4 ms·

The author is right that software is often not designed for ease of use by a novice or traditional aesthetic appeal. But that's by design - not by "suck". Peo

by javert 17y ago

The author is right that software is often not designed for ease of use by a novice or traditional aesthetic appeal. But that's by design - not by "suck". People building free software generally have themselves as the target demographic; they're not trying to appeal to novices or compete with Microsoft or Apple. They have a different definition of "good".

prospero 17y ago
People building free software generally have themselves as the target demographic People building free software generally have themselves as the target user, which is not the same thing. Advanced users benefit from straightforward design and simple workflows as much as anyone else. The programmer may want every facet of functionality to be readily available, but the majority of users, novice or otherwise, will not care. The user should not be forced to have the same depth of understanding as the person who made the software, even if the user is perfectly capable of attaining it.
- javert 17y ago
  What's the difference between a target "user" and a target "demographic"? You're right that advanced users benefit from straightforward design and simple workflows. But I think saying "Linux usability sucks" is tackling a much broader issue than that. Plus, I would argue that Unix, and Linux, are all about straightforward design and simple workflows. Think about pipes and the command line.
  - prospero 17y ago
    A user is a specific person (in this case, the developer), who is not an accurate proxy for a broader classification of people (in this case, people whose technical acumen is similar to the developer's). And as to pipes, they're useful in the way LEGO blocks are useful: you can make pretty much anything you want from them. But sometimes it's just more fun to have a toy you can play with immediately, no construction required.
wmf 17y ago
I disagree strongly. KDE and GNOME were (supposedly) built for "regular" computer users, yet their usability is poor. (Granted, it's much less poor than it used to be.)
- javert 17y ago
  Supposedly, yes. In reality, I don't think that's so true (that they're build for regular users). GNOME and KDE are also very amenable to the needs of hackers. I'd say they're designed as much for power users as regular people. With GNOME, lots of lip service is paid to making a DE for "regular people." But who /actually/ uses GNOME? Linux users. Linux users are almost overwhelmingly not "regular people," but power users. GNOME is very amenable to the minimalistic style of many hackers. And KDE is amenable to the "let's do some awesome shit" style of many hackers. It's on the cutting edge. It's not used by regular people and I don't think its development is driven by their supposed needs. Personally, I use Openbox and the command line. These are the best "desktop environment" tools I've found yet, by far. But they're not for everybody. They're for power users. And here's my point: they are the way they are by design, not by "suck."

by javert 17y ago

prospero 17y ago

People building free software generally have themselves as the target demographic People building free software generally have themselves as the target user, which is not the same thing. Advanced users benefit from straightforward design and simple workflows as much as anyone else. The programmer may want every facet of functionality to be readily available, but the majority of users, novice or otherwise, will not care. The user should not be forced to have the same depth of understanding as the person who made the software, even if the user is perfectly capable of attaining it.

javert 17y ago
What's the difference between a target "user" and a target "demographic"? You're right that advanced users benefit from straightforward design and simple workflows. But I think saying "Linux usability sucks" is tackling a much broader issue than that. Plus, I would argue that Unix, and Linux, are all about straightforward design and simple workflows. Think about pipes and the command line.
- prospero 17y ago
  A user is a specific person (in this case, the developer), who is not an accurate proxy for a broader classification of people (in this case, people whose technical acumen is similar to the developer's). And as to pipes, they're useful in the way LEGO blocks are useful: you can make pretty much anything you want from them. But sometimes it's just more fun to have a toy you can play with immediately, no construction required.

wmf 17y ago

I disagree strongly. KDE and GNOME were (supposedly) built for "regular" computer users, yet their usability is poor. (Granted, it's much less poor than it used to be.)

javert 17y ago
Supposedly, yes. In reality, I don't think that's so true (that they're build for regular users). GNOME and KDE are also very amenable to the needs of hackers. I'd say they're designed as much for power users as regular people. With GNOME, lots of lip service is paid to making a DE for "regular people." But who /actually/ uses GNOME? Linux users. Linux users are almost overwhelmingly not "regular people," but power users. GNOME is very amenable to the minimalistic style of many hackers. And KDE is amenable to the "let's do some awesome shit" style of many hackers. It's on the cutting edge. It's not used by regular people and I don't think its development is driven by their supposed needs. Personally, I use Openbox and the command line. These are the best "desktop environment" tools I've found yet, by far. But they're not for everybody. They're for power users. And here's my point: they are the way they are by design, not by "suck."