[Usability] ThreePointZero worries

[Estradin Solaris <estradin gmail com>]

Hi,

I have been reading the 3.0 roadmap for Gnome, and I found it quite
worrying. Essentially it talks about a radical departure from the
desktop metaphor. I don't feel that is quite right. [1]

The desktop metaphor is quite useful this days, not for its inherent
qualities but because it is familiar. It is no longer a metaphor of a
physical desktop, it is a computer desktop per se. Most people, even
those unfamiliar with computers, can tell what a desktop is, what the
trash can does and what folders are used for. It might not be the best
approach, but it is a familiar one. Innovation cannot be held at the
cost of usability.

There are also talks about a completely user-configurable interface.
Let me quote:

>Instead of having an 'open' item on a file menu, you have a File
interface class >with an 'open' method. You could use inheritance, so
you have a base set of >generic file actions in a file class that
applications can inherit from the base >environment, and easily
extend. Savvy users could also extend these classes >and make their
own classes by mixing and matching actions using a simple >dynamic
language. Say I have an image resizing action, and a 'save as' action.
>As a user, I could make a new action that resizes an image and then
outputs it in >a particular image format (say jpg for the sake of
argument) using a particular >programmatically designated file naming
nomenclature. Then, I could use this >new action to rapidly perform
the other actions. The system would automatically >integrate local
user actions into it's interface.

>From a developer's point of view, this is heaven. From a user's point
of view, it is hell. People want their software to work for them, not
to work for their software. I think this kind of behaviour and
flexibility is already covered by very mature UNIX utilities such as
Emacs. That's what the command line and classic unix apps are for. The
Desktop is there in order to have something that just-works. And
things should be easy to support. If someone asks 'how do I...' the
answer cannot be 'it depends on how you configured your <insert app
here>'.

Not all is bad in ThreePointZero. Although I'm not quite a believer in
the document-centric approach (not everything is a document, but
everything is a file), i think a hybrid approach could near
perfection. The existence of object apps functioning transparently to
the user (EyeOfGnome is the example they use) is quite a good idea...
for certain apps. I am a user of professional applications (Audio/Midi
sequencers, illustration and imaging software) and I am positive that
they would not work this way. The application is in many cases almost
an OS in itself, providing its own file manager, its own interface, in
order to preserve a workflow that is critical. You take that away from
Photoshop or Logic and they're dead.

Now let me quote again for my favorite part:
>Application Structure: Applications in it current form scatter all
over the system >when being installed. Stuff gets in /bin, /sbin,
/usr/share and wherever. When >looking at an application as a single
object, apps should be in a single file (much >like an rpm, except
that the files won't be distributed across the system). >Applications
can indicate what they are capable of in a capabilities.xml or
>something like that so that the system can index which apps can do
what. This >will also make it very simple to deactivate a app without
deinstalling it. When >apps are a single (archive) file, they can very
easily be distributed, installed >(simply put it in the apps dir using
the "Application Manager"), deactivated (click >on "deactivate" in the
"Application Manager") of removed (you get the idea). >Another good
point on this is that this makes security much easier, you can >simply
allow or disallow rights to apps based on their codebase since all
bins of >an app are in or under 1 dir/archife. Image how easy it would
be to limit bandwith >to apps, to allow/deny internet access, to
allow/deny users to use the app.

>Desktop structure: The current generation of desktops really suck
hard imho... >why on earth does an app need a notification place when
it allready has a icon >placed in my menu? It would be really simple
to use an icon both for starting the >app and for notifications. This
way my mail client could even tell me that i should >start him because
there is mail waiting for me. In other words: i see the modern
>desktop (ignoring 3D ideas) having 1 menubar-kind of thing, showing
important >icons, which are also used to display notification from
these apps. Settings for all >apps could me managed by a "Settings
Manager" because all apps have a >uniform way of storing their
preferences. (See Application Structure). This kills the >need for
settings-menu's in apps, and also voids the need to start the app
whitout >opening an actual object (picture or music file) which would
be confusing for the >user.

I totally agree with this, except in the settings manager part. Such
an application would surely be bloated and too complex. Options must
be given to the user within their context and in small doses. Too many
options are confusing.

Sorry for being lengthy...



[1] http://live.gnome.org/ThreePointZero