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

[Brent Fox]

On Thu, 2003-09-25 at 18:13, Thomas Dodd wrote:
> Alan Cox wrote:
> >>The point being, toolkit choice does not make an app ugly or bad. The 
> >>fact that it looks/acts different also doesn't make it bad. Personaly I 
> > 
> > It tends to make it bad when you measure it in terms of convenience for
> > accessibility tools (custom widget people never seem to get around to adding
> > the ATK hooks) and also standards compliance. Actually doing it *right* is
> > lacking in many but not all of the "we own your desktop" UI apps.
> 
> 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.

It's "automatically bad" in the sense that it won't look the same as
most of the other apps.  If that doesn't bother you or your users, then
there's no problem.  However, most people who do usability studies will
tell you that consistency is good for the majority of users.  

Some people consider the movement towards usability and accessibility to
be a "dumbing-down" of the user interface.  

In my opinion, there is a balance between usability and features that is
sometimes hard to find.  Speaking for myself, I want my software to be
used by the widest possible audience.  That sometimes means placing the
needs of the less technically inclined majority over the needs of the
power users.

> >>From a Red Hat point of view the lack of accessibility is a *big deal*, and
> > I suspect as a lot of the readers of this list get older they'll begin to
> > find some of the accessibility stuff useful too.
> 
> I never said "accessibility" was bad. (Although it's a hideous name, 
> brought about by the politicaly correct types. Ranks right up there with 
> "intellectual property" to me.)
> 
> Go back to the start.
> 
> Maynard Kuona wrote :
> > 
> > Xine, mplayer, VLC. They work well, i.e., show video and all, but 
> > they are ugly, seem to use some arbitrary toolkit, if any at all. 
> > Xine's UI is ugly, mplayers is ugly. They lack proper integration
> > into the system
> 
> That's what started this. I like Xine's UI. Try a few skins, or create a 
> new one. Hell a Bluecurve-like skin would be fine. I won't use it, but 
> others would. Even make it the defult.
> 
> I also don't like overly integrated apps. Sometimes they are good and 
> make sense, but often they don't. Integrating the IE module with every 
> app and the window manager has caused a lot of problems for M$. M$ Money 
> and Word even used the IE module.
> 
> 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?

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
done, then the less time the user spends thinking about the UI, the
better.

> That's something I liked about GTK+ and Enlightenment. I could theme 
> almost every widget as I liked. I could make E look nearly identical to 
> the Atari STe. When I got bored with the look of things I changed them. 
> I always want the ability have per application themes. I like that 
> different apps look/behave different.

Unfortunately, the complexity that attracted you to Enlightenment is the
same complexity that scares less technically inclined users away.  

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
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.  


Cheers,
   Brent

> Just like I liked that different models of cars looked/felt different 
> inside. Now different makes do, but nearly every Ford uses the same 
> dials, buttons, and indicators. So if I sat you in a Tarus, Focus, or 
> F150 you probably couldn't tell which it was. They look the same.
> 
> 	-Thomas
> 
> 
> --
> fedora-test-list mailing list
> fedora-test-list at redhat.com
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list