I'm writing several articles about this, covering all the topics that we've gone over, plus some more. This is part one, and I would really appreciate it if you guys inputted your ideas on whether I'm technically accurate, whether I'm right, wrong, stupid, or whatever...

Ideas on what else I should talk about is really cool too.

Thanks,
Cipher3D

Link

Quote:

Original post by Cipher3D Users need to be given a choices, but the easiest and most simplest interface should be transparent by default.

I'm currently developing an application installer for X11 (based on my own static GUI library). It'll be Window-Manager independant (not using GTK/QT derivates or shared libs other than Xlib), and it's default look will be "Microsoft like". It'll make use of the blending extensions of lastets X11 versions to achieve a good looking aspect.

My ultimate goal is to hide all configuring/making/installing stuff behind an atractive intuitive graphical interface, or to directly manage binary installations from a custom script. And that it will run on any default instalation of X11, even if the user do not use a window manager at all.

Additionally I could look up for a way to create the appropiate icons in the most common Window Managers's Start Menu and desktop externally.

I would like it to include little program to perform a clean uninstalation ala Installshield in the installed program group/directory.

My aproach to bring what you call "simplest transparent interface" is to stick only to X11, and to have all the controls (like buttons, combos, skin management, etc) statically linked into the program and let the Window Manager perform only what it's name clame to do.

The program functionality and the look belongs to me by default and to the user via skin. End of the story.

Quote:

Original post by Cipher3D I'm writing several articles about this, covering all the topics that we've gone over, plus some more. This is part one, and I would really appreciate it if you guys inputted your ideas on whether I'm technically accurate, whether I'm right, wrong, stupid, or whatever... Ideas on what else I should talk about is really cool too. Thanks, Cipher3D Link

Your criticism of the command line is stupid, CLI is not a major obstruction to the ease of use of linux. This is like saying the presence of cmd.exe on Windows XP hurts it's usability.

On any modern easy linux distro (I'm not talking slackware or gentoo here) you are able to do anything from a GUI. The CLI is just a power user tool, which you don't have to use.

Quote:

you guys inputted your ideas on whether I'm technically accurate, whether I'm right, wrong, stupid, or whatever...

Your writing lacks continuity and focus, and is therefore an almost uninformative rant, rather than the persuasive piece it seems you are trying to write.

This piece should introduce your series. I didn't get that impression. Where's your series going? What's its scope? What inspired this criticism? Did you agree, disagree, or not have an opinion on the topic before these threads? Why are you starting with "Too many choices" instead of some other approach? Instead of these, I get a blurb about being in danger from microsoft which seems to come from nowhere.

Incidentally, there's a typo in the last sentence of that blurb.

After reading the blurb, the reader is hit from nowhere with the information that linux is in version 2.6. Depending on your POV, either the blurb or this sentence is the beginning of the article. If it's the latter, it's quite the opposite of a hook.

Next, you inform us, once again out of the blue, that on top of linux are choices. And then proceed to list them. Three examples would have been sufficient, and they shouldn't be in list form unless the items of the list are important, and they're not. They merely serve as examples of a point you'll get around to making in the article, and should therefore be stylistically subordinate to the body of the article.

The paragraph following the list is an example of why your teacher told you not to use first person in writing. In this persuasive piece, ego has no place. In the paragraph's first sentence, you try to marvel us with your ability to list examples. Why else would that sentence be there?

The next sentence in that paragraph signals a change of voice and begins with a conjunction. A change of voice is useful for regaining or redirecting your reader's attention, but beginning with a conjunction signals the reader that they've already missed important information, and a reader is forced either to backtrack or wonder what he missed in that prior sentence.

You then assert that linux is an anarchy. This does not follow, and is another change of voice. Repeated changes of voice indicate that supportive information is missing, or that the reader lacks background information.

Your quote is very weak, and the way it's presented practically screams "Straw man".

What does a free market have to do with anything? Even that single sentence lacks continuity and focus.

Users will not necessarily gravitate toward one choice or another. Sometimes there is a genuine difference between things that make them incommensurable. Who can say whether Megaman or Chrono Trigger is the better game? There's nothing that would make users of one gravitate toward using the other because they're not the same. To some extent this is the case with Open Source software. To take an example from your list, Fluxbox is not comparable to KDE. They just do different things. Gnome and KDE are roughly comparable, but not totally. (btw, Gnome and KDE are desktop environments, whereas black box and flux box are window managers. Not quite the same thing.)

The next part is the strongest part of your article, and so I will leave it alone.

When you quote Oluseyi, he talks about something different than what you were talking about, and thus doesn't describe it perfectly (he especially doesn't "quote it perfectly" because he's not quoting anything, afaik)

It's 5:00 a.m. and so I'll stop here. I'm sure you get the idea.

hmm....great comments!

I think I should really break up this article into chunks and reoganize.

[Edited by - Cipher3D on August 4, 2004 11:03:51 AM]

Quote:

Original post by George2 Quote: Original post by Cipher3D I'm writing several articles about this, covering all the topics that we've gone over, plus some more. This is part one, and I would really appreciate it if you guys inputted your ideas on whether I'm technically accurate, whether I'm right, wrong, stupid, or whatever... Ideas on what else I should talk about is really cool too. Thanks, Cipher3D Link Your criticism of the command line is stupid, CLI is not a major obstruction to the ease of use of linux. This is like saying the presence of cmd.exe on Windows XP hurts it's usability. On any modern easy linux distro (I'm not talking slackware or gentoo here) you are able to do anything from a GUI. The CLI is just a power user tool, which you don't have to use.

Look at Linux docs and Linux "help" posts. The GUI is very, very rarely mentioned. For example if you where to post to a Linux help board asking how to install a piece of software (Typical Joe user question: "How do I do word processing on Linux?"), the answer is always along the line of "apt-get" or similar (and without even a mention of the fact that it's a command that must be run from a terminal, and how to get to that terminal from the GUI).

You not *have* to use the CLI, but all normal users have no chance of getting help or using anything that isn't setup and ready to use out of the box unless they magically know how to get to the command line and how to use it.

that is exactly what I mean; I can use the command line no problem, it's the average joes and soccer moms that have trouble with it, and those are the majority of the users we are going to have if we ever hope to gain widespread support of Open Source Software. It is amazing I am more productive with a command line interface than a GUI; it is counter-intuitive.

BTW: I'm currently rewriting my article so that the focus is disorganization of the Linux/OSS and their development, ironically my article is disorganized [smile].

EDIT: I made some effort cleaning this article up, and actually giving it a point. I won't ask you guys to read it anymore, but I sure would appreciate it.

[Edited by - Cipher3D on August 4, 2004 11:57:26 AM]

Quote:

Look at Linux docs and Linux "help" posts. The GUI is very, very rarely mentioned. For example if you where to post to a Linux help board asking how to install a piece of software (Typical Joe user question: "How do I do word processing on Linux?"), the answer is always along the line of "apt-get" or similar (and without even a mention of the fact that it's a command that must be run from a terminal, and how to get to that terminal from the GUI).

I always figured this was because it's easier to say, "Type this in" than "Click there, then click there, then click there", and it doesn't require you to sound quite so condescending. It also doesn't require you to ask the user about the details of their system.

Quote:

EDIT: I made some effort cleaning this article up, and actually giving it a point. I won't ask you guys to read it anymore, but I sure would appreciate it.

Much better. There are some places where there ought to be a paragraph break, and I'd still like to see some more detailed background on the series you're writing in this first article, but it's much improved.

Hence I am now going to talk about the content. Namely, mostly everyone has been working on your solution for many years. Most difficult apps are written by first writing a library and then writing a front-end for that library. Sometimes it goes the other way -- Lyx has several front-ends now.

Re. CLI vs. GUI

Advice about how to do something with your Linux system will usually be CLI-based for two important reasons. Firstly, typed commands are easily expressed in the form of text -- you can give them what they need to type, and they can paste it in. Secondly, most packages come with CLI-based configuration tools and not GUI-based ones. That means that there is no standardised GUI-based configuration system for most Linux packages. The reason most packages favour CLI-based tools is that it's easier to write programs that interact with those tools (such as the GUI-based configuration tools), and it's easier to interact directly with those tools through pipes and sockets.

i don't have the epxertise of all of you guys, because i am a mac user and could never do anything on Linux systems, but i definetely have a couple of things to say.

usability is an issue when one entity wants to reach the mass market. that means the target is the least common denominator (does that exist in english?). cypher3d said the target is joe average, well the real target is the guy with accessiblity issues, who knows a few words of english, and just knows how to use a TV remote control. you still want to give that guy the possibility to do voice chat, play a cool game, or put a nice background on his computer screen without typing a make install command.

usability has never been an issue to most open source projects. open source developers are engineers, they aim to implement an algorithm they thought of, and that's all. making an interface or something readable outside the small circle of developers is well ... an option, because the priorities are performance, functionnalities, or code design issues.

there is a mentality that is like this among programmers : "hmm, what if i make this audio file writer with three different algorithms to choose from and five different speedrates ? that would be cool because the user has the liberty to use the soft with his own settings. and while i'm at it, i'll add this other code so that it includes xml files. and that other network functionnality too." well this thinking is wrong. because instead of giving the guy the "liberty" to compress an audio file with 35 different settings, you actually gave him an headache and you'll wonder why your soft is being used by just a couple of pHd holders. i'm in a favor of just making softs that does the damn job (thanks apple), user oriented from the beginning. and follows the thinking : "ok, our users need to listen to some music. ok, i'll write an OGG reader, HIDE the process and i will display a nice music icon. so the users just click the button and finished" there we go. no need to show him how much time the processor used to do the task, no need to ask wether you want it at 192kpbs or at 160, and so on ... and you'll be happy when your five-year old says thanks because he can by himself listen to music.

usabiblity will be an issue when OSS developers will work with some kind of pressure. this works in commercial entities. no usability, less clients. no usability, no business. hence the design teams at microsoft and apple.
now, where would that pressure come from in the OS model ? having known many programmers, i am convinced this would never come from the developers (well, unless they are educated fromthe beginning) , but from the outside. that means pressure from business entities, that means more interaction with the users, that means project leaders not 100% developers ...

the solution will then arise one day when OSS developers will work hand in hand with usability experts (themselves or external people) and make usability, ergonomics, accesiiblity a top priority.

i'd like to explain also why usability is an issue for those who are not convinced. usability gives you more users. a CLI interface gives you access to less than 5% potential market share. a "perfect" GUI à la apple gives you let's say 99% potential market share. that includes your grandma, a guy from namibia or a visually-handicapped person. i'm not just thinking in terms of business, these extra users brings you more knowledge, more brain power, more rich interactions. i know for example a guy who develops programs by using xcode and the accessibility functions. and he is nearly blind. can't see beyond 20 centimeters. a voice reads the commands. he talks, there is voice recognition. he can also use keyboard commands. but he is one of the most imaginative mathematician i know of and gets some quality computer programs. is that possible with OSS softs ? also think about people from other domain : botanists, historians, mecanician, salesmens, physicians, etc ... thanks to usability, they can use a soft and contribute by bringing their solutions and original way of thinking to the whole business.


now oluseyi (weird pseudo, is that nigerian by the way?), back to your thread,
oss = technical innovation. oss developers have no clue whatsoever of usability.

finally, time for some personal and biaised comments :
1. Open source softs are not cool. iLife is cool. garageband is cool. yeah it's proprietary. but i don't care how they made it. i prefer creating music than looking at some 1M code. and i don't mind paying for it. the guys worked hard for the product anyway.
2. flarelocke, give the guy a break, you are thinking typos and using "i" is a big problem, i'm thinking you are too uptight. no point in writing an essay about the uses of lists and pronouns. do you want the guy to spend one whole day writing in front of a computer instead of going out and having a life.

[Edited by - 2xp on August 5, 2004 11:18:15 AM]