Re: Usability studies

[Ryan Peters <sloshy45 sbcglobal net>]

On 05/12/2011 02:28 AM, Tim Murphy wrote:
> I don't think this will change anyone's mind and I hope that it is not 
> annoying but I think it might be worth a read:
>
> http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3933061/Are-Usability-Studies-Hurting-the-Free-Desktop.htm
>
> Regards,
>
> Tim
> --
> You could help some brave and decent people to have access to 
> uncensored news by making a donation at:
>
> http://www.thezimbabwean.co.uk/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnome-shell-list mailing list
> gnome-shell-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
While the article was... interesting... I found a few notable problems 
and false assumptions in it that disprove it's position:

1. "But the danger of studying too much usability theory is not just the 
temptation to assume infallibility."

Last I checked, GNOME never only allowed "one way" to use the desktop. 
Even with GNOME 3, which I admit isn't the most customizable thing in 
the world (though I don't mind), there's quite a few ways to use your 
desktop. You could go mouse-only, keyboard-only, keyboard+mouse... You 
can use the Activities overlay, Alt+Tab, the dock, switching desktops 
and then clicking the window you want... You're not locked into one 
specific way to use the desktop, and not being infinitely customizable 
(what is?) isn't evidence that it does.

2. "For example, in trying to make the launching of applications easier 
and freer of error, both eliminated the classic main menu in favor of 
displays that occupy the entire desktop. This arrangement does improve 
the launching of applications -- but it does so at the cost of obscuring 
the windows that are already open and requiring far more clicks and 
movements away from the active window than the main menu ever did."

GNOME 3 still has an applications menu, as does Unity (I believe, never 
actually used it much). The problem with that assertion is that GNOME 3 
makes launching applications, dare I say, *faster*. You have a favorites 
list that's quickly accessible (and more powerful since it lets you 
choose where you open the program), you have a search bar like GNOME Do, 
Alt+F2, *and* the traditional menu. Also, I read a post on Planet GNOME 
a while ago that said how GNOME 2 solved some problems that the GNOME 2 
applications menu had on low-precision input devices, which can be read 
here:

3. "...a desktop for a smaller screen works better on a larger screen 
than one intended for a larger screen works on a smaller. Yet it is also 
true that, at the same time, what works on a small screen can seem 
cramped and clumsy on a large screen."

Which is why GNOME 3 was designed to adapt. For evidence of that, simply 
open the Activities overlay and notice how it fills up the entire 
screen, making the most of it's space on any desktop. Likewise, the 
panel for GNOME 3 is minimal and tiny, making it appropriate for all 
devices, big and small. If I'm not mistaken (and I might be since I 
don't use Evolution), but Evolution has a small-screen UI that can be 
enabled with the "--express" parameter, and should enable itself on a 
small screen (I read this somewhere can cannot verify right now).

4. "...if the mythical newcomer does exist, elements such as GNOME's 
overview screen or Unity's launcher, with its mixture of favorite and 
running apps, are even more likely to confuse them than anything in 
GNOME 2.32."

My family, the most computer-ignorant people I know (heheh), love GNOME 
3. They think it's simpler to use and looks much nicer. They learned how 
to use it very quickly as there was very little to explain (unlike, say, 
Windows, from my experience at least). Dare I say that I believe that 
GNOME 3 is easier to use than Windows, not from the "design", but from 
my family as evidence. If you can use Windows 7, then GNOME 3 should be 
even easier to learn. Of course, your mileage may vary on this point, 
but the author's claim has no experience or evidence behind it.

5. "The main point of invoking this alleged new user --however obliquely 
-- seems to be to provide another level of rationalization for design 
decisions, especially ones that remove features that more advanced users 
prefer, such as customizable panels with applets."

*ahem*... Repeat after me: features being removed is not always a bad 
thing. Sometimes things are automated instead of removed, which I can 
only see as a good thing. With the right reasoning behind it, it can 
make the desktop simpler to use in the long term and reduce bugs. For 
example, his "customizable panels" example was one of the strangest, 
buggiest things I've ever had to use. When you add an applet, you have 
to drag it *exactly* where you want it and then lock it down. If your 
monitor changes size or rotation (say, external monitor for example), 
then the applets will likely have moved to somewhere else. Sometimes 
when starting up my desktop, I found that my applets randomly decided to 
change positions on their own. I should never have to debug that, and 
GNOME 3's panel is much simpler to manage. It also decreases support 
costs, as everybody will now have a similar desktop to work with, unlike 
in GNOME 2, where users could have one of a million possible configurations.

6. "The simplification of the panel, the repositioning of the task bar, 
Unity's title bar buttons on the left, GNOME 3's overview -- all these 
innovations and more not only change navigation on the desktop, but do 
so while not allowing any alternatives."

The paragraph before this one in the article talked about how Windows is 
so familiar to users. If you're switching to a new desktop, why would 
you expect it to be the same? Familiar isn't always better, and refusing 
to learn how to use a new UI just shows ignorance. If my family can 
learn how to use it just fine, then what's your point? Also, does 
Windows allow any alternatives? No? Then how can you compare GNOME 3 to 
Windows? GNOME, instead of giving you a mountain of options and saying 
"make yourself a usable desktop", tries to make there be no *need* to 
customize it much. Of course some customization is necessary and valid, 
but blaming a project for not being infinitely customizable is just 
illogical.

7. "An over-emphasis and over-application of usability principles is not 
the only reason that users object to new desktops. A large reason is 
probably a reluctance to change."

*cough* I think this mailing list is more familiar with that than you are ;)

8. "In this respect, I cannot help but noticing that KDE remains the 
major desktop least affected by the arrogance of new experts. 
Admittedly, some KDE developers do have design expertise, but, so far as 
I can see, that expertise does not generally form the justification for 
design directions. Instead, KDE still seems inclined to add features 
because individual developers would like to use them, and to allow 
alternatives."

Do you remember KDE4? Also, what you see as "allowing alternatives", I 
see as "not having a standard direction". GNOME 3 isn't as customizable 
as KDE is, but that would increase support costs, bugs, and usability 
concerns. Also, asserting that the designers here are "arrogant" is 
rather unfounded.

9. "No one would advocate a situation in which menu structures were 
different in each application, or the keystrokes for copying and pasting 
were different. All the same, it sometimes seems that uncritical 
acceptance of usability principles in the free desktop might be less 
rationale than is usually claimed -- and, if not carefully watched, as 
much an obstacle to the development of the free desktop as a help."

Last I checked, GNOME tries to keep the desktop very consistent within 
it's core applications at least; others are encouraged to abide by their 
standards. Infinite choice is not always a good thing. The author 
forgets that some users, like me and my family, don't want to *have* to 
think about how my desktop is designed. With KDE or other desktops, I 
think, "would this work well?", "would this option improve anything?", 
"is this widget necessary?", but with GNOME 3 I feel more at-ease as I 
don't have to wonder if my desktop is as efficient as possible. Some 
people don't tweak with their desktops constantly and want a nice, 
stable experience, which GNOME 3 provides by actually having a solid 
design direction, like Windows or Mac.

Has this author even tried to use GNOME 3 for more than 10 (or 30) 
minutes? I'm sure that if he tried to learn how to use the desktop most 
efficiently, he would enjoy it at least slightly.

    - Ryan Peters