4 ms·

Every hour spent developing these features is an hour not-spent developing real features that differentiate your application from its competitors. Besides, if

by 0x44 18y ago

Every hour spent developing these features is an hour not-spent developing real features that differentiate your application from its competitors. Besides, if the features are so easy to implement, surely you have a patch ready for submission.

krschultz 18y ago
Wrong, every hour that helps fix a show stopper bug for 90% of people is better than implementing a new feature for 10% or less of the people. If something you did every day didn't work under Ubuntu you wouldn't switch. If something that Windows didn't have, didn't exist in Ubuntu either, you wouldn't notice. A lot of these are not simple fixes either, you are not going to change the DVD codec legality with an hour of hacking. Most of the remaining sticky issues seem to be either polishing some things off or legal/commercial reasons. You'd think with Dell getting behind Ubuntu more would have changed, but so far not so much.
- 0x44 18y ago
  Sure, but I don't know that I'd characterize the lack of tool-tip bubbles as a show-stopping bug.
  - dgabriel 18y ago
    For you, it's not (I'm talking usability for novice to intermediate level users, not just specifically tool-tips). If you're looking for wide adoption of this technology by current Windows users, it's showstopper.
    - 0x44 18y ago
      Lack of usability for novices and intermediate users should not be considered a bug unless ease of use for novices and intermediate users was a planned or expected function of the software. If an author writes software for experts, one shouldn't expect the software to cater to the needs of novices. Usability tweaks to ease use for a class of user should be feature requests. So a hypothetical developer of open source software has to choose between spending her time developing software features that have no fundamental use to her, or spending it developing features that are exciting, interesting, or are otherwise fulfilling.
      - dgabriel 18y ago
        I don't think you should be voted down (unfair!), because I see where you're coming from. A developer wants to build neat stuff that he or she finds useful. Developers don't want to spend their time doing routine, boring, or trivial stuff, and some of the usability requirements for non-expert users can seem to be just that. The rejoinder is that wide adoption requires that kind of usability. It must be an integral feature of your application, or your app will remain ghetto-zed and obscure. That may be ok for some developers, but for most, usability must be just as key as functionality.
        0x44 18y ago
        You're right. Unfortunately, due to the distributed nature of open-source application development, making that sort of shallow usability integral to the whole system is very difficult. Until there exists an incentive for open-source developers to provide those sort of features, you either won't see them, or you'll get the patchwork quilt that the author was complaining about from Ubuntu.
jdavid 18y ago
the perfect measure of UI success, is based on the total efficiency of the system. If 10 million users have a problem with a driver that could be easily fixed with one command line call. you still have: 10 million * (30 min on google + 1 hr reading docs + 1 min typing the command line) that is a 15.0166 Million person hour loss. Making the process more efficient, does not involve making it easier to Fix the problem for the user, it involves making the problem not existent. The number 1 rule of design is "if a user does not need to make a decision, then you should make it for them." When I was in Japan, you could put your subway ticket in any direction, and "IT WOULD JUST WORK," the machine did not spit it back out at you and FORCE the USER TO DO IT THE RIGHT WAY, because it was a waste of time to do so. Instead the machines are incredibly more complicated to account for someone putting the ticket in wrong. It made the whole subway experience work much more smoothly. Now people who can not read, make a mistake, or are completely foreign to the system, can JUST USE IT. They do not have to read docs, to do one simple thing, pay for the subway ride that should be fast, simple and easy. The whole software industry could use a little bit of time learning industrial design.
- jrockway 18y ago
  The fun part is that you can put your ticket in upside down but it comes out right-side up. Very amusing. It's almost unfortunate that everything is contactless now.

by 0x44 18y ago

krschultz 18y ago

Wrong, every hour that helps fix a show stopper bug for 90% of people is better than implementing a new feature for 10% or less of the people. If something you did every day didn't work under Ubuntu you wouldn't switch. If something that Windows didn't have, didn't exist in Ubuntu either, you wouldn't notice. A lot of these are not simple fixes either, you are not going to change the DVD codec legality with an hour of hacking. Most of the remaining sticky issues seem to be either polishing some things off or legal/commercial reasons. You'd think with Dell getting behind Ubuntu more would have changed, but so far not so much.

0x44 18y ago
Sure, but I don't know that I'd characterize the lack of tool-tip bubbles as a show-stopping bug.
- dgabriel 18y ago
  For you, it's not (I'm talking usability for novice to intermediate level users, not just specifically tool-tips). If you're looking for wide adoption of this technology by current Windows users, it's showstopper.
  - 0x44 18y ago
    Lack of usability for novices and intermediate users should not be considered a bug unless ease of use for novices and intermediate users was a planned or expected function of the software. If an author writes software for experts, one shouldn't expect the software to cater to the needs of novices. Usability tweaks to ease use for a class of user should be feature requests. So a hypothetical developer of open source software has to choose between spending her time developing software features that have no fundamental use to her, or spending it developing features that are exciting, interesting, or are otherwise fulfilling.
    - dgabriel 18y ago
      I don't think you should be voted down (unfair!), because I see where you're coming from. A developer wants to build neat stuff that he or she finds useful. Developers don't want to spend their time doing routine, boring, or trivial stuff, and some of the usability requirements for non-expert users can seem to be just that. The rejoinder is that wide adoption requires that kind of usability. It must be an integral feature of your application, or your app will remain ghetto-zed and obscure. That may be ok for some developers, but for most, usability must be just as key as functionality.
      - 0x44 18y ago
        You're right. Unfortunately, due to the distributed nature of open-source application development, making that sort of shallow usability integral to the whole system is very difficult. Until there exists an incentive for open-source developers to provide those sort of features, you either won't see them, or you'll get the patchwork quilt that the author was complaining about from Ubuntu.

jdavid 18y ago

the perfect measure of UI success, is based on the total efficiency of the system. If 10 million users have a problem with a driver that could be easily fixed with one command line call. you still have: 10 million * (30 min on google + 1 hr reading docs + 1 min typing the command line) that is a 15.0166 Million person hour loss. Making the process more efficient, does not involve making it easier to Fix the problem for the user, it involves making the problem not existent. The number 1 rule of design is "if a user does not need to make a decision, then you should make it for them." When I was in Japan, you could put your subway ticket in any direction, and "IT WOULD JUST WORK," the machine did not spit it back out at you and FORCE the USER TO DO IT THE RIGHT WAY, because it was a waste of time to do so. Instead the machines are incredibly more complicated to account for someone putting the ticket in wrong. It made the whole subway experience work much more smoothly. Now people who can not read, make a mistake, or are completely foreign to the system, can JUST USE IT. They do not have to read docs, to do one simple thing, pay for the subway ride that should be fast, simple and easy. The whole software industry could use a little bit of time learning industrial design.

jrockway 18y ago
The fun part is that you can put your ticket in upside down but it comes out right-side up. Very amusing. It's almost unfortunate that everything is contactless now.