[UFO Chicago] [mailman-owner@flynn.zork.net: ufo subscription notification]

[Larry Garfield]

Jordan Bettis wrote:

> > Now that we're dealing with normal people and not fit-in-the-air
> > activists who are out of touch with the real world, the primary purpose
> 
> The real world isn't about playing pac-man on a pda, sorry man.

Who said anything about pac-man?  I'm talking about moving files around
and sending email.

> > of a computer is to make it easier for the user to complete a given
> > task.  A significant component of that is the interface to the computer,
> > or the application residing on the computer.  A good interface will make
> > or break an otherwise useful application when it comes to ability to
> > complete a given task.
> >
> > Most FS/OSS programs, to be blunt, suck in the interface department.
> > They are inconsistent, incomplete, non-intuitive, and otherwise sub-par
> 
> "The only 'intuitive' interface is the nipple.  After that, it's all learned."
>           -- Bruce Ediger

So we need more interface that are more like nipples!

(Side story: My parents had a printer in the office once, an HP Deskjet
600-someting or other.  The power button was a small hemisphere, about a
half centimeter across, which was set on an oval-shaped insert that was
a bit darker color than the rest of the plastic.  The insert rose up a
bit around the power button itself.  It always felt wrong somehow when I
was trying to turn the thing on.  And that's exactly why I had the
problem. ;-)

> Here's something: I once saw a girl who obviously had never had any
> expierence with a mac before trying to use one at my school's library.
> She sat down, and clicked on netscape. Oopse, the window didn't appear!
> (It was hidden in that intuitive little bar at the top). So of course,
> Steve Jobs BEAMED the KNOWLEDGE INTO HER HEAD WITH HIS AMAZING INTUITIVER
> RAY, right? Nope, she gave up after about a minute and went off in search
> for a windows machine, because she was used to windows' behavior. The
> really ironic thing is that if that computer were running Gnome or KDE,
> she likely wouldn't have had any trouble using it at all.
> 
> So unless you're talking about innate skills, intuitiveness is a non
> sequitur.

Ah, you mean because KDE and GNOME are more like Windows, the ultimate
non-Free software?  So you're saying KDE is more user friendly than OS X
because it more closely mimicks Windows?

(Yes, the hiding-in-the-task-bar thing is dumb, I won't dispute that.)

> > in most respects.  Now, take OS X.  Ignore for a moment the licensing
> > involved.  OS X is a *nix-variant operating system (Darwin) with a
> > clean, consistent, elegant, and user-friendly interface (Aqua) that
> > allows the user to harness the power of a *nix architecture *without
> > ever touching a command line*; without having to know what an init
> 
> "How do I type 'for i in *.dvi do xdvi $i done' in a GUI?"
>           -- Anonymous

Why in the name of Zork would the average user want to?

> > script is; without ever needing to understand the obscurity that is
> > regular expressions (let's face it, powerful as they are they are NOT
> > designed to be easily learned);
> 
> Nether are Helocopter controls. You want to whine about all of the hours
> it takes to get good at flying one of those birds? Or why they don't have
> pretty GUIs designed by Apple to do it?

The US Navy had to completely redesign the interface for their later
jets because there were too many controls and options for the pilots. 
They suffered from information overload and zoned out.  The new cockpits
were much more streamlined and less complicated, and yes easier to
learn.  It's not popup menus, but it's still a clean interface.  Compare
an F-14 cockpit to an F-22.  (Or what would have been the F-22 had
Congress not been stupid about it.)

> > without scaring people with the idea of
> > "compiling" their software;
> 
> Oh, yeah, that's going to SCARE people. God, give them some fucking
> credit.
> 
> "Computers understand instructions as ones and zeros, but
> it's difficult for people to write computer programs in ones and
> zeros, so people have come up with languages that are easier
> to use and wrote programs to translate them into ones and zeros.
> Those programs are called 'compilers' and the translation they do
> is called 'compiling.'"
> 
> See? that wasn't too hard to understand, was it? My nine year old
> sister could grasp that (feel free to read it again if you still
> don't get it).

You get it.  I get it.  We're experts.  Most people aren't nor should
they need to be.  Should you know how to assemble an engine in order to
get a drivers license?  No, you just want to get to the store to buy
groceries, fuck the variable-speed transmission fluid!

> > without, quite simply, requiring the user to
> > be a developer or "geek".  By Geeks For Geeks is the fundamental
> > philosophy behind most Open Source Software and almost all Free
> > Software.
> 
> Hrmm, I must have missed that part of the GNU Manifesto. Was it before
> or after the bit about community and sharing?

"If someone has an itch, they'll scratch it."  That requires the person
be able to scratch.

"The software is Free, so the customer can change it to suit his
needs."  That assumes he knows how to program.

> > If GNU-esque users and developers want to get more market
> > share than the 5% of the desktop it has now, that MUST change.
> 
> Great, submit a patch.

I'm a usability engineer, not a kernel engineer.  Now if I could
convince the people writing some of these applications to listen to me,
I could get them to submit patches. :-)

> > When KDE or GNOME allow you to control your entire Linux-based machine,
> > including starting and stopping servers, reconfiguring them, installing,
> > configuring, and uninstalling applications, then we'll talk.  Until
> > then, Yay Apple!
> 
> Configuring servers? Fuck, what about drop down menus for flying those
> hilocopters? Administring computer systems is a PROFESSIONAL activity.
> Do you really want your pilot calling tech support because the thingy
> froze? In fact, I'm GLAD the learning curve for Unix admins is steep,
> it means thats they learned how to administer the machines, they also
> learned how they actually work. That's why the Unix world isn't populated
> by so many brain dead MCSE's trying to point and click their way through
> things they don't bother to understand.

Do you also refuse to use Linuxconf because it makes it possible for
people who don't understand a dozen different config file syntaxes to
use computers?

"Automatic transmission?  Fuck, what about drop down menus for driving
those cars.  Driving a car is a PROFESSIONAL activity.  Do you really
want your taxi driver calling tech support because the car stalled?  In
fact, I'm GLAD the learning curve for driving is steel, it means that
they learned how the engine worked.  That's why the horseless carriage
world isn't populated by so many brain dead 'licensed drivers' trying to
turn a wheel to control a vehicle they don't understand."

Learing to drive a car was a full time job until Henry Ford and the
Model A.  Do you want to go back to that era?  

Where's Henry Ford when you need him?

-- 
Larry Garfield			AIM: LOLG42
lgarfiel@students.depaul.edu	ICQ: 6817012

-- "If at first you don't succeed, skydiving isn't for you." :-)