Re: [Usability] Default document formats

[Phil Bull <philbull gmail com>]

On Thu, 2005-09-22 at 16:39 -0400, michael chang wrote:

> If you ever used Microsoft Word or Corel Wordperfect after 1995 or so,
> (even to this very day) and exchanged documents, you'll realize that
> they always listed the formats exactly this way.  Nothing has changed;
> Microsoft Word does the same thing.  If we're aiming for
> compatability, shouldn't our file types list look like theirs?  Anyone

Why should we copy a broken design?

> Note that OOo has converted to the .odt (I think that's the extension)
> (OASIS OpenDocument) Format...
> 
> And in this case:
> 
> Normal Document
> Microsoft-Compatable
> Corel-Compatable
> Template
> Old Openoffice Document
> Old Openoffice Template
> Old Staroffice Document
> Old Staroffice Template

I was thinking more along the lines of having three commonly used
formats, then the rest (legacy/compatibility/less common) in an 'Other
Document Types' dialog. The most commonly used document types for most
people using OO.org (I'm guessing) would be ODT, DOC and a template
format. To me, these seem like sensible defaults.

Old Openoffice, Corel documents etc would probably never be used by the
vast majority, so I don't really see a need to have them always
displayed in the list. It feels cluttered.

Obviously there will be cases where the defaults should be different; if
your organisation has switched to OO.org from Corel, you may want to use
the Corel formats by default. So it might be an idea to have
configurable defaults. But there's no reason to show ~20 document
formats by default, ~15 of which most users will never ever use!

> S/he can always use a typewriter.  AFAIK, setting up a printer on
> Linux in and of itself can be time-consuming and difficult, even when
> you DO know how to use Linux.

All of my printers have installed very easily. However, HPs are very
well supported in Linux.

> Don't get me wrong, GNOME, Linux, and Openoffice (and Abiword) are all
> awesome.  But I don't know what you're calling a "Novice" -- I've seen
> a 3 year old know the differences between formats, and I've seen
> anyone who needs a different format is often told that in advance, or
> told to change the format and send again.  And then there's always the
> fact that OO.o works on Windows, too.

The original poster's parents didn't know the appropriate format to use
to share their files with other people; they weren't told in advance
what format they needed to use, they just accepted the default. At least
by improving the format chooser, they'd maybe have a chance of finding
the right format themselves without having to call for help.

There are very few format choosers out there that I would consider to be
easy to use. Just take a look at the GIMP's - there are almost 40
options! Hands up who's ever saved a 'C Source Code Header' from the
GIMP...

This is why I think it's worth rationalising (and shortening!) format
lists and maybe providing some better guidance in the HIG for this sort
of thing.

-- 
Phil Bull
www.livejournal.com/users/philbull/