What are consequences (the lack of freedom on the USA)

[Thomas Dodd]

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