4 ms·

Krita is an unpolished usability nightmare compared to commercial counterparts? Why does a project like Krita have to pay apple tax? Why does it even matter if

by zaarn 6y ago

Krita is an unpolished usability nightmare compared to commercial counterparts? Why does a project like Krita have to pay apple tax? Why does it even matter if it's a usability nightmare if the user wants it they should be able to install it if it's open source.

read_if_gay_ 6y ago
I've never used Krita, it looks nice though and I like seeing well polished OSS, but a specific example says nothing about the general trend. > Why does it even matter if it's a usability nightmare if the user wants it they should be able to install it if it's open source Sure. And users are able to install it... it's just a little hidden. My point is if you can't even figure that out then you probably can't figure out most OSS either. Most.
- zaarn 6y ago
  There is plenty more OSS software that has polished and usable UI design. Possibly software you'd not think of as OSS to begin with. Being so dismissive of the user's wants is just Apple fanboyism.
  - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
    That OSS usually has poor usability is like the most common criticism ever. And could you explain how specifically am I dismissing users' wants? I'm just saying an extra 5 clicks is not that big of a barrier, when people in this thread are throwing phrases like "incredibly painful" around.
    - Tainnor 6y ago
      You're confusing usability with visual polish. I will agree that many OSS desktop applications don't have the most modern UI and are not as visually appealing as some paid-for apps. But in terms of usability, "beautiful" apps can be just as if not more frustrating than dated-looking ones. There's especially often a lazy route to perceived usability that consists in just not providing many features. Of course, it's easy to create an easy to use application if it doesn't do all that much (like $20 mail clients that can't even do GPG - no thanks, I'll switch back to ugly, but perfectly usable Thunderbird).

by zaarn 6y ago

read_if_gay_ 6y ago

I've never used Krita, it looks nice though and I like seeing well polished OSS, but a specific example says nothing about the general trend. > Why does it even matter if it's a usability nightmare if the user wants it they should be able to install it if it's open source Sure. And users are able to install it... it's just a little hidden. My point is if you can't even figure that out then you probably can't figure out most OSS either. Most.

zaarn 6y ago
There is plenty more OSS software that has polished and usable UI design. Possibly software you'd not think of as OSS to begin with. Being so dismissive of the user's wants is just Apple fanboyism.
- read_if_gay_ 6y ago
  That OSS usually has poor usability is like the most common criticism ever. And could you explain how specifically am I dismissing users' wants? I'm just saying an extra 5 clicks is not that big of a barrier, when people in this thread are throwing phrases like "incredibly painful" around.
  - Tainnor 6y ago
    You're confusing usability with visual polish. I will agree that many OSS desktop applications don't have the most modern UI and are not as visually appealing as some paid-for apps. But in terms of usability, "beautiful" apps can be just as if not more frustrating than dated-looking ones. There's especially often a lazy route to perceived usability that consists in just not providing many features. Of course, it's easy to create an easy to use application if it doesn't do all that much (like $20 mail clients that can't even do GPG - no thanks, I'll switch back to ugly, but perfectly usable Thunderbird).