[plug] Good GUI Interface Design

[David Lloyd]

Hmmm...

> In message <3FE2F633.2040603 at postnewspapers.com.au>
> on Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 08:59:31PM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> > Of course, people also say that another problem is 
> > a tendancy to do 'developer/power user' focused apps in favour of 
> > 'user-focused' apps. MS-like interfaces are often "what the users's 
> > want" because they're generally familiar.
> 
> Oh yeah, that's another motivation for building interfaces that mimic
> MS software (esp. for OOo, probably): it's what a lot users expect.

I have recently been using Mac OS X. Unlike all the other OS environment's
that I've used:

 * Gnome 1 and Gnome 2
 * KDE 2 and KDE 3.1
 * FVWM95 (but this isn't as integrated as the above)
 * icewm (same comment as FVWM95)
 * Windows 3.1
 * Windows 95
 * Windows XP
 * Windows 2000

...Mac OS X's Acqua just *does* what I expect it to. It's the only GUI where
I will actually use the GUI tools to do most things. All the GUI's above
have different annoyances. The only reason I use Gnome or icewm (depending
on what mood I'm in) is that I can't look at pretty pictures in a real
terminal, sylpheed requires X and I refuse to use lynx/links as a primary
web browser.

Let me see, a catalogue of annoyances:

 * Gnome 1 and 2 both look clunky (sorry guys they do)
 * Nautilus is just crap
 * KDE 3.1 is slow as hell, konqueror is from outer space - what MORON
   relabelled "_File" to "_Location" and trying to customise konqueror is a
   logistical nightmare 
 * FVWM95 is even worse than Windows 95
 * Windows 3.1 is crap, need I say more
 * Ditto 95
 * XP changes things because it *can*
 * Windows 2000 is semi usable

The biggest problems, though, are the "Yes/No" questions.

 "Do you not want to send a non-tactical nuclear weapon?

  Yes/No"

WHAT the hell happens when you press either of the buttons here. *hmmm*

So, what is it about Acqua/Mac OS X that makes it just work for me:

 * The Finder just *works*; you don't have to fiddle with it, change its
   settings too much
 * The application launch is really good; double click on anything and it
   just *works* [yeah, Gnome and KDE say they just work but Unix is
   configurable to collapse, and most of the time it collapses]
 * The Dock makes sense, is easy to use, provides excellent visual clues as
   to what you are doing
 * Drag and Drop just WORK
 * Plugging anything in via USB just WORKS
 * Just as Unix has its /dev, Apple has its own paradigms and they are
   CONSISTENT

And the default theme is just nice. To be perfectly blunt, Linux Developers
and Coders are one of the worlds' worst group of graphic designers out.
Without bashing Linux.Conf.Au, take a look at:

 * http://linux.conf.au/

It's the WORST web-site for the BEST Linux Conference in the world that I've
ever seen. I keep on clicking on "Partners Programme" for the conference
programme. And no, I can't get it fixed--it's too late and that would
involve yet another South Australian political intrigue and I am conducting
too many intrigues to guarantee I'd get that one through.

So, I think a usable desktop or GUI interface needs to be:

 * Usable FROM SCRATCH
   - none of this configuration bull shit
 * TOTALLY consistent
   - none of this "kmail" looks and acts different to "sylpheed" with
     different decorations and different widget crap
 * Usable from point and click
 * Preferably usable with only one mouse button, two perhaps
   - for simplicity sake
 * Fast
 * Aesthetically pleasing

And I haven't seen one Linux/Open Source desktop solution that is ALL of the
above.

DSL

-- 
http://educationalinux.adam.com.au/

"EducationaLinux 2004 is going to rock!"