Brent Fox wrote:
On Thu, 2003-09-25 at 18:13, Thomas Dodd wrote:
>So if I write an app using Xt (or Motif) it's automatically bad?
>And I guess writing with raw X11 (no toolkit) is right out.
Some people consider the movement towards usability and accessibility to
be a "dumbing-down" of the user interface.
I'm one. OS-X and Win-XP are extreme examples.
>But when many(most) people talk about poor integration, they mean
it
>doesn't use the same widgets or colors or something. So they want the M$
>(MFC/VB especially) world where every single app looks the same. Only
>one radio button, scrollbar, <pick a widget> is used. This make things
>dull and boring to me.
Looking at things in a different way, one could say that a good UI
*should* be dull and boring. Why should the buttons and scrollbars look
different? When someone buys a button-down shirt, they want all the
buttons to look the same, right?
But if I by 10 shirt, should all ten have the same buttons? Clear
buttons work for most shirts, but I like the buttons to match the shirt.
Some of my white shirts have solid white buttons, some have a pearl
look, and some a marble look. Often the cut or fabric determin which
looks best. I have seen shirts with contrasting colors. Not my style,
but some like it. If Red Hat made shirts, would they all have clear buttons?
It all depends on why one uses a computer. Is the point to get work
done or is the point to configure things? If the point is to get work
Configure things so you can get work done. But if 2 weeks later I don't
like something, I can change it again, until I find what I like best.
But I could leave it at the defaults and never change anything. My wife
is like that. She uses Photoshop, Freehand, and Draw. They have some
very complex configuration options. I've looked at the, and even changed
a few. She never even noticed they were there. She never bothered to
look. I tweaked a few things that made my use easier, but she still uses
the defauts. She's the professional. But when I use the apps, it's for
me. I want them to work the best for me, not just "good enough for most."
Unfortunately, the complexity that attracted you to Enlightenment is
the
same complexity that scares less technically inclined users away.
It's unfortunate that complexity scares people. But I don't buy it. They
by very complex devices, that they have no idea about. Look at a car.
They have some very complex systems. If you want you cna modify them to
behave in different ways. But you can still use the default setup and
just ignore all the complexity. The average driver doesn't even change
the oil anymore, but the ability to change the internals of the engine
is still there.
Now I'm not saying that we have to aim for the lowest common
denominator. All I'm saying is that UI designers have to take into
But that's the general trend. Poor dumb user cannot figure out how to
use a fork and a spoon so we'll just give them a spoon, and never serve
food that you need a fork to eat. Or maybe a spork, it's not as good as
both seperately, but it's good enough for most uses of a fork or a spoon.
account the needs of their target audience. Enlightenment is
obviously
targeted at a technically inclined user base. That's great if that's
what you're looking for, but I think in general most of us want to hit a
larger target.
So when E was the GNOME wm, people couldn't figure out how to use it? I
never saw any one say E was to technical for them. I saw some who never
changed the defaults, but never anyone who thought it too technical.
-Thomas