3 ms·
>I know where this ends; been there done that. The programmer implements all those options in a configuration panel, the user looks at it saying "uh... too comp
by magduf 7y ago
>I know where this ends; been there done that. The programmer implements all those options in a configuration panel, the user looks at it saying "uh... too complicated" (0), shuts down and uninstall the software then chooses an easier one that forces mostly predefined options on a dumbed down panel, only to complain later that it can't do this and that therefore a more powerful one is needed.
This is exactly correct, except maybe for the very last phrase (usually, I think users just put up with the dumbed-down software and just complain about how it doesn't do exactly what they want, and when someone suggests an alternative that has more configuration options, they reject it, saying that they don't want to deal with all those configuration options).
We saw this on Linux desktops with the KDE-GNOME war, and this is with users who are generally considered to be more technically inclined than your average Windows user. Gnome users would complain about options and features being removed, KDE users would point out that KDE has all these features and lots of configurability, and complaining Gnome users would reject it saying it's too complicated and they don't want to deal with all those configuration options. Somehow, the idea of simply leaving the options at the defaults (except the one or two they wanted to change) was completely incomprehensible to them.
Users don't really want freedom of choice. They want something that reads their mind.
- doubleunplussed 7y agoFor me I don't like having to keep track of what's default and what's not. What if I change a default, things change unexpectedly somewhere as a result, and I'm not able to work out what change it was due to? Fewer options decreases the odds of this happening. Other good approaches are highlighting settings that are different from the default. Many UIs do this, but unfortunately it's hard to get a birds-eye-view. Now, config files! Thousands of options, quite happy to hack on that. You know why? Because I can diff against the default and get a birds-eye-view of what's different. I'm not sure if KDE's settings are all text files underneath, but that's the issue. If there were a settings dialog somewhere saying "here's what's different to the default, out of all the KDE settings", that would help a lot. Otherwise it's just too hard to keep track of. This would help on GNOME too, but in the absence of that, simply having fewer settings is a kind of reassurance that there aren't many you've changed and forgotten about. A separate point, but running default settings is also sticking to the "happy path". It's more well-tested, and I've learned I shouldn't change too many settings different from the defaults, even if they are officially supported, because things aren't as well tested - even if everything official works, third-party things tend to make assumptions that are violated.
- magduf 7y agoYou bring up a good point: it would be nice to be able to quickly see what options are different from defaults, whether in graphical or text form. I don't know of any UI (for a desktop environment) that does this, however, but I do like the idea. I do believe I have seen this kind of thing for more specialized products or programs. I will point out though that with Linux desktops, the defaults are different by distro, though still this shouldn't matter; it shouldn't be that hard to have a "master" config file and then be able to diff it, or have a UI panel that does this in a more user-friendly manner.
- auiya 7y agoThere's a medium to be reached. It's to give a clean starting point, and make options intuitive to discover and useful to implement. At the risk of drawing the ire of the anti crowd, Mac OS X does this marvelously well.
- magduf 7y agoI'm very anti-Apple, but it's foolish to think that there isn't anything at all to be learned from how they do things. Same goes for Microsoft.