RE: A call to action

[Jorg Rathlev <joerg jrsoftware de>]

> > Look at ms windows.  _Horrible_ design compared to Apple. It sells well
> > though.
>
> True, but consider, MS has never given any guidance to Windows
> developers about how the UI should be done. I think that if (when) we
> create a guidelines document we'll be in a much stronger position than
> MS in terms of UI. I believe that with a set of possible solutions,
> the UI will be a strong factor governing how people choose. Windows,
> on the other hand, has been dominated by MS Office (which doesn't even
> follow MS's own UI conventions).
>
> Perhaps I'm just an optimist.

MS gives guidance about UI design to developers, they've published a book
called "The Windows Interface Guidelines for Software Design". It's actually
not a bad book - though the Apple guidelines are slightly better.

The main reasons why the UIs of most Windows applications are better than
those of many Unix applications are IMHO the following:

1. Windows developers are working with Windows, MS Office and Visual Studio,
which have good (though not perfect) and mostly consistent user interfaces
and can serve as an orientation and reference.

On Unix, there is no equally good UI. While developers can still look at
Windows or MacOS for reference, they don't constantly work with those
systems. Most developers design applications so that they can use them
easily, and if they work with Microsoft applications a lot then they will
automatically design thir own applications similar to MS products - which is
the UI style that most cutomers, too, are used to.

2. Companies force developers to foucs on usability issues because there's a
strong competition concerning usability, there are more novice users, and
the application might not receive a "Windows compatible" logo if it doesn't
follow the Windows UI guidelines.

Obviously, we cannot force OpenSource developers to do anything they don't
want to. But part of the problem could be solved by distributors if they for
example decided not to include applications that don't comply with some
requirements like, for example, the GNOME UI guidelines (which are still to
be written).

Distributors are currently delivering as much software as possible (some
distributions include 6 or more CDs), though many applications are yet not
even beta versions and/or have a horrible user interface. Personally, I'd
prefer to have a "quality" distribution with fewer applications. (To save
download time for those who are interested in the beta software, it might
still be included - more quality-focused default selections during setup
would lead to the same result.)

> > Yes, it is an uphill battle.  That's why the process for
> implementing GNOME
> > ui design should be written down and agreed to by all.
>
> But that's not the way open-source works. If they did agree to it then
> we wouldn't need them to agree to it, if they don't agree to it then
> they don't agree to it. Essentially, developers do what they want.

Yes. As a developer, I don't want to give anyone the possibility to force me
to do something I don't want to. If someone sends me an improvement or makes
a suggestion that seems reasonable, I'll implement it. If it does not
convince me, I won't. If that causes a distributor not to include my app in
the default installation, fine, that's my problem (or maybe theirs), I'll
have to take care of marketing myself. But it's *me* who decides.

Free software without free developers who have the freedom to break the
rules is impossible, and would slow down innovation.


Jorg