Windows are likelier to discover that they can delete a panel in Gnome (say, the top one) than they are to discover that they can have a global menu in KDE.

I believe you are right when u say that an average Windows user will likely find out it can chage the menu bar to the botton left corner. But, as a recently Ubuntu user used to windows, I can say that just because the bar isn't on the place it was "suposed to be", I feel i'm experiencing something different and new (better word is unusual). And that's what former Windows user want to find. A friendly desktop, but different from the one we came from. Sharp differences that can atract new users, and later reveal deeper differences, known only by experienced users.

[Lovechild]

great post, Lovechild.



Also, having programs that are extensible, similar to firefox with its extensions. Have all the required functionality and nothing more. then add the ones you want.


And people not in your menu? have a general "mail people" entry?

Not a bad idea... I could imagine Topaz to support such an interface.

I have hand drawn mockup for this idea but it's fairly radical and not without problems.. I'm not good with gimp so I doubt I'll get beyond scanning them and working with someone to get a good real life mockup - I concern myself with the concepts involved rather than the UI.
The basic concept would be replacing the 3 menus we have now with two: Tasks and People.

Tasks being formed as:
Tasks -> Wordprocessing -> Write new document
Tasks -> Wordprocessing -> Open existing document
Tasks -> Budgetting -> Cre...
Tasks -> Email -> Write new email
etc. with the top object being visible only to users with certain priviliages
Tasks - > Administration -> Add software
and so on and so forth.

The people menu would be formed as:
People -> Business contacts -> Mark Shuttleworth -> Email
People -> Business contacts -> Mark Shuttleworth -> Instant message (only visible if present)
People -> Business contacts -> Mark Shuttleworth -> Call (only visible if present)
People -> Business contacts -> Mark Shuttleworth -> Contact information (basically what would be his rollerdex entry in e-d-s)
People -> People who drink it in the jungle -> Stormy Eyes -> Email

etc.
and the top item being
Add new contact

To edit your contacts, drag them around, to delete drag to trash (I'm unsure about this one since I have some ideas to make the trash applet non presistant)

Obvious problems would be that the risk of the people list grows out of control is great, and it's fairly deeply nested which is sorta bad. Especially since we list offline people as well. Also this would require that you upon install or first run fill out a vCard to pass on to contacts so we could automatically populate the people list by just zoom around vCards (this might require a top level people object.. named Me)

As I said not all the issues are ironed out.

oh and please, Epiphany - so much prettier and faster - and equally extendable for the power user (being the key here - good defaults).

[poofyhairguy]

I believe you are right when u say that an average Windows user will likely find out it can chage the menu bar to the botton left corner. But, as a recently Ubuntu user used to windows, I can say that just because the bar isn't on the place it was "suposed to be", I feel i'm experiencing something different and new (better word is unusual). And that's what former Windows user want to find. A friendly desktop, but different from the one we came from. Sharp differences that can atract new users, and later reveal deeper differences, known only by experienced users.


Its amazing what a little menu placement can do. I originally felt comfortable with Linux when Red Hat used to force their Gnome to look like the Windows taskbar. In Core 3 or 2 (or whenever it was) when they switched to the default Gnome style like it is now, I switched to KDE for two weeks just because it freaked me out so much.

Oh course now Gnome is my fav. DE, tricked out in a crazy way!

[Wolki]

The basic concept would be replacing the 3 menus we have now with two: Tasks and People.

Hm... interesting stuff. I'm personally favoring document-based stuff over task-based, but I see the benefits.


Tasks -> Email -> Write new email

Wonder if this is a good Idea when this is usually done in the People menu? Maybe have a "Not in List" entry in the People menu. This would probably a good idea with the rising use of VoIP; I don't want to keep every number I call as a Contact. Maybe even combine this with the "Add new Contact" dialog? Could have discoverabilty problems though.


People -> Business contacts -> Mark Shuttleworth -> Email
People -> Business contacts -> Mark Shuttleworth -> Instant message (only visible if present)
People -> Business contacts -> Mark Shuttleworth -> Call (only visible if present)
People -> Business contacts -> Mark Shuttleworth -> Contact information


I don't like menus that change, because of habitualization. I'd suggest either greying unavailable options out, or at least keeping the always visible options on top so that as few items change theit place as possible.

Overall, I quite like the idea of a people menu, except for the nestedness which you note (one level too dep for what I like. Not sure right now how to fix it)


Also this would require that you upon install or first run fill out a vCard to pass on to contacts so we could automatically populate the people list by just zoom around vCards (this might require a top level people object.. named Me)


THere already is the About Me dialog, maybe something similar?


oh and please, Epiphany - so much prettier and faster - and equally extendable for the power user (being the key here - good defaults).

I know, but somehow I'm still using firefox for nostalgic reasons... Also, i'm still hoping the tab overflow problem will be sorted out.


Its amazinf what a little menu placement can do.

Every major change in the setup of the UI elements forces users to relearn their habits. They bypass conscious thought, which is a good thing since it's faster in daily use. One of the better aspects of Linux usability is that they support this better than windows (Application menus that change contents and order? please...) Some days after switching to Breezy had about 20 empty folders in my trash. Why? The desktop context menu entry where "Open Terminal" used to be was now "Create Folder". Of course, I rationally understood this after the first time it happened, but it took me about two weeks to get used to starting the terminal 3 entries lower...

If someone wants to test that, just change something in you UI. switch the panels, or set the window Decorations on the other side... quite an intersting effect :)

[Kerberos]

Clippy is of course classic symptom of bad usability, the system was to complex so they had to add a helper to guide you - instead of simplifying the environment.

Wizards are a step back not a step forward in terms of usability.

Thank god clippy is dead. I agree on wizards, but in some instances (such as the Windows scanner wizard) you can put a total newbie down in front of it, run them through it once and then just leave them - something that would never be possible with PS + Twain.

I also thing we should getting rid of the whole 'save to desktop' concept as it exists outside the common 'home directory' heirarchy and has no real purpose except for saving things you dont really have a place for or cant be bothered filing. That, and its muddled with icons a lot of the time (Recycle bin, drives, mounts etc) that are not files, but look like them. Mixing files, programs and commands in the same folder with the same icons and look (most of the time) isn't a good thing.

I think Firefox is a perfect example of a successful open source project, simple, easy to use, does one job and does it well but has massive functionality (web dev toolbar is a godsend) through addons that are trivially easy to add, update and remove. Mozilla barely made an impact on market share despite the fact it was technically exactly the same as Firefox, but as soon as they slimmed it down to basics and removed all the cruft it started getting enough marketshare to scare Microsoft.

The 'version 2' mentality that drives closed source development (usually over the edge) shouldn't affect Open Source, but unfortunatly it does. Basically companies stay in business by selling version 2, version 3 etc, each time trying to think up exciting addons to justify its release (look at how much junk is in office when all people want is wordpad with a spellchecker). Each iteration of the software adds more and more junk and complexity when in truth adding features usually doesn't actually improve software unless the features are truly innovative - the Firefox projects focus was mainly on removing and simplifying things and look how well its doing!

I dont think things should be dumbed down, and definatley not dumbed down to the point of removing power user tools (such as WinME got rid of the terminal and a dozen or so vital admin tools to the point where I refuse to work on WinME machines) but everything should be looked at carefully to see if it can be made more user friendly (such as making Ubuntu default to DHCP (and maybe feature default beside it), as well as removing the 'Is Configured' checkbox). Simple things like this can make all the difference and don't hurt anybody.

P.S. Microsoft has a 'desktop cleanup wizard' that dumps the crap from your desktop into a folder in your home dir every 30 days as a 'solution' to the desktop cruft problem. :D

[Lovechild]

personally I'm of the opinion that hardware should just work - I plug in a scanner, I fully expect it to just work. If I have to touch a configuration file, it's a failure. If I have to see a wizard, it's a failure.

[aysiu]

personally I'm of the opinion that hardware should just work - I plug in a scanner, I fully expect it to just work. If I have to touch a configuration file, it's a failure. If I have to see a wizard, it's a failure. On those grounds, I haven't found any operating system that works 100%. Nothing is perfect.

[asimon]

I like the idea of task based wizards. An example is a wizard in a photo manipulation program which guides you through the task of removing red eyes in your photos. Like an interactive tutorial.



personally I'm of the opinion that hardware should just work - I plug in a scanner, I fully expect it to just work. If I have to touch a configuration file, it's a failure. If I have to see a wizard, it's a failure.
Evidently a lot of wlan equipment manufacturers think the same. Otherwise they would come with more security by default, wouldn't they? Or do you think even a dialog requiering some password or similar is too much before a hardware does work?

[Stormy Eyes]

personally I'm of the opinion that hardware should just work - I plug in a scanner, I fully expect it to just work. If I have to touch a configuration file, it's a failure. If I have to see a wizard, it's a failure.

<sarcasm>May I recommend the Hogwarts brand, then? It works like magic!</sarcasm>

[Kerberos]

<sarcasm>May I recommend the Hogwarts brand, then? It works like magic!</sarcasm>
What, exactly, would be the problem with a system that automatically downloaded and installed device drivers (if it could) and if successful didn't disturb the user (such as USB Memory sticks + Cameras). Last time I tried to get an ADSL modem working on Linux the best I had was a link to the source code of the device driver. Without being able to rely on the fact that you can stick a memory stick in virtually any PC and it'll read it just like a floppy is why they are so popular. If everyone had to bring a device driver on a CD and install it before they could you'd hardly see them.

Computers, at the end of the day, are just labour saving devices. Most people dont want to spend any longer fiddling with it than absolutley necessary. Sure you can't make them totally foolproof but that doesn't stop you at least having it as a goal.

[Stormy Eyes]

What, exactly, would be the problem with a system that automatically downloaded and installed device drivers (if it could) and if successful didn't disturb the user (such as USB Memory sticks + Cameras).

I personally think it would be a security risk. How do you know the system's downloading a legitimate driver and not a trojan with a forged MD5 sig or PGP key?

[primeirocrime]

Computers, at the end of the day, are just labour saving devices. Most people dont want to spend any longer fiddling with it than absolutley necessary. Sure you can't make them totally foolproof but that doesn't stop you at least having it as a goal.
Ok, but a computer is a machine and just like a car there is the need to learn how to use it and I think this is the thing that is missing in this debate about usability. What is the problem of learnig how to use something, does it always have to be easy? If someone, maybe a 28 year old mother learns how to use a terminal and that way she can organize all of her kids photos with a few typed in commands, I think that is much better than going arround for hours with the point and click thing.

Maybe what we need is a change in mentality and not just a change in the Desktop. I don't mean that Gnome is perfect, far from it, but dumbing down is in my opinion frustrating. What if it was easy to learn how to read because they had dumbed down the words and syntax??? SMS heaven.

[Kerberos]

I personally think it would be a security risk. How do you know the system's downloading a legitimate driver and not a trojan with a forged MD5 sig or PGP key?
Don't you use synaptic/apt-get? Doesn't that present exactly the same security issues as this?

[poptones]

I personally think it would be a security risk. How do you know the system's downloading a legitimate driver and not a trojan with a forged MD5 sig or PGP key?

How do you know the software you choose to add via synaptic isn't doing the same thing? How many people are using the "unsupported" repositories where people are free to contribute code?

Computers need better security all around, but saying making things easier for the user is a security risk is just a lame excuse for not doing the work to make things easier for the user.

[Stormy Eyes]

Don't you use synaptic/apt-get? Doesn't that present exactly the same security issues as this?

Last time I checked, apt-get doesn't run unless I open up a terminal and punch in a command. Unless I misunderstood you; it seems like your driver download resembles Windows Update: it runs automatically without user interaction as soon as you plug something in. I don't think that anything that involves kernel space (like driver installation) should be done without user interaction. Call me paranoid if you like.

[Kerberos]

Last time I checked, apt-get doesn't run unless I open up a terminal and punch in a command.
And how does typing a command make you immune from any malware present in the code unless you audit it line-by-line as opposed to it doing it automatically?


Unless I misunderstood you; it seems like your driver download resembles Windows Update: it runs automatically without user interaction as soon as you plug something in. I don't think that anything that involves kernel space (like driver installation) should be done without user interaction. Call me paranoid if you like.
What has Windows Update got to do with this? Its an annoying IE only website. Windows occasionally tries to get a driver off the net but I've never seen it actually succeed.

I'd like to know how you fake a digital signature too, as I think thats a perfectly reasonable method of authenticating the validity of the archive. Warn (or require root p/w) if its not signed by a trusted source perhaps? There are lots of options.

[Stormy Eyes]

And how does typing a command make you immune from any malware present in the code unless you audit it line-by-line as opposed to it doing it automatically?

It doesn't, but if I choose to type in the command and it nukes my computer, it's my own fault for not being more paranoid.

[aysiu]

For me, too much automation is not a security risk but a functional risk. The more that's automated, the more it can break. On the other end, the more that's manual (depending on the user's capabilities), the more that can break.

In my ideal world, there's a happy medium. Things should be automatic enough to save some time and spare the user from knowing everything, but they should be manual enough to be stable. You don't have to crank your own engine in most cars these days, but I will say that driving stick shift has given me a lot more control over my car than driving automatic transmission used to. And imagine the nightmares if cars just drove themselves--you just type in a destination and sit there. Sure, if it worked, it'd be great, but when it malfunctioned, the accidents would be a lot worse than what we have now.

Also, there's a thin line between automation being a convenience and automation being an annoyance. Automation takes away choice--it assume it knows better than you do what you want to do. Sometimes it does. Sometimes it doesn't. If it doesn't, it sucks. What if it "automatically" pulled the wrong driver? It should still allow you to manually select which driver you want, if you want to override the selection, I say.

[poptones]

Its amazing what a little menu placement can do. I originally felt comfortable with Linux when Red Hat used to force their Gnome to look like the Windows taskbar. In Core 3 or 2 (or whenever it was) when they switched to the default Gnome style like it is now, I switched to KDE for two weeks just because it freaked me out so much.

Oh course now Gnome is my fav. DE, tricked out in a crazy way!
Its amazing what a little menu placement can do.

Menus are dead. This adherence to the old way of doing things is stifling progress. Think about how you do things - like, if you went to the store and the only things you could get were those you found on the shelf. You cannot ask anyone for anything, so if you cannot find it you are out of luck. This is why tech support has to field many calls - how do I do this?

Think of the little command line applet, but it accepts commands. "showme pictures of kate" or "play all my kate bush."

By extension, typing "send a mail to poofyhairguy@ubuntuforums.org" or "show today's email" takes how long? You have to type the email address anyway - or you could have some faves like "email joe." Witht he proper interface the user can set these common tasks into a menu rather than the factory.

My biggest peeve right now is having to deal with file save dialogs. So now I've got the basics of an automated filer; when I download stuff from the newsgroups it snoops on the *default* folder I have set and when a new file shows up it greps the pan cache for the message the attachment came from, files it away and sets the metadata form the content of the message. Eventually I'l' not only be able to tell you what music, images and videos I have, I can tell you when they were posted, by whom, and when I fetched them and rom what server. Same thing with torrents - why should the user have to screw with all that? Isn't this what computers were supposed to one day be about? Like my tivo knew I had a fondness for bjork, dean martin, and korean and chinese films, my pc should be able to figure out what music, images and videos I want and just download them for me as it gets the chance. I don't want to babysit a torrent that takes for days to grab - I jsut want to know when the next episode of Battlestar Galactica or the next CD of French lounge music arrives.

Making a discussion of usability about how the desktop looks is kind of silly. Sit a computer in front of a person, tell them "you tell it what you want to do here" and see how they proceed. Make the computer interactive enough and the parser intelligent enough ot understand them, and you've got a usable system.

[Brunellus]

Making a discussion of usability about how the desktop looks is kind of silly. Sit a computer in front of a person, tell them "you tell it what you want to do here" and see how they proceed. Make the computer interactive enough and the parser intelligent enough ot understand them, and you've got a usable system.

hey...sounds like the CLI!

[aysiu]

Like my tivo knew I had a fondness for bjork, dean martin, and korean and chinese films, my pc should be able to figure out what music, images and videos I want and just download them for me as it gets the chance. And people say Linux isn't user-friendly.

http://www.tivo.com/linux/linux.asp

[poptones]

Only when the CLI knows "play all my kate bush" means something more like "locate -r /somepath.*kate.*bush.*[mp3,ogg,flac] >>/tmp/playlist;xmms /tmp/playlist"

[Kerberos]

As a side note I always tell people 'dont worry about anything its impossible to break it' whenever they use a computer that belongs to me. People are paranoid they will mess a computer up and not know how to fix it and as a result are not aventurous or risk takers. Removing the fear is a key part in computer usage and putting the user in a positive and confident frame of mind is one of the most important things (in my mind) when educating people. Once they have a confidence to explore they will learn more and more.

Discoverable just means 'obvious' anyway. A printer/network/program setup dialogue box that clearly explains what each box is for, including sensible defaults and basically not presenting anything that cannot be figured out in context unless absolutley necessary. The options DHCP (Automatic) or Static compared to DHCP or Static would be much more intuitive. Same goes for optional dialogue boxes and random text fields.

As an example the Ubuntu 'Connect to Server' dialogue box has a box marked 'User Name' and another box immediatley below marked 'Name to use for connection'. I can figure out the 'User Name' box, but the 'Name to use for connection' box is a mystery - is that my username, the one on the computer I'm connecting to or a symbolic name for the connection. You just can't tell and would probably have to look it up.

[aysiu]

As a side note I always tell people 'dont worry about anything its impossible to break it' whenever they use a computer that belongs to me. People are paranoid they will mess a computer up and not know how to fix it and as a result are not aventurous or risk takers. I'm curious as to how you have your computer set up so that this is something you can tell people. Is it a guest account that has access to only its own settings and no files? I guess that could work. Maybe I'm dumb, but I usually let guests just use my own account, and they could do plenty of damage (delete all my music and photos). Even on a guest account, though, you can screw up external media (in Windows, Mac, or Linux) if you don't "safely remove," "eject," or "unmount" it before pulling it out. It won't screw up the computer, but it could easily screw up the external media.

[Wolki]

By extension, typing "send a mail to poofyhairguy@ubuntuforums.org" or "show today's email" takes how long? You have to type the email address anyway

You might be interesten in Archy (http://rchi.raskincenter.org/aboutrchi/index.php). While It's not exactly what you describe, it does have no menus. Instead of the system parsing "Send Mail to poofyhairguy@ubuntuforums.org, you select poofyhairguy@ubuntuforums.org and <command>-SendMail (in principle, not an actual example). Quite interesting and visionary stuff, but completely different from computing the way we're used to.

[mstlyevil]

My biggest peeve right now is having to deal with file save dialogs. So now I've got the basics of an automated filer; when I download stuff from the newsgroups it snoops on the *default* folder I have set and when a new file shows up it greps the pan cache for the message the attachment came from, files it away and sets the metadata form the content of the message. Eventually I'l' not only be able to tell you what music, images and videos I have, I can tell you when they were posted, by whom, and when I fetched them and rom what server. Same thing with torrents - why should the user have to screw with all that? Isn't this what computers were supposed to one day be about? Like my tivo knew I had a fondness for bjork, dean martin, and korean and chinese films, my pc should be able to figure out what music, images and videos I want and just download them for me as it gets the chance. I don't want to babysit a torrent that takes for days to grab - I jsut want to know when the next episode of Battlestar Galactica or the next CD of French lounge music arrives.



I have a real problem with that kind of automation. I just do not like a machine trying to determine what I like. I am not a big country music fan, yet I like the occasional song from say Kenny Chesney or Toby Keith. So now I have a computer that assumes because I like one or two country songs that I automatically like all country or simmular artist. I like Geen Day but I am otherwise not a huge punk fan. So now because I like Green Day or the Sex Pistols, my computer will automatically assume I like all punk. Just use Yahoo radio for a preview of what I am talking about. My taste vary therfore I prefer a Menu where I have a choice of options instead of some pre programed machine telling me what I should like based on my past choices. I used music as a example, but this applies to document formats, applications ,games and ect. As for Tivo, I delete way more than I ever watch that is chosen by Tivo based on my past viewing history. You just cannot put people in some box and expect them to be happy. A little automation is ok, but I still want my menu and choices available when I do not like what the computer picked for me.

[Wolki]

What, exactly, would be the problem with a system that automatically downloaded and installed device drivers (if it could) and if successful didn't disturb the user (such as USB Memory sticks + Cameras).

Not much. But what, exactly, is wrong with a system that contains the available drivers automatically and is updated often enough (say, like 6 months?) to contain everything nicely tested in a resonable amount of time?

Also, USB sticks work so well because people agreed on a standard. Not all cameras do, but many. This doesn't happen that often because it goes against lockin tactics.


Computers, at the end of the day, are just labour saving devices. Most people dont want to spend any longer fiddling with it than absolutley necessary. Sure you can't make them totally foolproof but that doesn't stop you at least having it as a goal.

No doubt. The problem is that most people have a limited concept of how much fiddling is necessary, that's why they often choose uneffective solutions.

[Lovechild]

Evidently a lot of wlan equipment manufacturers think the same. Otherwise they would come with more security by default, wouldn't they? Or do you think even a dialog requiering some password or similar is too much before a hardware does work?

I really don't see the issue, I plugin a WiFi card - HAL detects it, setups the driver should it be available - if it isn't GNOME will notifty me that a network card has been detect but fireware needs to be installed _click here for more information_ - this is needed as we cannot, of course, ship such things, where the drivers open source.. which on the whole is all I care about as I see close source as being counter productive and insecure, this wouldn't even be seen.
Now NetworkManager handles the setup of the network, it scans for available networks, selects the best one and if it's password protected kindly asks me to provide the passphrase for the network.

I really don't see the insecurity here. NM has an excellent interface and I don't see why one couldn't default to using encryption and storing passwords in the gnome-keyring application. (I'm sure KDE, although I find it utterly irrelevant, has similar features). My OS should already setup a default firewall and have good proactive security in the form of things like FORTIFY_SOURCE, Exec-shield and propolice - SELinux compartmentalises the desktop so should the unfortunate happen, the violating party will only own a specific small domain rather than the entire system. This will all take a lot of work, the entire system is maybe.. 1 year out in the future if serious effort is put into getting it to a testable stage - Dapper is opening soon hopefully they will take security seriously for this cycle, Fedora Core has been working on stuff like this for a while - I really don't think it's outlandish to think that we can make this work well and securely.

Yes I believe in the Hogwarts brand, because it works like magic, but it isn't magic - it's the result of good engineering and good testing.

[poptones]

I just do not like a machine trying to determine what I like. I am not a big country music fan, yet I like the occasional song from say Kenny Chesney or Toby Keith. So now I have a computer that assumes because I like one or two country songs that I automatically like all country or simmular artist. I like Geen Day but I am otherwise not a huge punk fan. So now because I like Green Day or the Sex Pistols, my computer will automatically assume I like all punk.

That is a *really* bad argument for two reasons:

you do not even know the algorithms being used here.
it's not something being forced on anyone. In fact, it's not even developed enough I could share it with you if I wanted to... so really, it's sort of moot.

What about (gee) just giving it a list? In my case it's not even to that point yet - I still have to tell it *what* I want, it just handles the getting and filing and metadata for me. Everything that appears in certain folders gets magically filed into an indexed database. Same for gimp images - I never "save" I always "save as" and it goes into one bookmarked folder, then gets whisked away. The image properties tell the database all it needs to know when I want to open the image next time. And I can either open the latest version, or the one I started three days ago...

"Automation" is what computers are for. Do you also create svg images with a text editor and refuse to use an app like muine because it "automatically" goes on the web and downloads album cover art? The fact it does a poor job at times and half the artwork (at least for the music I have) has to be found anyway doesn't diminish the work that it *does* complete with success.

Archy is interesting, but Raskin's stuff doesn't really fit what I'm talking about. It's all text oriented (and I'm not - I'm just about typing because it gives more privacy than actually talking to tell the computer what to do) and Raskin strickes me as some old school geek who's determined to convince the world that bafflingly complicated Wordstar type macros are still the best way to edit text. Editing text is only a small part of what I do with my computer - I create videos and images and remix other people's stuff and I want an easy way not only to do those things, but to passively *enjoy* my collection as well. To me a computer isn't just a programmng console or an email machine, it's a digital scrapbook. it's my tv set, my "radio" - it's the only home entertainment appliance I have and sometimes I jsut want to kick back and enjoy the show. The stuff Raskin is working on now has about zero application to this motif.

[Kerberos]

I'm curious as to how you have your computer set up so that this is something you can tell people. Is it a guest account that has access to only its own settings and no files? I guess that could work. Maybe I'm dumb, but I usually let guests just use my own account, and they could do plenty of damage (delete all my music and photos). Even on a guest account, though, you can screw up external media (in Windows, Mac, or Linux) if you don't "safely remove," "eject," or "unmount" it before pulling it out. It won't screw up the computer, but it could easily screw up the external media.
Its not that I am inviting them to maliciously damage it, its more a reassurance that they (unless they try) cannot screw anything up just through inadvertant use alone - and if they do I can't get annoyed as I told them they couldn't.

I also run a net cafe, and there I've just set it up so that My Documents, Desktop and a few key folders that matter are stored on a secondary partition. The primary partition has software on it that basically sets the partition to read only (except you can delete/add/edit) so that any changes made during the session are lost as soon as the pc is rebooted, unless they reside on the secondary partition. You literally can't screw them up no matter how hard you try. Practically zero maintainance too. :)

For the record the Windows limited user account might as well not exist. Its broken to the point its useless for absolutley everything (in my experiance anyway).

[Stormy Eyes]

A little automation is ok, but I still want my menu and choices available when I do not like what the computer picked for me.

I agree. If I want automation, I'll write a shell script and set up a cron job. I only want my computer to make one assumption: that I know what I'm doing.