4 ms·
The difference is that users can understand when the interface is poorly designed because they have to interact with it constantly. Sure, there are parts of UX
by AUmrysh 15y ago
The difference is that users can understand when the interface is poorly designed because they have to interact with it constantly. Sure, there are parts of UX that most users never think about, but when something has been overlooked, like when you can't move the launcher sidebar to the bottom, or the settings are confusing to get to, there's a usability problem.
I think the real thing about Ubuntu, however, is that it's Linux. That means if you don't like Unity, you can install GDM, KDE, Fluxbox, Awesome or any number of other window managers. You aren't stuck with the (subjectively) poor design decisions Canonical made, and you certainly have more choice than you do in OS X or Windows.
- MatthewPhillips 15y agoIt makes very little sense to pick a distro if you dislike their default interface. There are too many choices, or you can pick a distro like Arch that is WM agnostic.
- SkyMarshal 15y agoIt does if you value other aspects of it: Debian package management, Ubuntu PPA's, Wayland (when that arrives), popular apps like Spotify target Ubuntu and Fedora and don't 'just work' on other distro's, etc. Default interface is just one aspect of the decision, and some of the others may outweigh it even for those who hate the interface direction.
- wmf 15y agoThe difference is that users can understand when the interface is poorly designed because they have to interact with it constantly. Can users understand the difference between poorly designed and different than what they're used to? Given that studies have shown that people think keyboarding is faster than mousing even when it's not, I doubt it.