5 ms·

> Taking away those little checkboxes and toolbar buttons is like slamming the door on power users. You might win a billion non-technical users, but none of the

by Mr_T_ 14y ago

> Taking away those little checkboxes and toolbar buttons is like slamming the door on power users. You might win a billion non-technical users, but none of them will ever submit a single patch. An experienced developer should be mature enough to know that he and his kind should not be the target audience of his product. And putting in all those little checkboxes makes a product a horrible experience for the rest of the world.

ilja 14y ago
Whether you like it or not, power users are probably the only audience left for a linux DE that's no longer the default on the most newbie friendly distro's. The rest of the world is never going to see it. Open source is very much about scratching one's own itch
- progrock 14y ago
  Isn't Unity currently built on top of Gnome 3?
  - entropy_ 14y ago
    No, it is not.
    - progrock 14y ago
      If Unity is described as a Shell for the GNOME desktop environment. Then that sounds about right to me. Perhaps better questions to ask would be what is Gnome 3? What is Gnome Shell? And what is Gnome? Sorry but it's a bit difficult to comment on Gnome when it's not entirely clear as to what it is.
    - keithpeter 14y ago
      I think Unity depends on a fair amount of gnome 3 libraries, at least in 12.04
      - ralfn 14y ago
        Yes and no. They ship with a lot of gnome3 apps, but none of the unity code uses any gnome 3 libs. They do use compiz though, and have compiz use the gconf settings. The thing is, they could switch to a qt based desktop, without touching any unity code.
    - padraigm 14y ago
      This is false. Unity is an alternative to Gnome-shell; it uses (sometimes patched versions of) the same underlying Gnome 3 libraries.
      - sciurus 14y ago
        Or it's true. GNOME doesn't present itself as a set of libraries, it presents itself as a desktop shell and set of applications. http://www.gnome.org/gnome-3/ http://www.gnome.org/gnome-3/
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
nmridul 14y ago
That is exactly the problem and what the parent wants to convey. A developer (specially open source) is rarely interested in developing something that is not useful to him.
- dsr_ 14y ago
  I would like to posit that the vast majority successful open-source projects are successful precisely because the developers are avid users. Motivation goes beyond money.
ordinary 14y ago
If you pay me, I will work selflessly for the masses. I will implement features I don't need, I will fix bugs I don't care about and I will write documentation for features I already know in and out. If you don't pay me, I will still contribute, but then I will work only to scratch my own itch. I will implement features, but only those I want to have myself; I will fix bugs, but only those that annoy me personally; I will write some documentation, sometimes. If you don't pay me, and your project goals make it impossible for me to scratch my itch, then I will not contribute to it.
- Mr_T_ 14y ago
  If this is the attitude of all community developers then free software UI will never become successful.
  - aw3c2 14y ago
    How do you measure the success of it?
  - muyuu 14y ago
    This is exactly what shapes the areas of success for OSS. It's glaringly obvious looking back, that success perfectly matches the motivation of contributors in different areas. And that said, it doesn't need to be so difficult to include all these pesky checkboxes in a way that they don't confuse or hinder usability for n00bish users. This used to work for Gnome 2. Never met anyone who thought Gnome 2 was too hard or counter-intuitive, they were just more or less used to it. Windows XP and Windows 7 have a lot more checkboxes if you look for them.
    - spartango 14y ago
      Sorry, gnome 2 was hardly 'easy', which is the bar that modern, commercial window managers are setting. 'Not hard' and 'not counter-intuitive' doesn't cut it any more for the bulk of users, who are less savvy than previously. If there's one thing that Apple and even Microsoft are showing with their window manager and widgets, its that simpler is better, and we've been missing that all these years.
raverbashing 14y ago
"An experienced developer should be mature enough to know that he and his kind should not be the target audience of his product. And putting in all those little checkboxes makes a product a horrible experience for the rest of the world." Too bad Gnome developers are so far removed from UX and the desires of the "common user" it isn't funny They took "removing stuff" as their mission and follow it blindly. Or for a car analogy: Gnome removes the clutch but it doesn't give a torque converter and automatic transmission.
anonymous 14y ago
It used to be "by hackers for hackers". Now it's "by enthusiasts for hypothetical everyday users". Personally, I moved away from gnome when 2.4 (or maybe it was 2.6) took out the "launch a terminal" option from the desktop right-click menu.
rootbear 14y ago
I completely disagree with the second sentence. There must be a way for power users to get the flexibility they want, while making the product usable by the masses. MacOS does this to an extent, with "Advanced" buttons on some control panels that most users ignore. Why couldn't Gnome do that? Why must it seek to emulate Windows' lack of flexibility?
- glhaynes 14y ago
  Some OS X apps and system services go even a step further — or at least have in the past; I feel like one sees less of it these days — with options in GUI apps that are exposed through the command line (usually via the defaults command) only. That to me feels like a very nice hierarchy: A few basic, common options available in the main UI. A few more-advanced/less-commonly-desired options available in a part of the UI that's labeled "Advanced". Things that mortals-but-not-noobs would be interested in. Novices actively don't want to hit Advanced but the sort of user that would be interested in these options goes right for it. Then really exotic options are available through an interface that takes up absolutely no UI space but is easily accessible by most of the kind of people that would want such things.
  - comex 14y ago
    For the record, OS X actually doesn't have a lot of buttons called "Advanced", though there are some. In fact, in general, as an OS X user and former user of Gnome 2 applications, my unscientific impression has always been that Gnome 2 had significantly fewer (user-visible) preferences. YMMV...
    - glhaynes 14y ago
      OS X apps don't use a lot of "Advanced…" buttons but they certainly have lots of "Advanced" tabs (usually rightmost, having a gear icon) in their Preference panels: iTunes, Finder, Safari, and Calendar all do. Where you do see lots of "Advanced…" buttons is in System Preferences…
      - 14y ago
mindcrime 14y ago
And putting in all those little checkboxes makes a product a horrible experience for the rest of the world. It doesn't have to. The measure of a good product, as far as I'm concerned, is the extent to which it can retain all the power the power-users want, while still keeping things simple enough for the non-power-users. OR, better yet, the extent to which it can help non-power-users become power-users.
- SoftwareMaven 14y ago
  Apple has done pretty well here. Their desktop is very opinionated with very few checkboxes anywhere, yet many things can be tweaked at the command line.
DanBC 14y ago
I never understand this. Why is sane defaults and hidden options a lousy user experience?
- cinch 14y ago
  Sane defaults is fine. Hidden options limits its capabilities which are sometimes essential.
  - DanBC 14y ago
    But hidden options is better than removed options, surely? You need an easy way to get as close to vanilla as possible, to make support and faultfinding not awful. But you need to provide some kind of hidden method for tweaking to keep power users happy.

by Mr_T_ 14y ago

ilja 14y ago

Whether you like it or not, power users are probably the only audience left for a linux DE that's no longer the default on the most newbie friendly distro's. The rest of the world is never going to see it. Open source is very much about scratching one's own itch

progrock 14y ago
Isn't Unity currently built on top of Gnome 3?
- entropy_ 14y ago
  No, it is not.
  - progrock 14y ago
    If Unity is described as a Shell for the GNOME desktop environment. Then that sounds about right to me. Perhaps better questions to ask would be what is Gnome 3? What is Gnome Shell? And what is Gnome? Sorry but it's a bit difficult to comment on Gnome when it's not entirely clear as to what it is.
  - keithpeter 14y ago
    I think Unity depends on a fair amount of gnome 3 libraries, at least in 12.04
    - ralfn 14y ago
      Yes and no. They ship with a lot of gnome3 apps, but none of the unity code uses any gnome 3 libs. They do use compiz though, and have compiz use the gconf settings. The thing is, they could switch to a qt based desktop, without touching any unity code.
  - padraigm 14y ago
    This is false. Unity is an alternative to Gnome-shell; it uses (sometimes patched versions of) the same underlying Gnome 3 libraries.
    - sciurus 14y ago
      Or it's true. GNOME doesn't present itself as a set of libraries, it presents itself as a desktop shell and set of applications. http://www.gnome.org/gnome-3/ http://www.gnome.org/gnome-3/
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

nmridul 14y ago

That is exactly the problem and what the parent wants to convey. A developer (specially open source) is rarely interested in developing something that is not useful to him.

dsr_ 14y ago
I would like to posit that the vast majority successful open-source projects are successful precisely because the developers are avid users. Motivation goes beyond money.

ordinary 14y ago

If you pay me, I will work selflessly for the masses. I will implement features I don't need, I will fix bugs I don't care about and I will write documentation for features I already know in and out. If you don't pay me, I will still contribute, but then I will work only to scratch my own itch. I will implement features, but only those I want to have myself; I will fix bugs, but only those that annoy me personally; I will write some documentation, sometimes. If you don't pay me, and your project goals make it impossible for me to scratch my itch, then I will not contribute to it.

Mr_T_ 14y ago
If this is the attitude of all community developers then free software UI will never become successful.
- aw3c2 14y ago
  How do you measure the success of it?
- muyuu 14y ago
  This is exactly what shapes the areas of success for OSS. It's glaringly obvious looking back, that success perfectly matches the motivation of contributors in different areas. And that said, it doesn't need to be so difficult to include all these pesky checkboxes in a way that they don't confuse or hinder usability for n00bish users. This used to work for Gnome 2. Never met anyone who thought Gnome 2 was too hard or counter-intuitive, they were just more or less used to it. Windows XP and Windows 7 have a lot more checkboxes if you look for them.
  - spartango 14y ago
    Sorry, gnome 2 was hardly 'easy', which is the bar that modern, commercial window managers are setting. 'Not hard' and 'not counter-intuitive' doesn't cut it any more for the bulk of users, who are less savvy than previously. If there's one thing that Apple and even Microsoft are showing with their window manager and widgets, its that simpler is better, and we've been missing that all these years.

raverbashing 14y ago

"An experienced developer should be mature enough to know that he and his kind should not be the target audience of his product. And putting in all those little checkboxes makes a product a horrible experience for the rest of the world." Too bad Gnome developers are so far removed from UX and the desires of the "common user" it isn't funny They took "removing stuff" as their mission and follow it blindly. Or for a car analogy: Gnome removes the clutch but it doesn't give a torque converter and automatic transmission.

anonymous 14y ago

It used to be "by hackers for hackers". Now it's "by enthusiasts for hypothetical everyday users". Personally, I moved away from gnome when 2.4 (or maybe it was 2.6) took out the "launch a terminal" option from the desktop right-click menu.

rootbear 14y ago

I completely disagree with the second sentence. There must be a way for power users to get the flexibility they want, while making the product usable by the masses. MacOS does this to an extent, with "Advanced" buttons on some control panels that most users ignore. Why couldn't Gnome do that? Why must it seek to emulate Windows' lack of flexibility?

glhaynes 14y ago
Some OS X apps and system services go even a step further — or at least have in the past; I feel like one sees less of it these days — with options in GUI apps that are exposed through the command line (usually via the defaults command) only. That to me feels like a very nice hierarchy: A few basic, common options available in the main UI. A few more-advanced/less-commonly-desired options available in a part of the UI that's labeled "Advanced". Things that mortals-but-not-noobs would be interested in. Novices actively don't want to hit Advanced but the sort of user that would be interested in these options goes right for it. Then really exotic options are available through an interface that takes up absolutely no UI space but is easily accessible by most of the kind of people that would want such things.
- comex 14y ago
  For the record, OS X actually doesn't have a lot of buttons called "Advanced", though there are some. In fact, in general, as an OS X user and former user of Gnome 2 applications, my unscientific impression has always been that Gnome 2 had significantly fewer (user-visible) preferences. YMMV...
  - glhaynes 14y ago
    OS X apps don't use a lot of "Advanced…" buttons but they certainly have lots of "Advanced" tabs (usually rightmost, having a gear icon) in their Preference panels: iTunes, Finder, Safari, and Calendar all do. Where you do see lots of "Advanced…" buttons is in System Preferences…
    - 14y ago

mindcrime 14y ago

And putting in all those little checkboxes makes a product a horrible experience for the rest of the world. It doesn't have to. The measure of a good product, as far as I'm concerned, is the extent to which it can retain all the power the power-users want, while still keeping things simple enough for the non-power-users. OR, better yet, the extent to which it can help non-power-users become power-users.

SoftwareMaven 14y ago
Apple has done pretty well here. Their desktop is very opinionated with very few checkboxes anywhere, yet many things can be tweaked at the command line.

DanBC 14y ago

I never understand this. Why is sane defaults and hidden options a lousy user experience?

cinch 14y ago
Sane defaults is fine. Hidden options limits its capabilities which are sometimes essential.
- DanBC 14y ago
  But hidden options is better than removed options, surely? You need an easy way to get as close to vanilla as possible, to make support and faultfinding not awful. But you need to provide some kind of hidden method for tweaking to keep power users happy.