Re: [Usability]Attempt at constructive criticism - "Why Gnome 2 sucks for me"

[Roberto Rosselli Del Turco <rosselli ling unipi it>]

Daniel Borgmann wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-08-29 at 16:01, Bart Kelsey wrote:
>
>>Making an interface overly simple may
>>be attractive to new users, but as they start to get comfortable,
>>they'll wonder why they can't change the little things about it that
>>annoy them.
>
> [...]
>
>>At any rate, I'm all about simplifying Gnome's interface, but I'm really
>>sad to see that done at the expense of power users.  What's really wrong
>>with an "Advanced Preferences" dialog?  It lets the inexperienced users
>>stay with the simple, default interface, and at the same time allows the
>>power users to tweak the UI the way they like it.
>
>
>
> Simple answer: There shouldn't be "little things that annoy them". If

I really hope GNOME isn't headed that way, I was under the impression
that it aims at reaching as great an audience as possible. And anyway,
does anybody remember Microsoft Bob? ;)

[...]

> 2) Developers try to find good compromises and the best way to do
> things.

Undisputably a sound method, provided they also listen to their users.

[...]

> productive), I felt stupid when I noticed that I could get more work
> done faster and also have more fun with a system like Windows. That was
> simply because it "just worked" and didn't get into my way. The Windows
> developers created a system that worked well from the beginning, even if
> not always most efficient. Of course after a while I missed the free
> software world and to my pleasent surprise I found out that GNOME was
> now developed into something similar, partly even more convenient than a
> Windows desktop. It is designed not to get into my way and just be
> efficient and convenient to use. I love it. And even if I don't agree
> with everything (for example I'm not a big fan of the Windows-style
> window border button layout of Metacity ;)), it's just a pleasure to
> use. Much more than a desktop that makes everything configurable and
> fakes me into the believe that I could do everything that i want.

I'm not sure I'm following you here: what's wrong in a system that
basically works *and* can be configured in greater detail by those who
are interested in doing so? If you're satisfied with the default
settings that's great, go be productive; but if I'm not, it can be
severely frustrating not having the opportunity to modify my work
environment.

I'll ask again: provided that a compromise between interface
consistency/linearity and configuration options _has_ to be reached,
what's so wrong with an "Advanced Preferences" dialog?

> This is why Gnome 2 rocks for me.
> Of course there are people who have really unusual behaviours and refuse
> to learn something new or people who simply enjoy spending a lot of
> there time configuring the desktop. Those will be pissed, sure. But in
> my experience it's wrong that those are the majority of all "power
> users". Most of them usually understand the value of all this, once
> somebody explains it to them or they get more used to it. They are just
> shocked because there are so few preferences but then after a while they
> realise, that they also need much less preferences to make the desktop
> usable for them.
 >
> And please consider this: There is KDE and several other free software
> projects that go the "make everything configurable and let the user
> create his own GUI experience" way. So GNOME is the only free choice for
> people like me, which enjoy something that just works. It should at
> least deserve a chance and not be reverted, just because some people are
> afraid of change. And there are _always_ some vocal people who are
> against change. You can't make severe progression without pissing some
> of those people off. :/

I hope that we're not trying to be cured of "featuritis" only to catch
"dumbeddownitis". Not only inexperienced and advanced users (whatever
these labels may mean to you) can benefit from the same environment
IMHO, but I think it would be unfair to trade GNOME 1.4 users' needs
(*existing*, real users), and other possible "advanced" users as well,
because GNOME 2 is targeting millions of "I like it as it is", hands
tied Windows users, or corporate users who are not supposed to play with
their desktop. It's just a bit too easy to dismiss the former as "people
with unusual behaviours" (boy, that sounds weird ;) Have ever considered
that most of these "tinkering fanatics" settle down with their choice
after having configured the desktop the way they like it, and won't
change it for a long time? That's the way it worked for me, at least.

Again, if it is possible to meet the goal of a clean and functional
desktop without disappointing those who might be interested in advanced
configuration options, why not do it?

 > "If it aint broke don't fix it" simply isn't true as good as it might
 > sound. If it would be true, we would still travel on horses.

"Give him another 500 mg thorazin"(*) sounds even worse ... :)

> Please let's not flame about this, because if anything is taking away
> the fun of GNOME for me, it's those flames. :)

No flames at all, I've just begun playing with GNOME 2 and, as you may
have suspected, I'm just a bit disappointed in discovering that you can
do less things than in 1.4. Which is not the same as forgetting all the
good things that GNOME 2 brings, and all the hard work that developers
have poured into it. Nobody can deny that it can be improved, though,
which is the goal of this and other discussion forums I believe.

(*) Mel Brooks, Life Stinks (if I'm not wrong ...)

Ciao

--
Roberto Rosselli Del Turco      e-mail:	rosselli cisi unito it
Dipartimento di Scienze			rosselli ling unipi it
del Linguaggio			Then spoke the thunder	DA
Universita' di Torino		Datta: what have we given?  (TSE)

   Hige sceal the heardra,     heorte the cenre,
   mod sceal the mare,       the ure maegen litlath.  (Maldon 312-3)