4 ms·

If you need to overcome a barrier and extend/customize to reach a good UX, that is the program's fault (applies to any program, not just emacs)

usr1106 3y ago
I don't think good UX is a universal concept. People have different preferences. On my desktop I don't want click to type. But still many seem to prefer just that. I want a trackpoint, many are happy with touchpads. (Of course some implementations can be classified as just bad UX...)
- illiarian 3y ago
  > I don't think good UX is a universal concept. There are some more-or-less objective criteria we can apply. From "how many actions it takes to achieve something" to accessibility.
  - nequo 3y ago
    Emacs is not terrible for accessibility. This is Parham Doustdar talking about how he uses Emacs as a blind developer: https://emacsconf.org/2019/talks/08/ https://emacsconf.org/2019/talks/08/
  - noctuid 3y ago
    > how many actions it takes to achieve something This is not really objective because you also have to take into consideration how intuitive/simple the UX is. Given 100 related actions, clicking through a logically grouped nested menu or multiple pages to do something is going to require more steps but be something anyone can do. Memorizing and using keyboard shortcuts for all those actions will be more efficient, but isn't something someone could immediately do. There is of course an in-between where you can have menus to display available keyboard shortcuts, but some (most?) people will still prefer a GUI/mouse-based approach. There is no one-size-fits-all approach.
llanowarelves 3y ago
Where is Xah Lee when you need him? His critiques of Emacs on this are spot on, imo. Helps that he backs up his claims (scattered around his site) with data and usability research. "If emacs just use standard keys for open close save, cut copy paste undo, users will double in 1 year."[0] [0]Emacs Modernization: http://xahlee.info/emacs/emacs/emacs_modernization.html http://xahlee.info/emacs/emacs/emacs_modernization.html
distcs 3y ago
Good UX is very subjective though. I mean for me the way Emacs looks by default and how it allows me to customize it the way I see fit is good UX. Others don't see it as good UX. Can I customize the status bar to include my contextual information with a single line of code in VS Code? Perhaps not. So VS Code has bad UX for my needs. But many consider VS Code to have good UX.
govolckurself 3y ago
Are our expectations so low now that developers can't be expected to put in a little effort to learn a text editor? Look, I promise I'm not the smartest guy, but I ground out a few weeks of memorizing key bindings like ten years ago, and that was basically it. M-x apropos and Google fill in the rest of the gaps. I truly don't understand why stuff like this seems to be so hard for people. My hunch is that they just don't want to put in the effort. Which is fine! But please just be honest about it.
noctuid 3y ago
Customizability is Emacs' selling point. A higher level of extensibility necessary means a higher learning curve. I'd call it a learning curve rather than "barrier": it's certainly not difficult to make Emacs look good. Most people don't care how Emacs behaves OOTB because they want to customize every aspect of it. You might say it should look or behave better by default, but I'd rather the base stay consistent and simple (it fits the use case better). There are plenty of starter kits/distros that look good OOTB for people who want a better default experience.

usr1106 3y ago

I don't think good UX is a universal concept. People have different preferences. On my desktop I don't want click to type. But still many seem to prefer just that. I want a trackpoint, many are happy with touchpads. (Of course some implementations can be classified as just bad UX...)

illiarian 3y ago
> I don't think good UX is a universal concept. There are some more-or-less objective criteria we can apply. From "how many actions it takes to achieve something" to accessibility.
- nequo 3y ago
  Emacs is not terrible for accessibility. This is Parham Doustdar talking about how he uses Emacs as a blind developer: https://emacsconf.org/2019/talks/08/ https://emacsconf.org/2019/talks/08/
- noctuid 3y ago
  > how many actions it takes to achieve something This is not really objective because you also have to take into consideration how intuitive/simple the UX is. Given 100 related actions, clicking through a logically grouped nested menu or multiple pages to do something is going to require more steps but be something anyone can do. Memorizing and using keyboard shortcuts for all those actions will be more efficient, but isn't something someone could immediately do. There is of course an in-between where you can have menus to display available keyboard shortcuts, but some (most?) people will still prefer a GUI/mouse-based approach. There is no one-size-fits-all approach.

llanowarelves 3y ago

Where is Xah Lee when you need him? His critiques of Emacs on this are spot on, imo. Helps that he backs up his claims (scattered around his site) with data and usability research. "If emacs just use standard keys for open close save, cut copy paste undo, users will double in 1 year."[0] [0]Emacs Modernization: http://xahlee.info/emacs/emacs/emacs_modernization.html http://xahlee.info/emacs/emacs/emacs_modernization.html

distcs 3y ago

Good UX is very subjective though. I mean for me the way Emacs looks by default and how it allows me to customize it the way I see fit is good UX. Others don't see it as good UX. Can I customize the status bar to include my contextual information with a single line of code in VS Code? Perhaps not. So VS Code has bad UX for my needs. But many consider VS Code to have good UX.

govolckurself 3y ago

Are our expectations so low now that developers can't be expected to put in a little effort to learn a text editor? Look, I promise I'm not the smartest guy, but I ground out a few weeks of memorizing key bindings like ten years ago, and that was basically it. M-x apropos and Google fill in the rest of the gaps. I truly don't understand why stuff like this seems to be so hard for people. My hunch is that they just don't want to put in the effort. Which is fine! But please just be honest about it.

noctuid 3y ago

Customizability is Emacs' selling point. A higher level of extensibility necessary means a higher learning curve. I'd call it a learning curve rather than "barrier": it's certainly not difficult to make Emacs look good. Most people don't care how Emacs behaves OOTB because they want to customize every aspect of it. You might say it should look or behave better by default, but I'd rather the base stay consistent and simple (it fits the use case better). There are plenty of starter kits/distros that look good OOTB for people who want a better default experience.