Discussion:
Why the iPhone will Slaughter the Linux based phones.
(too old to reply)
Peter Köhlmann
2009-02-26 23:05:51 UTC
Permalink
Do you actually try to tell us that an e-mail client is the only
application that would want access to contact data?
What do you think Kontact is made for in KDE?
It has exactly *one* copy of address data for every task I set it up
to. This copy is useable by email, usenet reader, IM app, IRC app and
several others.
So you *do* understand the benefits of this.
And the bad things about it, too. You seem to think something like that
has only benefits.
But you're unwilling to
admit that it would be better if it worked with practically all Linux
apps, rather than just with some of the apps written for KDE.
Basically all linux apps /can/ tap into it. All that needs to be done is
writing a small library

The point is: Similar stuff exists for Gnome.

And if someone uses a mainly KDE setup, he will probably use Gnome apps
only for some special odd cases. And *those* apps have no need to tap into
the address data
The same is true for someone using Gnome. They will use KDE apps for just
some fringe duties, not for anything where address data would be needed in
any shape or form

For example: The few Gnome apps installed on my system (and used rarely)
can't do anything at all with address data.
If I would set up a Gnome system, I would have some (few) KDE apps. None
of which needs any address data at all

In short: You have no point
As with the open/save dialog sidebar behavior, supporting the Linux
status quo again requires you to argue that getting YOUR PREFERRED
BEHAVIOR in more apps is not beneficial.
*Your* approach is not superior.
I simply don't want to have all those setups shared universally among
apps, no matter if they are KDE or Gnome.
I want them setup "per application", and in that case there is no
meaningful overlap between KDE or Gnome.
And you wonder why I say you're not interested in meaningful discussion.
I am not interested in a "Snot Michael Glasser discussion". And you are
having one since dozens of posts. You are impervious to reason, your
"arguments" are bullshit from start to end and you completely lack the
intelligence to see why people reject your "arguments"

In short: You are a Mac fanboi. Dumb, condescending and dishonest
--
Just out of curiosity does this actually mean something or have some
of the few remaining bits of your brain just evaporated?
Snit
2009-02-26 23:17:16 UTC
Permalink
Peter Köhlmann stated in post
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Do you actually try to tell us that an e-mail client is the only
application that would want access to contact data?
What do you think Kontact is made for in KDE?
It has exactly *one* copy of address data for every task I set it up
to. This copy is useable by email, usenet reader, IM app, IRC app and
several others.
So you *do* understand the benefits of this.
And the bad things about it, too. You seem to think something like that
has only benefits.
Ah, your use of the word "only" shows you understand it does have benefits!

Excellent... so now maybe... just maybe, you can rise to the level of
talking about your view of the balance between these benefits you have
recognized and whatever downfalls you think there are.

Personally I would not want to see one unchangeable solution... so ZnU and I
might disagree. But what we might disagree with is how to make things
better... not a basic understanding of the obvious flaws in the current
situation with desktop Linux.
Post by Peter Köhlmann
But you're unwilling to
admit that it would be better if it worked with practically all Linux
apps, rather than just with some of the apps written for KDE.
Basically all linux apps /can/ tap into it. All that needs to be done is
writing a small library
LOL! All that it takes is to modify the code of the app and it will do
things differently than it does.

Wow! You must be a grand programmer to have such depth of understanding.
LOL!
Post by Peter Köhlmann
The point is: Similar stuff exists for Gnome.
Right: it is not unified.
Post by Peter Köhlmann
And if someone uses a mainly KDE setup, he will probably use Gnome apps only
for some special odd cases. And *those* apps have no need to tap into the
address data The same is true for someone using Gnome. They will use KDE apps
for just some fringe duties, not for anything where address data would be
needed in any shape or form
Good to see you recognizing the problems of having different types of
apps... so how do you think that should be fixed?
Post by Peter Köhlmann
For example: The few Gnome apps installed on my system (and used rarely) can't
do anything at all with address data. If I would set up a Gnome system, I
would have some (few) KDE apps. None of which needs any address data at all
In short: You have no point
Actually: you are supporting his view. You are noting how people have to be
very selective - make sure they get all, or at least mostly, apps from
either KDE *or* Gnome. A mix is bad.

And yet all distros mix them. All. Look at their repositories if you do
not believe me. They do not even offer a warning not to install apps you
have shown you know should generally not be installed.

You have come a long way in your understanding, Peter. Good to see.
Post by Peter Köhlmann
As with the open/save dialog sidebar behavior, supporting the Linux
status quo again requires you to argue that getting YOUR PREFERRED
BEHAVIOR in more apps is not beneficial.
*Your* approach is not superior.
Well, not if you have no desire to see your preferred behavior be more
universal. LOL! How absurd!
Post by Peter Köhlmann
I simply don't want to have all those setups shared universally among
apps, no matter if they are KDE or Gnome.
Nor do you want *anyone* to have the *choice* to have it that way.

Ouch!

You are - again - on the side of being against choice.
Post by Peter Köhlmann
I want them setup "per application", and in that case there is no
meaningful overlap between KDE or Gnome.
Er? What?
Post by Peter Köhlmann
And you wonder why I say you're not interested in meaningful discussion.
I am not interested in a "Snot Michael Glasser discussion". And you are
having one since dozens of posts. You are impervious to reason, your
"arguments" are bullshit from start to end and you completely lack the
intelligence to see why people reject your "arguments"
In short: You are a Mac fanboi. Dumb, condescending and dishonest
LOL! Keep waving that white flag, Peter... keep waving it proudly.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sermo Malifer
2009-02-26 23:32:12 UTC
Permalink
[snips]
...well, then: demonstrate how you could AVOID the problem.
You mean the problem that Bjarnason fabricated so he could insist that
the feature wasn't worthwhile because Linux doesn't have it?
What? The idea that everyone in your contact list might not
be "one big happy family"? That perhaps mebbe you want to keep your
Sexaholics Anonymous list separate from your Southern Baptist Deacons
list?
You have to give him a little leeway. Since he's used to an environment
where there are no choices, no options and nothing to think about
...that I advocate a highly configurable system with a modular
architecture allowing for radical user-level customization, of the sort
that will (for various market-related reasons) probably never emerge
from the proprietary operating system vendors.
Linux already has that, but that isn't what you were advocating at all.
You were advocating one standard distro, with one standard desktop, with
tightly integrated apps, or IOW, a pale imitation of the Mac!
Have fun playing with your straw men, though.
You're the guy who's setting up straw men. The one you set up above is one
of your best so far.
Sermo Malifer
2009-02-26 23:47:05 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:18:03 -0600, chrisv
[deletia]
...the Mac Fanboys want to force everyone to use vi.
You know, you can never actually get the mindless platform partisan
types to admit you're right. But you can, with sufficient patience,
cause them to revert to utter incoherency.
You just don't have enough of a clue. You can't quite get your
head around where I am coming from. My mind is simply alien to you
as is the idea that someone might have been using the same app since
before the Macintosh has been in existence.
It's as if the new Mac washed the old one away completely.
You've gone off the rails again.
Is that the best you can do, Forest "ZnU" Gump?
You speak of people flitting about from application to application
in some ultra casual manner and then get fixated on minute details about
how applications look or act that isn't necessarily functional.
The novices won't notice because they don't have he motivation.
The geeks will be more interested in getting stuff done and won't
care unless it really is a drain on efficiency.
What you refuse to even address, though I've pointed it out many times
and in many different ways, is that bad UI and lack of integration hurt
productivity even if users don't consciously notice them.
Refuse to address, Forest? He demolished that argument above!
And I seriously doubt some of the issues I've pointed out would actually
go unnoticed by even casual users.
They probably would notice your issues, Forest, but those have nothing to do
with running a computer.
Alan Baker
2009-02-27 04:33:01 UTC
Permalink
[snips]
Except for the little detail that we've pointed out the costs.
The loss of flexibility, the loss of customizability, the
increased risks of mis- fires and so on and so forth.
No. Standardizing things at the appropriate level *increases*
flexibility and customizability, and decreases the chances of
misfires (if I understand what you mean by that).
It's very simple.
I have (in your weird little world) a single, system-wide address
book.
I have a document I want to send to 250 people in my address book,
as it pertains to work.
I fire up my trusty mail merge script, point it at my address
book, link in the document and fire.
[snip more along same lines]
This issue has nothing to do with "choice" or "flexibility". It's a
specific mishap that you believe is more likely to occur with a
system-wide address book. Perhaps if this issue were serious enough
it
...well, then: demonstrate how you could AVOID the problem.
You mean the problem that Bjarnason fabricated so he could insist that
the feature wasn't worthwhile because Linux doesn't have it?
What? The idea that everyone in your contact list might not
be "one big happy family"? That perhaps mebbe you want to keep
your Sexaholics Anonymous list separate from your Southern Baptist
Deacons list?
Which you can still do with a system-wide contact data storage system.
Bjarnason arbitrarily decided that user error is more likely to lead to
mixing up lists with such a system than with contact lists in separate
Based on what you've told us so, far there's no reason to believe
that the Apple contact faclity can handle 2 different groups of people
well. There's also the question of how well it would handle the data
for 2 different people. That hasn't been established yet either.
You are simply an idiot.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<Loading Image...>
JEDIDIAH
2009-02-27 15:36:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
[snips]
[deletia]
Post by Alan Baker
You mean the problem that Bjarnason fabricated so he could insist that
the feature wasn't worthwhile because Linux doesn't have it?
What? The idea that everyone in your contact list might not
be "one big happy family"? That perhaps mebbe you want to keep
your Sexaholics Anonymous list separate from your Southern Baptist
Deacons list?
Which you can still do with a system-wide contact data storage system.
Bjarnason arbitrarily decided that user error is more likely to lead to
mixing up lists with such a system than with contact lists in separate
Based on what you've told us so, far there's no reason to believe
that the Apple contact faclity can handle 2 different groups of people
well. There's also the question of how well it would handle the data
for 2 different people. That hasn't been established yet either.
You are simply an idiot.
...nope, a skeptic.

I don't take mindless Mac cheerleader blather at face value.
--
These Mac Fanboys want vi imposed on everyone. |||
/ | \
Alan Baker
2009-02-27 16:21:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
[snips]
[deletia]
Post by Alan Baker
You mean the problem that Bjarnason fabricated so he could insist that
the feature wasn't worthwhile because Linux doesn't have it?
What? The idea that everyone in your contact list might not
be "one big happy family"? That perhaps mebbe you want to keep
your Sexaholics Anonymous list separate from your Southern Baptist
Deacons list?
Which you can still do with a system-wide contact data storage system.
Bjarnason arbitrarily decided that user error is more likely to lead to
mixing up lists with such a system than with contact lists in separate
Based on what you've told us so, far there's no reason to believe
that the Apple contact faclity can handle 2 different groups of people
well. There's also the question of how well it would handle the data
for 2 different people. That hasn't been established yet either.
You are simply an idiot.
...nope, a skeptic.
I don't take mindless Mac cheerleader blather at face value.
Please.

At least *read* a little. Keywords, Spotlight, Smart Groups.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
ZnU
2009-02-27 04:35:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Köhlmann
In article
Do you actually try to tell us that an e-mail client is the only
application that would want access to contact data?
What do you think Kontact is made for in KDE? It has exactly *one*
copy of address data for every task I set it up to. This copy is
useable by email, usenet reader, IM app, IRC app and several
others.
So you *do* understand the benefits of this.
And the bad things about it, too. You seem to think something like
that has only benefits.
But you're unwilling to admit that it would be better if it worked
with practically all Linux apps, rather than just with some of the
apps written for KDE.
Basically all linux apps /can/ tap into it. All that needs to be done
is writing a small library
But because there are multiple such standards (and, I suppose, because
some of your Linux-using compatriots insist that shared contacts are a
bad idea), many fewer app *do* tap into the shared contact systems that
exist for Linux. It does the user no good that developers *could* choose
to all implement such a system.

[snip]
--
"What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them
-- that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer
apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too
small, but whether it works [...]" -- Barack Obama, January 20th, 2008
Snit
2009-02-27 17:57:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by ZnU
Post by Peter Köhlmann
In article
Do you actually try to tell us that an e-mail client is the only
application that would want access to contact data?
What do you think Kontact is made for in KDE? It has exactly *one*
copy of address data for every task I set it up to. This copy is
useable by email, usenet reader, IM app, IRC app and several
others.
So you *do* understand the benefits of this.
And the bad things about it, too. You seem to think something like
that has only benefits.
But you're unwilling to admit that it would be better if it worked
with practically all Linux apps, rather than just with some of the
apps written for KDE.
Basically all linux apps /can/ tap into it. All that needs to be done
is writing a small library
But because there are multiple such standards (and, I suppose, because
some of your Linux-using compatriots insist that shared contacts are a
bad idea), many fewer app *do* tap into the shared contact systems that
exist for Linux. It does the user no good that developers *could* choose
to all implement such a system.
Heck, on OS X developers could opt to use a different global address book.
If they wanted to.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Kelsey Bjarnason
2009-02-27 00:48:13 UTC
Permalink
[snips]
...that I advocate a highly configurable system with a modular
architecture allowing for radical user-level customization, of the sort
that will (for various market-related reasons) probably never emerge
from the proprietary operating system vendors.
You mean, something linux users already have?
Hehehe. *Poof* goes the Macintard. :)
Hadron
2009-02-27 14:34:21 UTC
Permalink
[snips]
...that I advocate a highly configurable system with a modular
architecture allowing for radical user-level customization, of the sort
that will (for various market-related reasons) probably never emerge
from the proprietary operating system vendors.
You mean, something linux users already have?
Hehehe. *Poof* goes the Macintard. :)
Except it doesn't have these things. These are the things we are arguing
FOR. Koehlmann (and you) are arguing AGAINST them.

Do try to keep up Jonah. How's the PC and Hard Drive trashing going?
Everything you touch still breaking down? Yeah? Thought so.
Peter Köhlmann
2009-02-27 15:13:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hadron
[snips]
...that I advocate a highly configurable system with a modular
architecture allowing for radical user-level customization, of the
sort that will (for various market-related reasons) probably never
emerge from the proprietary operating system vendors.
You mean, something linux users already have?
Hehehe. *Poof* goes the Macintard. :)
Except it doesn't have these things. These are the things we are arguing
FOR. Koehlmann (and you) are arguing AGAINST them.
Nope. I have all the time argued against ZnoTs idiotic approach, which
would limit choice.
After all, he wants, just like you, "OSS culling committee chairman"
Hadron Quark, limit the DEs to *one* and so consequently will severely
limit the choices users would have. After all, windows apologists like you
and Mac fanbois can't stand choice. You guys can't cope with it
Post by Hadron
Do try to keep up Jonah. How's the PC and Hard Drive trashing going?
Everything you touch still breaking down? Yeah? Thought so.
Another fine "true linux advocacy post" from the
"true linux advocate", "kernel hacker", "emacs user", "swapfile expert",
"X specialist", "CUPS guru", "USB-disk server admin", "defragger
professional", "newsreader magician", "hardware maven", "time
coordinator", "email sage", "tripwire wizard", "Pulseaudio rockstar" and
"OSS culling committee chairman" Hadron Quark, aka Hans Schneider, aka
Richard, aka Damian O'Leary, aka Steve Townsend, aka Ubuntu King
--
Windows: Because everyone needs a good laugh!
Snit
2009-02-27 17:25:09 UTC
Permalink
Peter Köhlmann stated in post
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Post by Hadron
[snips]
...that I advocate a highly configurable system with a modular
architecture allowing for radical user-level customization, of the
sort that will (for various market-related reasons) probably never
emerge from the proprietary operating system vendors.
You mean, something linux users already have?
Hehehe. *Poof* goes the Macintard. :)
Except it doesn't have these things. These are the things we are arguing
FOR. Koehlmann (and you) are arguing AGAINST them.
Nope. I have all the time argued against ZnoTs idiotic approach, which
would limit choice.
Please explain what choice you think I would want to limit?

Come on, Peter... you keep spewing this lie... knowing you cannot back it
up.

Why do you insist on lying so much?

...
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
2009-02-27 18:32:19 UTC
Permalink
[snips]
...that I advocate a highly configurable system with a modular
architecture allowing for radical user-level customization, of the sort
that will (for various market-related reasons) probably never emerge
from the proprietary operating system vendors.
You mean, something linux users already have?
Hehehe. *Poof* goes the Macintard. :)
How does Peter's misunderstanding of Linux make anything go "poof"?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sermo Malifer
2009-02-27 16:31:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by ZnU
[snip]
Prove your premises are true instead of whining that nobody will follow
your "arguments" that use unsupported assertions as their "building
blocks."
It's impossible to prove in any irrefutable sense that any statement
about the real world is true. All discussions involving real-world
phenomena proceed from shared beliefs.
So things fall when dropped not because of gravity, but rather because of a
shared belief that dropped objects will fall?

The ridiculous belief system you expressed goes a long way in explaining
your bizarre arguments. You think you can make a thing so simply by
believing it is so, facts and reality be damned.
Post by ZnU
Thus, insisting that one doesn't
believe something is always a mechanism for preventing meaningful
discussion.
No it's not. Beliefs can be changed if the right evidence is presented.
What prevents "meaningful discussion" is the fact you haven't offered any
yet, and you run like hell when others offer it to you!
Post by ZnU
In other words, you can't have a meaningful discussion with someone who
is (or who strategically pretends to be) sufficiently out of touch with
reality.
Which is why attempting a meaningful discussion with you is an exercise in
futility!
ZnU
2009-02-27 17:11:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sermo Malifer
Post by ZnU
[snip]
Prove your premises are true instead of whining that nobody will
follow your "arguments" that use unsupported assertions as their
"building blocks."
It's impossible to prove in any irrefutable sense that any
statement about the real world is true. All discussions involving
real-world phenomena proceed from shared beliefs.
So things fall when dropped not because of gravity, but rather
because of a shared belief that dropped objects will fall?
The ridiculous belief system you expressed goes a long way in
explaining your bizarre arguments. You think you can make a thing so
simply by believing it is so, facts and reality be damned.
I'm not talking about how the real world functions. I'm talking about
how knowledge of the real world functions. My point is more that I
believe that objects fall because of gravity, and I couldn't have a
meaningful conversation about falling objects with someone who refused
to believe that.
Post by Sermo Malifer
Post by ZnU
Thus, insisting that one doesn't believe something is always a
mechanism for preventing meaningful discussion.
No it's not. Beliefs can be changed if the right evidence is
presented.
Only if the evidence is believed. That's my point. You COLA types have,
throughout this thread, claimed to disbelieve the basic, obvious
statements on which my arguments rest. Like the notion that it's better
if all of a user's applications work according to a central set of
preferences set by the user.

It's simply not worth my time to justify such statements, since a) you
don't *actually* disbelieve them, and b) you wouldn't stop pretending to
disbelieve them no matter how thorough my justifications were.

[snip]
--
"What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them
-- that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer
apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too
small, but whether it works [...]" -- Barack Obama, January 20th, 2008
Snit
2009-02-27 17:56:29 UTC
Permalink
ZnU stated in post znu-***@news.individual.net on 2/27/09
10:11 AM:

...
Post by ZnU
Post by Sermo Malifer
So things fall when dropped not because of gravity, but rather
because of a shared belief that dropped objects will fall?
The ridiculous belief system you expressed goes a long way in
explaining your bizarre arguments. You think you can make a thing so
simply by believing it is so, facts and reality be damned.
I'm not talking about how the real world functions. I'm talking about
how knowledge of the real world functions. My point is more that I
believe that objects fall because of gravity, and I couldn't have a
meaningful conversation about falling objects with someone who refused
to believe that.
Gravity does not exist... the world just sucks. :)
Post by ZnU
Post by Sermo Malifer
Post by ZnU
Thus, insisting that one doesn't believe something is always a
mechanism for preventing meaningful discussion.
No it's not. Beliefs can be changed if the right evidence is presented.
Only if the evidence is believed. That's my point. You COLA types have,
throughout this thread, claimed to disbelieve the basic, obvious
statements on which my arguments rest. Like the notion that it's better
if all of a user's applications work according to a central set of
preferences set by the user.
It is bizarre to watch them argue *against* having users have more choice.

What happened to their "choice" mantra? It only applies when "choice" is a
euphemism for keeping the status quo.
Post by ZnU
It's simply not worth my time to justify such statements, since a) you
don't *actually* disbelieve them, and b) you wouldn't stop pretending to
disbelieve them no matter how thorough my justifications were.
[snip]
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Kelsey Bjarnason
2009-03-02 01:58:13 UTC
Permalink
The fact that both exist is *proof* that people *want* them to exist!
Case closed.
Sheesh!
Do you ever make posts with actual content? I'm just asking.
Dumbshit.
Apparently, the notion people want and value choices and options doesn't
matter enough to even qualify as "content" when explained.

No wonder I shitcanned the moron.
Sermo Malifer
2009-03-03 20:02:33 UTC
Permalink
< snip >
Either the GNOME developers shouldn't have the right to deviate or
the KDE developers shouldn't have the right to deviate. Nevermind stuff
like OpenStep or anything else that might be far stranger.
I think it's interesting that when we really get right down to it, you
guys *do* understand that what you're defending is developer freedom
rather than user freedom.
Right. Who are you to put a gun to the developers heads and tell them to
do as you like or else?
Right, because saying "Linux world probably be more successful in market
X if it worked like Y" is precisely equivalent to threatening people
with deadly weapons.
How do you intend to enforce your unproven ideas of "in market X if it
worked like Y?"

Why do you think developers who are putting their time and effort into
Linux development need an armchair quarterback like you to tell them
what they're doing all wrong?
Hadron Snot Quark and Snot Michael Glasser argued along the same lines.
You guys are simply scum. Filthy pond slime. MAK users
Apart from the fact that in on fell swoop you also want to eliminate most
choices for the users. Forcing your idiotic "one size fits all" garbage
you so dearly like unto all linux users
Nobody has yet been able to offer a coherent explanation for how a
single highly modular and configurable UI would offer users less choice
in any meaningful way.
Conformance to a single UI would eliminate users choice of UI! How can
you not see that? Because it's not "meaningful" to a Mac user who
thinks Apple's way of only one rigidly controlled UI is what everybody
should have?
Snit
2009-03-04 22:14:08 UTC
Permalink
Sermo Malifer stated in post ***@localhost.localdomain
on 3/3/09 1:02 PM:

...
Post by Sermo Malifer
Right. Who are you to put a gun to the developers heads and tell them to
do as you like or else?
Right, because saying "Linux world probably be more successful in market
X if it worked like Y" is precisely equivalent to threatening people
with deadly weapons.
How do you intend to enforce your unproven ideas of "in market X if it
worked like Y?"
Why do you think developers who are putting their time and effort into
Linux development need an armchair quarterback like you to tell them
what they're doing all wrong?
Before you get to the idea of enforcing, do you accept that it would be
better if desktop Linux adopted some of the ideas ZnU is talking about?

If not, then implementation does not matter.

If so, then likely developers would *want* to make things better. As the
ecosystem grows more mature, developers will develop for it. Sure, there
will be some exceptions, but those would be rare.
Post by Sermo Malifer
Hadron Snot Quark and Snot Michael Glasser argued along the same lines.
You guys are simply scum. Filthy pond slime. MAK users
Apart from the fact that in on fell swoop you also want to eliminate most
choices for the users. Forcing your idiotic "one size fits all" garbage
you so dearly like unto all linux users
Nobody has yet been able to offer a coherent explanation for how a
single highly modular and configurable UI would offer users less choice
in any meaningful way.
Conformance to a single UI would eliminate users choice of UI!
Can you give an example of a choice that would be eliminated? What do you
think a user would not be able to do?

Let us assume that ZnU's single-but flexible UI was adopted... and there
were two major pre-sets that were popular, one called ZnUKDE and one called
ZnUGnome... and they acted *exactly* like KDE and Gnome, with the exception
that they "flowed" into almost every single application (unless the user did
not want that, of course!). There were, of course, other less common
pre-sets.

Choices that the user currently does not have clearly have been added -
namely the option to use pretty much any Linux software and have it conform
to the users wishes... something that clearly does not exist now.

What choice is lost? Can you name a single one?

ZnU, if I understand him correctly, is advocating *more* choice for the
user... and you are flipping over backwards to insist he is offering less...
but you cannot name what choice is being removed.
Post by Sermo Malifer
How can you not see that?
Being that you cannot name a single choice that is being removed, why do you
expect him to be able to?
Post by Sermo Malifer
Because it's not "meaningful" to a Mac user who thinks Apple's way of only one
rigidly controlled UI is what everybody should have?
The Mac clearly does *not* have the type of flexible UI that ZnU has been
discussing. Once again: you show no signs of understanding.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
ZnU
2009-03-05 06:01:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sermo Malifer
< snip >
Either the GNOME developers shouldn't have the right to deviate or
the KDE developers shouldn't have the right to deviate. Nevermind stuff
like OpenStep or anything else that might be far stranger.
I think it's interesting that when we really get right down to it, you
guys *do* understand that what you're defending is developer freedom
rather than user freedom.
Right. Who are you to put a gun to the developers heads and tell them to
do as you like or else?
Right, because saying "Linux world probably be more successful in market
X if it worked like Y" is precisely equivalent to threatening people
with deadly weapons.
How do you intend to enforce your unproven ideas of "in market X if it
worked like Y?"
Why do you think developers who are putting their time and effort into
Linux development need an armchair quarterback like you to tell them
what they're doing all wrong?
As I've pointed out many times, the people actually developing Linux
seem to understand this stuff much better than you and the rest of the
COLA "advocates" do.

In any case, I'm completely uninterested in anything you have to say at
this point, particularly when you're replying to posts over a week old,
the topics of which I've already hashed out with other (more
interesting) posters.

[snip]
--
"What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them
-- that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer
apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too
small, but whether it works [...]" -- Barack Obama, January 20th, 2008
Sermo Malifer
2009-04-10 15:20:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by ZnU
Post by Sermo Malifer
< snip >
Either the GNOME developers shouldn't have the right to deviate
or the KDE developers shouldn't have the right to deviate.
Nevermind stuff like OpenStep or anything else that might be far
stranger.
I think it's interesting that when we really get right down to
it, you guys *do* understand that what you're defending is
developer freedom rather than user freedom.
Right. Who are you to put a gun to the developers heads and tell
them to do as you like or else?
Right, because saying "Linux world probably be more successful in
market X if it worked like Y" is precisely equivalent to threatening
people with deadly weapons.
How do you intend to enforce your unproven ideas of "in market X if it
worked like Y?"
Why do you think developers who are putting their time and effort into
Linux development need an armchair quarterback like you to tell them
what they're doing all wrong?
As I've pointed out many times, the people actually developing Linux
seem to understand this stuff much better than you and the rest of the
COLA "advocates" do.
In any case, I'm completely uninterested in anything you have to say at
this point, particularly when you're replying to posts over a week old,
the topics of which I've already hashed out with other (more
interesting) posters.
[snip]
Nothing but empty insults and whining about how long somebody takes to
answer questions from a man/woman/whatever who snips and never answers
questions!

What makes you think you're an interesting poster Znu? Your
willingness to insult others? Your willingness to lie and distort the
viewpoint of others?

When are you going to answer why you think it takes technical knowledge
to make Usenet posts?
Snit
2009-04-10 15:53:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sermo Malifer
Post by ZnU
Post by Sermo Malifer
< snip >
Either the GNOME developers shouldn't have the right to deviate
or the KDE developers shouldn't have the right to deviate.
Nevermind stuff like OpenStep or anything else that might be far
stranger.
I think it's interesting that when we really get right down to
it, you guys *do* understand that what you're defending is
developer freedom rather than user freedom.
Right. Who are you to put a gun to the developers heads and tell
them to do as you like or else?
Right, because saying "Linux world probably be more successful in
market X if it worked like Y" is precisely equivalent to threatening
people with deadly weapons.
How do you intend to enforce your unproven ideas of "in market X if it
worked like Y?"
Why do you think developers who are putting their time and effort into
Linux development need an armchair quarterback like you to tell them
what they're doing all wrong?
As I've pointed out many times, the people actually developing Linux
seem to understand this stuff much better than you and the rest of the
COLA "advocates" do.
In any case, I'm completely uninterested in anything you have to say at
this point, particularly when you're replying to posts over a week old,
the topics of which I've already hashed out with other (more
interesting) posters.
[snip]
Nothing but empty insults and whining about how long somebody takes to
answer questions from a man/woman/whatever who snips and never answers
questions!
What makes you think you're an interesting poster Znu? Your
willingness to insult others? Your willingness to lie and distort the
viewpoint of others?
When are you going to answer why you think it takes technical knowledge
to make Usenet posts?
Face it, Sermo: if nothing else your whole BS with your lies tied to people
in COLA not being able to even install Linux completely ruined your
credibility. You repeatedly made up stories, showed you did not understand
simple concepts from the poorly documented case study you kept quoting, and
overall made a complete fool of yourself.

ZnU simply does not sink to your level. Ever. If you think I am wrong
point to where he made as much of a fool of himself as you made of yourself.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
ZnU
2009-04-10 20:24:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sermo Malifer
Post by ZnU
Post by Sermo Malifer
< snip >
Either the GNOME developers shouldn't have the right to deviate
or the KDE developers shouldn't have the right to deviate.
Nevermind stuff like OpenStep or anything else that might be far
stranger.
I think it's interesting that when we really get right down to
it, you guys *do* understand that what you're defending is
developer freedom rather than user freedom.
Right. Who are you to put a gun to the developers heads and tell
them to do as you like or else?
Right, because saying "Linux world probably be more successful in
market X if it worked like Y" is precisely equivalent to threatening
people with deadly weapons.
How do you intend to enforce your unproven ideas of "in market X if it
worked like Y?"
Why do you think developers who are putting their time and effort into
Linux development need an armchair quarterback like you to tell them
what they're doing all wrong?
As I've pointed out many times, the people actually developing Linux
seem to understand this stuff much better than you and the rest of the
COLA "advocates" do.
In any case, I'm completely uninterested in anything you have to say at
this point, particularly when you're replying to posts over a week old,
the topics of which I've already hashed out with other (more
interesting) posters.
[snip]
Nothing but empty insults and whining about how long somebody takes to
answer questions from a man/woman/whatever who snips and never answers
questions!
What makes you think you're an interesting poster Znu? Your
willingness to insult others? Your willingness to lie and distort the
viewpoint of others?
When are you going to answer why you think it takes technical knowledge
to make Usenet posts?
Is there some particular reason you're responding a month-old post in a
largely dead thread?
--
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
Sermo Malifer
2009-04-10 21:35:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by ZnU
Post by Sermo Malifer
Post by ZnU
Post by Sermo Malifer
In article
< snip >
Either the GNOME developers shouldn't have the right to
deviate or the KDE developers shouldn't have the right to
deviate. Nevermind stuff like OpenStep or anything else that
might be far stranger.
I think it's interesting that when we really get right down to
it, you guys *do* understand that what you're defending is
developer freedom rather than user freedom.
Right. Who are you to put a gun to the developers heads and tell
them to do as you like or else?
Right, because saying "Linux world probably be more successful in
market X if it worked like Y" is precisely equivalent to
threatening people with deadly weapons.
How do you intend to enforce your unproven ideas of "in market X if
it worked like Y?"
Why do you think developers who are putting their time and effort
into Linux development need an armchair quarterback like you to tell
them what they're doing all wrong?
As I've pointed out many times, the people actually developing Linux
seem to understand this stuff much better than you and the rest of
the COLA "advocates" do.
In any case, I'm completely uninterested in anything you have to say
at this point, particularly when you're replying to posts over a week
old, the topics of which I've already hashed out with other (more
interesting) posters.
[snip]
Nothing but empty insults and whining about how long somebody takes to
answer questions from a man/woman/whatever who snips and never answers
questions!
What makes you think you're an interesting poster Znu? Your
willingness to insult others? Your willingness to lie and distort the
viewpoint of others?
When are you going to answer why you think it takes technical knowledge
to make Usenet posts?
Is there some particular reason you're responding a month-old post in a
largely dead thread?
Why does it matter that the thread is a month old? You didn't answer
when the questions were new, in spite of whining when you didn't get your
questions answered within a week.

FYI, the fact you and I are posting to this thread means it isn't dead.
ZnU
2009-04-10 22:28:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sermo Malifer
Post by ZnU
Post by Sermo Malifer
When are you going to answer why you think it takes technical knowledge
to make Usenet posts?
Is there some particular reason you're responding a month-old post in a
largely dead thread?
Why does it matter that the thread is a month old? You didn't answer
when the questions were new, in spite of whining when you didn't get your
questions answered within a week.
FYI, the fact you and I are posting to this thread means it isn't dead.
The fact that I have no interest in discussing technical issues with
someone of your unbounded technical ignorance means this thread is dead.
--
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
Sermo Malifer
2009-04-10 22:41:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by ZnU
Post by Sermo Malifer
Post by ZnU
Post by Sermo Malifer
When are you going to answer why you think it takes technical
knowledge to make Usenet posts?
Is there some particular reason you're responding a month-old post in
a largely dead thread?
Why does it matter that the thread is a month old? You didn't answer
when the questions were new, in spite of whining when you didn't get
your questions answered within a week.
FYI, the fact you and I are posting to this thread means it isn't dead.
The fact that I have no interest in discussing technical issues with
someone of your unbounded technical ignorance means this thread is dead.
You're keeping this thread alive with your unfounded insults and lies.
You're trying to provoke me into an exchange of insults with you because
of how badly I embarrassed you in this and other threads.
Sermo Malifer
2009-04-10 22:41:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by ZnU
Post by Sermo Malifer
Post by ZnU
Post by Sermo Malifer
When are you going to answer why you think it takes technical
knowledge to make Usenet posts?
Is there some particular reason you're responding a month-old post in
a largely dead thread?
Why does it matter that the thread is a month old? You didn't answer
when the questions were new, in spite of whining when you didn't get
your questions answered within a week.
FYI, the fact you and I are posting to this thread means it isn't dead.
The fact that I have no interest in discussing technical issues with
someone of your unbounded technical ignorance means this thread is dead.
You're keeping this thread alive with your unfounded insults and lies.
You're trying to provoke me into an exchange of insults with you because
of how badly I embarrassed you in this and other threads.
Snit
2009-04-10 23:06:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sermo Malifer
Post by ZnU
Post by Sermo Malifer
Post by ZnU
Post by Sermo Malifer
When are you going to answer why you think it takes technical
knowledge to make Usenet posts?
Is there some particular reason you're responding a month-old post in
a largely dead thread?
Why does it matter that the thread is a month old? You didn't answer
when the questions were new, in spite of whining when you didn't get
your questions answered within a week.
FYI, the fact you and I are posting to this thread means it isn't dead.
The fact that I have no interest in discussing technical issues with
someone of your unbounded technical ignorance means this thread is dead.
You're keeping this thread alive with your unfounded insults and lies.
You're trying to provoke me into an exchange of insults with you because
of how badly I embarrassed you in this and other threads.
Why do you assume others are like you? Do you need me to show examples of
your unfounded accusations, lies and insults? Really... you are just
projecting.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sermo Malifer
2009-04-13 16:22:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Sermo Malifer
Post by ZnU
Post by Sermo Malifer
Post by ZnU
Post by Sermo Malifer
When are you going to answer why you think it takes technical
knowledge to make Usenet posts?
Is there some particular reason you're responding a month-old post
in a largely dead thread?
Why does it matter that the thread is a month old? You didn't
answer when the questions were new, in spite of whining when you
didn't get your questions answered within a week.
FYI, the fact you and I are posting to this thread means it isn't dead.
The fact that I have no interest in discussing technical issues with
someone of your unbounded technical ignorance means this thread is dead.
You're keeping this thread alive with your unfounded insults and lies.
You're trying to provoke me into an exchange of insults with you
because of how badly I embarrassed you in this and other threads.
Why do you assume others are like you? Do you need me to show examples
of your unfounded accusations, lies and insults? Really... you are just
projecting.
In COLA, nobody can tell where Snit ends and ZnU begins. They're
collectively known as ZnUt.
Snit
2009-04-13 16:56:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sermo Malifer
Post by Snit
Post by Sermo Malifer
You're keeping this thread alive with your unfounded insults and lies.
You're trying to provoke me into an exchange of insults with you
because of how badly I embarrassed you in this and other threads.
Why do you assume others are like you? Do you need me to show examples
of your unfounded accusations, lies and insults? Really... you are just
projecting.
In COLA, nobody can tell where Snit ends and ZnU begins. They're
collectively known as ZnUt.
Ah, no wonder you are so confused - you cannot even figure out who you are
talking to.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
ZnU
2009-04-11 02:29:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sermo Malifer
Post by ZnU
Post by Sermo Malifer
Post by ZnU
Post by Sermo Malifer
When are you going to answer why you think it takes technical
knowledge to make Usenet posts?
Is there some particular reason you're responding a month-old post in
a largely dead thread?
Why does it matter that the thread is a month old? You didn't answer
when the questions were new, in spite of whining when you didn't get
your questions answered within a week.
FYI, the fact you and I are posting to this thread means it isn't dead.
The fact that I have no interest in discussing technical issues with
someone of your unbounded technical ignorance means this thread is dead.
You're keeping this thread alive with your unfounded insults and lies.
You're trying to provoke me into an exchange of insults with you because
of how badly I embarrassed you in this and other threads.
I'm killing this thread by kill filing you.
--
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
Sermo Malifer
2009-04-13 16:19:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by ZnU
Post by Sermo Malifer
Post by ZnU
Post by Sermo Malifer
Post by ZnU
Post by Sermo Malifer
When are you going to answer why you think it takes technical
knowledge to make Usenet posts?
Is there some particular reason you're responding a month-old post
in a largely dead thread?
Why does it matter that the thread is a month old? You didn't
answer when the questions were new, in spite of whining when you
didn't get your questions answered within a week.
FYI, the fact you and I are posting to this thread means it isn't dead.
The fact that I have no interest in discussing technical issues with
someone of your unbounded technical ignorance means this thread is dead.
You're keeping this thread alive with your unfounded insults and lies.
You're trying to provoke me into an exchange of insults with you
because of how badly I embarrassed you in this and other threads.
I'm killing this thread by kill filing you.
Run, Forest, run!
wetpixel
2009-04-04 13:34:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sermo Malifer
Nobody has yet been able to offer a coherent explanation for how a
single highly modular and configurable UI would offer users less choice
in any meaningful way.
Conformance to a single UI would eliminate users choice of UI! How can
you not see that? Because it's not "meaningful" to a Mac user who
thinks Apple's way of only one rigidly controlled UI is what everybody
should have?
You're expanding one idea to make it seem like all of the results would
be consistent -- don't.

There are psychological foundations for a UI. (Correct?)
Therefore, some of the ways a UI is designed should fit those
foundations. (Correct?)

Can you also see that there are huge numbers of UI designs that do not
fit those foundations? Yes, they can look pretty, and be distracting or
impressive eye candy, or whatever. That doesn't make them better at
being the UI tool they needed to be from the start.

So it isn't about taking away choice, but about recognizing some
universal foundations in UI design that would make all variations
better (and hopefully finding the useful, practical, intelligent and
graceful answers that will make using computers more effective and less
of a hobby!).
Sermo Malifer
2009-04-10 15:31:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by wetpixel
Post by Sermo Malifer
Nobody has yet been able to offer a coherent explanation for how a
single highly modular and configurable UI would offer users less
choice in any meaningful way.
Conformance to a single UI would eliminate users choice of UI! How
can you not see that? Because it's not "meaningful" to a Mac user who
thinks Apple's way of only one rigidly controlled UI is what everybody
should have?
You're expanding one idea to make it seem like all of the results would
be consistent -- don't.
I don't know what you're talking about. ZnU wants Linux to have only
one UI available the way the Mac only has one UI available. Linux users
prefer to have a wide variety of UI available.
Post by wetpixel
There are psychological foundations for a UI. (Correct?) Therefore, some
of the ways a UI is designed should fit those foundations. (Correct?)
Okay, let's say that's correct.
Post by wetpixel
Can you also see that there are huge numbers of UI designs that do not
fit those foundations?
Whatever "those foundations" is supposed to mean.
Post by wetpixel
Yes, they can look pretty, and be distracting or
impressive eye candy, or whatever. That doesn't make them better at
being the UI tool they needed to be from the start.
The UI doesn't have to be "better." All it needs to do is satisfy the
user who chose it. No adherence to one holy UI doctrine is required.
Post by wetpixel
So it isn't about taking away choice,
Yes it is. It's about eliminating my right to chose the UI I want to
use, and replacing it with a UI handed down to me from on high, by
somebody like you who thinks they know what's better for me than I do.
Post by wetpixel
but about recognizing some
universal foundations in UI design that would make all variations better
(and hopefully finding the useful, practical, intelligent and graceful
answers that will make using computers more effective and less of a
hobby!).
All existing Linux UI already do that.
Snit
2009-04-10 16:02:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sermo Malifer
Post by wetpixel
Post by Sermo Malifer
Nobody has yet been able to offer a coherent explanation for how a
single highly modular and configurable UI would offer users less
choice in any meaningful way.
Conformance to a single UI would eliminate users choice of UI! How
can you not see that? Because it's not "meaningful" to a Mac user who
thinks Apple's way of only one rigidly controlled UI is what everybody
should have?
You're expanding one idea to make it seem like all of the results would
be consistent -- don't.
I don't know what you're talking about. ZnU wants Linux to have only
one UI available the way the Mac only has one UI available. Linux users
prefer to have a wide variety of UI available.
And yet large numbers of people in COLA argue *against* me when I tout the
advantages of *more* choice in the UI area of desktop Linux - choices that
would, according to massive data, benefit users in many ways.
Post by Sermo Malifer
Post by wetpixel
There are psychological foundations for a UI. (Correct?) Therefore, some
of the ways a UI is designed should fit those foundations. (Correct?)
Okay, let's say that's correct.
Of course it is! There is a lot of research looking into UI issues.
Post by Sermo Malifer
Post by wetpixel
Can you also see that there are huge numbers of UI designs that do not
fit those foundations?
Whatever "those foundations" is supposed to mean.
Is grossly contrary to the research... and is clearly a detriment to
usability (which is not, as you have tried to twist things, a sign that it
is not usable at all).
Post by Sermo Malifer
Post by wetpixel
Yes, they can look pretty, and be distracting or
impressive eye candy, or whatever. That doesn't make them better at
being the UI tool they needed to be from the start.
The UI doesn't have to be "better." All it needs to do is satisfy the
user who chose it. No adherence to one holy UI doctrine is required.
For people who do not care about usability / productivity there is no reason
to have a focus on that. Sure. But why not offer others the *choice* of
having a UI focused on usability / productivity issues? I think users
should have that choice... or, really, set of choices. There is no perfect
or single answer for everyone! I have written much about that in the past.
Post by Sermo Malifer
Post by wetpixel
So it isn't about taking away choice,
Yes it is. It's about eliminating my right to chose the UI I want to
use, and replacing it with a UI handed down to me from on high, by
somebody like you who thinks they know what's better for me than I do.
Can you be specific with what choice ZnU suggests you lose? The "choice" to
have a productivity sapping UI? If so I *still* disagree with him - I think
you should be able to ruin your productivity any way you want... but others
should have the *choice* to have a well thought out, consistent, and
productivity-enhancing environment. I think Linux can grow to offer this...
and it keeps getting better at this over time.
Post by Sermo Malifer
Post by wetpixel
but about recognizing some
universal foundations in UI design that would make all variations better
(and hopefully finding the useful, practical, intelligent and graceful
answers that will make using computers more effective and less of a
hobby!).
All existing Linux UI already do that.
Please try to show this. Remember, the mass of data shows that a well
designed, consistent UI (something no distro of desktop Linux offers) is a
benefit. What do you have to counter the below. Nothing. Absolutely
nothing.

Snit RonB
Hadron Rick
Tim Smith Gregory Shearman
KDE docs Peter Köhlmann
Gnome docs JEDIDIAH
OpenOffice docs El Tux
Firefox docs vs. chrisv
Screen shots 7
Videos Linonut
Tim Berners-Lee William Poaster
Peer Reviewed Studies [1] Don Zeigler
Shuttleworth, Mark
UI Experts [2]
Standards Bodies [3]
Common sense
Bloggers
Jim Zemlin
ZnU

[1] Including, but not limited to:
Carole A George, "Usability testing and design of a
library website: an iterative approach" 2005
Cheul Rhee,  et. al., "Web interface consistency in
e-learning. Online Information Review" Social
Science Module database" 2006
John W Satzinger,  Lorne Olfman "User Interface Consistency
Across End-User Applications: The Effects on Mental
Models" 1998
R. Chimera, ³The Carm Group: Designing GUIs for
Usability² 1996.
R. Chimera and B. Shneiderman, ³User Interface Consistency:
An Evaluation of Original and Revised Versions for a
Videodisk Library² 1993
C. Marlin Brown in "Human-Computer Interface Design
Guidelines"
Kellogg, W. A. in "Coordinating User Interfaces for
Consistency"
Nelson, J in "Designing and Using Human-Computer
Interaction and Knowledge Based Systems"
Rubenstein and Hirsh in "The Human Factor"
Smith, SL, and Mosier in "Guidelines for Designing
User Interface Software"

[2] Including, but not limited to:
KDE / Gnome developers: <http://osnews.com/story/2997>
Richard Chimera of the Human-Computer Interaction
Laboratory at the University of Maryland and ASU,
etc.
<http://sci.asu.edu/directory/page.php?profile=575>
Jakob Nielsen: <http://www.useit.com/> and in
"Coordinating User Interfaces for Consistency"
Rick Oppedisano, published in Usabilities Professionals
Association <http://snipurl.com/oppedisano>
Henry P. Ledgard in The Case Against User Interface
Consistency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_User_Access
Jeff Johnson in "GUI Bloopers 2.0"
Matthew Ward <http://web.cs.wpi.edu/~matt/>
Marshall C. Yovits in "Advances in Computers"

[3] Including, but not limited to:
ISO 9241
HFS 600
ISO 13407
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
wetpixel
2009-04-04 13:27:00 UTC
Permalink
Do you understand that there _is_ a fundamental set of HI principles?
Do you understand that those can be used in a standard set of tools?
(That's not to say all behaviors are considered and included, just that
there is a set which is most easy to use, obvious, and natural.)
If you accept both of those, then mere variation is not a benefit --
it's a hindrance that the other publishers aren't yet understanding.
If a variation is not desirable, by anyone, it will fade into
oblivion. "Problem" solved.
You're right, but the problem is that the differences between designs,
products, and UI issues is far more subtle than a simple consumer
tryout.
Something as subtle as a consistent, well-designed and psychologically
founded interface is far beyond consumer evaluation. It takes a huge,
considered, researched and intellectually founded design effort.

Anyone believe these UNIX programmers are doing that?
Microsoft?

I know Apple has people doing this, which may be why so many of their
ideas are eventually taken as the most effective.

Or, from a programming perspective, talk to any coder who wishes a
specific technology succeeded in the market -- I think most of them
have a favorite thing that just never got accepted.
Chris Ahlstrom
2009-04-05 12:42:30 UTC
Permalink
After takin' a swig o' grog, wetpixel belched out
Post by wetpixel
If a variation is not desirable, by anyone, it will fade into
oblivion. "Problem" solved.
You're right, but the problem is that the differences between designs,
products, and UI issues is far more subtle than a simple consumer
tryout.
Something as subtle as a consistent, well-designed and psychologically
founded interface is far beyond consumer evaluation. It takes a huge,
considered, researched and intellectually founded design effort.
Anyone believe these UNIX programmers are doing that?
http://ingimp.org

Welcome to the ingimp home page! ingimp is a research project whose goal
is to develop and test new tools to support open source usability.

Here you can download ingimp, examine the data collected, and view
publications that have resulted from this project.
Post by wetpixel
I know Apple has people doing this, which may be why so many of their
ideas are eventually taken as the most effective.
Just from a beauty standpoint, one has to marvel at the appearances of Mac
OSX, Gnome, KDE, and even Vista. But I always come back to the relative
simplicity of fluxbox. I wonder how many people it puts off Linux -- but I
don't care to load up more software than I need.
--
Don't relax! It's only your tension that's holding you together.
wetpixel
2009-05-03 20:02:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
Post by wetpixel
If a variation is not desirable, by anyone, it will fade into
oblivion. "Problem" solved.
You're right, but the problem is that the differences between designs,
products, and UI issues is far more subtle than a simple consumer
tryout.
Something as subtle as a consistent, well-designed and psychologically
founded interface is far beyond consumer evaluation. It takes a huge,
considered, researched and intellectually founded design effort.
Anyone believe these UNIX programmers are doing that?
http://ingimp.org
Welcome to the ingimp home page! ingimp is a research project whose goal
is to develop and test new tools to support open source usability.
Here you can download ingimp, examine the data collected, and view
publications that have resulted from this project.
Wow -- no, I didn't know about that one.
That's great -- now if they'd apply that to an OS, we could find out
where people slow down, where they read and don't, where the buttons or
links are set well, etc.
Neat idea; I hope it progresses.

Of course, now I'm imagining one with an eye camera, brainwave
analysis, and subvocal input, to really learn what makes the UI work
well.
JEDIDIAH
2009-04-05 15:57:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by wetpixel
Do you understand that there _is_ a fundamental set of HI principles?
Do you understand that those can be used in a standard set of tools?
(That's not to say all behaviors are considered and included, just that
there is a set which is most easy to use, obvious, and natural.)
If you accept both of those, then mere variation is not a benefit --
it's a hindrance that the other publishers aren't yet understanding.
If a variation is not desirable, by anyone, it will fade into
oblivion. "Problem" solved.
You're right, but the problem is that the differences between designs,
products, and UI issues is far more subtle than a simple consumer
tryout.
...it's something "beyond experimentation" you just have to "take it on faith".

Niiiicee...

[deletia]

...and they call Linux users Zealots.
--
|||
In a free market, the herd should be irrelevant. / | \
wetpixel
2009-05-03 20:07:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by wetpixel
Do you understand that there _is_ a fundamental set of HI principles?
Do you understand that those can be used in a standard set of tools?
(That's not to say all behaviors are considered and included, just that
there is a set which is most easy to use, obvious, and natural.)
If you accept both of those, then mere variation is not a benefit --
it's a hindrance that the other publishers aren't yet understanding.
If a variation is not desirable, by anyone, it will fade into
oblivion. "Problem" solved.
You're right, but the problem is that the differences between designs,
products, and UI issues is far more subtle than a simple consumer
tryout.
...it's something "beyond experimentation" you just have to "take it on faith".
Niiiicee...
[deletia]
...and they call Linux users Zealots.
Wow -- you didn't get it at all.

I was actually saying that it _is_ subject to real examination, but
that few companies do it.

Nothing about 'beyond'-ness or faith. No zealotry
... and you'll notice, once more, no mention of any particular company.

Zealots? It's always the ones calling other people that name.
wetpixel
2009-04-04 13:29:42 UTC
Permalink
Show me anyplace where the market is free, in the classical economic
sense. That require rational consumers, which exist only in the mind of
Just about anywhere. While there are certainly dominant vendors in
many areas, most are true commodities that allow for any garage operation
to get a foothold. Only where there are artificial entry barriers such as
the technological based compatability problem do you see signficant break-
down in the market.
I think you missed the point of his inquiry -- a majority of informed
and rational consumers do not exist in technical markets.
Consumer decision exists, consumer opinion exists, but not widespread
consumer expertise.
wetpixel
2009-04-04 13:45:34 UTC
Permalink
Do you understand that there _is_ a fundamental set of HI principles?
Yeah, treat all users the same and treat all tasks the same.
That works poorly in practice and as a matter of basic industrial
engineering.
[deletia]
Nevermind "academic ideas". Try demonstrating things empirically.
Right: you clearly need an example, because it looks like you think
'academic ideas' is a synonym for 'irrelevant.'

Psychologically, there is an appropriate place for the 'close' box on a
window (in Western psychologies). If all (Western) UIs followed this,
all UIs would then seem to work better for users. They wouldn't have to
look for an icon, indicator, or try to make sense of it; they'd just do
it, easily and without thinking about it.
(That is a good thing.)
Also, people have been getting by quite well before anyone decided
to impose artificial order on interfaces.
Sorry, but you're wrong. Before someone thought about interfaces in
that way, people did very very poorly, had to learn and remember steps
and commands. After many examples of clean, simpler ways to do things,
many of those got accepted.
But then the apparent simplicity of GUIs was misunderstood, and
developers started making up lots of variations that did _not_ get
studied in the same ways. They were just thoughtless variations, for
the sake of trying things out. They are tested in the market, by all
the wrong people in all the wrong ways to learn the best simple way to
do each thing.

I'm not saying these are all creating havoc -- I'm saying they can't
lead to better options, because they never get tested or evaluated by
the experts who know how or what to look for.
Fixating on those new ideas
to the exclusion of all else will interfere with the way that people
already work.
I didn't suggest anybody fixate -- no one did. I didn't suggest anyone
do anything 'to the exclusion of all else.' Only a fool would assume
that having an interest in validating 'better UIs' means a disinterest
in every other aspect absolutely.
This is why openness at the protocol and data level is
useful. You don't have to destroy consistency over time for users that
are already quite effective.
I don't see what that has to do with a UI discussion.
Yes, users can benefit from knowledge and understanding they already
have, and certainly users benefit from allowing experts in a system
determine the value of protocols. Doesn't that support exactly what I
am saying about UIs, for the same reason?
JEDIDIAH
2009-04-05 16:02:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by wetpixel
Do you understand that there _is_ a fundamental set of HI principles?
Yeah, treat all users the same and treat all tasks the same.
That works poorly in practice and as a matter of basic industrial
engineering.
[deletia]
Nevermind "academic ideas". Try demonstrating things empirically.
Right: you clearly need an example, because it looks like you think
'academic ideas' is a synonym for 'irrelevant.'
Not "irrelevant" so much as they are "detached from reality".

Some academics are even honest enough to admit this.
Post by wetpixel
Psychologically, there is an appropriate place for the 'close' box on a
window (in Western psychologies). If all (Western) UIs followed this,
Yes, that's the place where it was yesterday. This is far more important
than some Platonic notion of where the close box should be. If this notion
of the ideal is to be taken seriously then there should be considerably less
variation than currently exists in the given examples of this ideal having
been achieved (or even just acknolwedged).

[deletia]
--
|||
In a free market, the herd should be irrelevant. / | \
wetpixel
2009-05-03 20:12:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by wetpixel
Psychologically, there is an appropriate place for the 'close' box on a
window (in Western psychologies). If all (Western) UIs followed this,
Yes, that's the place where it was yesterday.
That's the silliest concept of development I've ever read proposed.
"Just follow any previous implementation"?
As a _design principle_?

You cannot be serious.
Post by JEDIDIAH
This is far more important
than some Platonic notion of where the close box should be.
Does your notion of 'Platonic' mean 'irrelevant'?

What I'm saying is that we learn the proper way to do something and
then do it that way. (Then you can apply your 'momentum in most
important' suggestion.)
Post by JEDIDIAH
If this notion
of the ideal is to be taken seriously then there should be considerably less
variation than currently exists in the given examples of this ideal having
been achieved (or even just acknolwedged).
That presupposes that the people designing their UI had 'doing it
properly' in mind. I am suggesting they rarely do -- that most are
simply trying to find a different way or showy way to do it.
Anything but actually studying users with variations, because that
takes time and psych experts and analysis.
Just putting the close box in a new spot doesn't take much work at all
-- but you'd never know if it made any sense, because you aren't
checking anything.
JEDIDIAH
2009-05-04 12:27:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by wetpixel
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by wetpixel
Psychologically, there is an appropriate place for the 'close' box on a
window (in Western psychologies). If all (Western) UIs followed this,
Yes, that's the place where it was yesterday.
That's the silliest concept of development I've ever read proposed.
You mean CONSISTENT is the silliest concept of development you
ivory tower design types have ever heard?

Why am I not surprised.
Post by wetpixel
"Just follow any previous implementation"?
As a _design principle_?
You cannot be serious.
You advocate it when it suit you.
Post by wetpixel
Post by JEDIDIAH
This is far more important
than some Platonic notion of where the close box should be.
Does your notion of 'Platonic' mean 'irrelevant'?
What I'm saying is that we learn the proper way to do something and
then do it that way. (Then you can apply your 'momentum in most
There is no "proper" way to do it.

The device in quesiton isn't just one simple single tool like a shovel
that is restricted to doing only one single task.

So 19th century notions of industrial engineering don't really apply.

The assumptions are badly violated.

[deletia]
--
Oracle... can't live with it... |||
/ | \
can't just replace it with postgres...
wetpixel
2009-04-04 13:56:47 UTC
Permalink
Actually the GUI was researched by Apple from basically the beginning.
Perhaps what they came up with is not an artificial order on the
interface but a natural one.
You are confusing Apple with Xerox.
Xerox PARC got it started, but never applied it to what Apple wanted to
do. They had some of the most fundamental ideas, though.
...and the original research that led to the GUI still hasn't yet
yielded the sort of computer interaction that it's inventor intended.
Even Apple doesn't quite cut it in that department.
No; you only have to look at the Print or Open dialogs of any OS to see
how arcane and unintuitive a GUI still is.
Apple has a great launch-and-status bar in the Dock, but they can't
figure out how to show dependent documents or commands in it.
There are traditional symbols used in menus, glyphs used in icons and
indicators that relate to objects no one uses any more, and many of
these are just placeholders for ideas; placeholders that have to be
learned.

The best place to get this kind of information is still a University
Psych Department, not corporations, but the different studies and how
to apply them are just so varied and unpredictable.
Chris Ahlstrom
2009-04-05 12:47:47 UTC
Permalink
After takin' a swig o' grog, wetpixel belched out
Post by wetpixel
No; you only have to look at the Print or Open dialogs of any OS to see
how arcane and unintuitive a GUI still is.
Or just how many features printers have, that need options represented in
the GUI, these days.
Post by wetpixel
Apple has a great launch-and-status bar in the Dock, but they can't
figure out how to show dependent documents or commands in it.
There are traditional symbols used in menus, glyphs used in icons and
indicators that relate to objects no one uses any more, and many of
these are just placeholders for ideas; placeholders that have to be
learned.
The best place to get this kind of information is still a University
Psych Department, not corporations, but the different studies and how
to apply them are just so varied and unpredictable.
In my opinion, these things are even more important on hand-held devices.
Every cell-phone I've ever used is confusing or difficult to navigate. The
Sony-Ericsson unit I have is so far the easiest, but still clumsy.
--
If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would
be a merrier world.
-- J.R.R. Tolkien
wetpixel
2009-05-03 20:16:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
Post by wetpixel
No; you only have to look at the Print or Open dialogs of any OS to see
how arcane and unintuitive a GUI still is.
Or just how many features printers have, that need options represented in
the GUI, these days.
Post by wetpixel
Apple has a great launch-and-status bar in the Dock, but they can't
figure out how to show dependent documents or commands in it.
There are traditional symbols used in menus, glyphs used in icons and
indicators that relate to objects no one uses any more, and many of
these are just placeholders for ideas; placeholders that have to be
learned.
The best place to get this kind of information is still a University
Psych Department, not corporations, but the different studies and how
to apply them are just so varied and unpredictable.
In my opinion, these things are even more important on hand-held devices.
Every cell-phone I've ever used is confusing or difficult to navigate. The
Sony-Ericsson unit I have is so far the easiest, but still clumsy.
I've got one regular complaint about recent phone designs that should
make sense to most users of the group:

how much of your hand is holding the device up when you use one hand on
the Talk or End buttons?

In many recent models, those buttons are right at the bottom -- and in
my hands, that means I'd have to hold almost none of the phone to reach
them. It's like pinching it at the bottom corners.
What makes that worse is phones that are so sleek they're slippery.

Or another one -- flip models that have to be opened with the other
hand. I want to flip it open with the same hand -- a couple makers used
to put a lip on the top side, so your finger could do that. Most models
today make the seam flush, so you cannot.
wetpixel
2009-04-04 14:00:38 UTC
Permalink
If only you understood that "standard desktop GUI toolkits" belonged in
that list, we'd be making progress.
They interoperate just fine.
What you are complaining about is the fact that there is more than
one of something. That's not standardization. That's imposing conformity.
It's like complaining that Opera and Firefox don't look the same
despite the fact that the support the same underlying protocols.
Do you understand that there _is_ a fundamental set of HI principles?
Do you understand that those can be used in a standard set of tools?
(That's not to say all behaviors are considered and included, just that
there is a set which is most easy to use, obvious, and natural.)
If you accept both of those, then mere variation is not a benefit --
it's a hindrance that the other publishers aren't yet understanding.
That's why Microsoft keeps making UI changes -- they don't understand
that there is psychology and a real HI issue behind every function. If
you ignore that, menus can fit anywhere, buttons and toggles can go
anyplace -- but they will never be natural or seem obvious.
Too many boy geniuses, too many indians and not enough chiefs or rather
too many indians who think they are chiefs.
That's easy for the simpler mind to claim.
Did you miss the fact that I wasn't claiming to know the answers, just
one of the problems?

Are you now going to claim there isn't even any problem, that maybe all
UIs are effective and there isn't any difference?
If not, could you just shut up and not assume it's a failure of mine
and everyone else's?
wetpixel
2009-04-04 14:03:42 UTC
Permalink
Too many boy geniuses, too many indians and not enough chiefs or rather
too many indians who think they are chiefs.
Nope. Too many mountain men in charge of their own destiny not
beholden to someone that would lord over them.
Apple: Because the world doesn't have enough peasants.
Only an idiot brings the discussion back to a criticism someone else
made that doesn't apply to any of the discussion.
The discussion wasn't about Apple, and you haven't shown anywhere that
Apple's buyers are examples of people who blindly accept the norm.
(Almost everyone else see them as the opposite!)

Hey, did you ever have a thought someone else didn't provide first?
Hadron
2009-04-05 13:30:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by wetpixel
Too many boy geniuses, too many indians and not enough chiefs or rather
too many indians who think they are chiefs.
Nope. Too many mountain men in charge of their own destiny not
beholden to someone that would lord over them.
Apple: Because the world doesn't have enough peasants.
Only an idiot brings the discussion back to a criticism someone else
made that doesn't apply to any of the discussion.
The discussion wasn't about Apple, and you haven't shown anywhere that
Apple's buyers are examples of people who blindly accept the norm.
(Almost everyone else see them as the opposite!)
Hey, did you ever have a thought someone else didn't provide first?
You must remember that Jeb doesn't believe that consistent UIs offer the
user anything. He is of the opinion that only idiots could not learn
that search is C-f on one app and C-s on the one next to it. When asked
about what if C-f formatted his disk on the other he ran away.
--
In view of all the deadly computer viruses that have been spreading
lately, Weekend Update would like to remind you: when you link up to
another computer, you’re linking up to every computer that that
computer has ever linked up to. — Dennis Miller
JEDIDIAH
2009-04-05 16:05:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hadron
Post by wetpixel
Too many boy geniuses, too many indians and not enough chiefs or rather
too many indians who think they are chiefs.
Nope. Too many mountain men in charge of their own destiny not
beholden to someone that would lord over them.
Apple: Because the world doesn't have enough peasants.
Only an idiot brings the discussion back to a criticism someone else
made that doesn't apply to any of the discussion.
The discussion wasn't about Apple, and you haven't shown anywhere that
Apple's buyers are examples of people who blindly accept the norm.
(Almost everyone else see them as the opposite!)
Hey, did you ever have a thought someone else didn't provide first?
You must remember that Jeb doesn't believe that consistent UIs offer the
user anything. He is of the opinion that only idiots could not learn
...another lie. That's a compulsion with you isn't it.
Post by Hadron
that search is C-f on one app and C-s on the one next to it. When asked
about what if C-f formatted his disk on the other he ran away.
...another lie. That's a compulsion with you isn't it.

You're lying both about what you actually said as well as what my
reaction was to it.
--
|||
In a free market, the herd should be irrelevant. / | \
Chris Ahlstrom
2009-04-05 17:43:21 UTC
Permalink
After takin' a swig o' grog, JEDIDIAH belched out
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by Hadron
You must remember that Jeb doesn't believe that consistent UIs offer the
user anything. He is of the opinion that only idiots could not learn
...another lie. That's a compulsion with you isn't it.
Post by Hadron
that search is C-f on one app and C-s on the one next to it. When asked
about what if C-f formatted his disk on the other he ran away.
...another lie. That's a compulsion with you isn't it.
You're lying both about what you actually said as well as what my
reaction was to it.
Hadron's a YATUC ("yet another trolling Usenet crank"). He gets a woody
when you respond to him.
--
Are you a turtle?
wetpixel
2009-04-05 21:00:19 UTC
Permalink
[snips]
Would someone *please* explain to me why the issues with adding items to
the sidebar in open/save dialogs is such a horrible example of Linux
desktop integration problems?
Because the things I want on my image viewing app's open/save dialog are
not the same as what I want on my word processor open/save dialog which
are not the same as what I want on my development app open/save dialog
which are not the same as what I want on my various games' open/save
dialog.
Unless, of course, you can make a compelling argument for including the
shortcut to "Hot babes in bikinis" in the file dialogs for the word
processor, or the shortcut to "Tunes - Classic Rock" in the image editor
file dialogs.
Feel free to explain how that sort of idiotic nonsense makes for a better
computing environment.
Okay; this is going to be easy.
First, your need for shortcuts is fine, and I'm sure someone can come
up with a handy way for you to have shortcuts in a dialog.
But inconsistency between apps? For a basic dialog? that is about the
worst idea I've ever heard. Who wants the dialog to actually be
different in each app?

Now, the fact that you imagine using shortcuts in different apps is
fine, but it isn't a sign of a failed design. It could be overcome by
making each app store different shortcuts in the same dialog. It could
be that each app might recall a different save location, as most do
today. Heck, we could imagine a hierarchy of shortcuts.

But to assume that dialogs actually need to be made differently, and to
give up on consistency and simplicity just because we like shortcuts?
No, I don't think you have a useful idea there.

Apps already can recall the previously-used file location; that's
already better than imaging them going to a standard location and
having shortcuts available.
Snit
2009-04-05 21:24:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by wetpixel
[snips]
Would someone *please* explain to me why the issues with adding items to
the sidebar in open/save dialogs is such a horrible example of Linux
desktop integration problems?
Because the things I want on my image viewing app's open/save dialog are
not the same as what I want on my word processor open/save dialog which
are not the same as what I want on my development app open/save dialog
which are not the same as what I want on my various games' open/save
dialog.
Unless, of course, you can make a compelling argument for including the
shortcut to "Hot babes in bikinis" in the file dialogs for the word
processor, or the shortcut to "Tunes - Classic Rock" in the image editor
file dialogs.
Feel free to explain how that sort of idiotic nonsense makes for a better
computing environment.
Okay; this is going to be easy.
First, your need for shortcuts is fine, and I'm sure someone can come
up with a handy way for you to have shortcuts in a dialog.
But inconsistency between apps? For a basic dialog? that is about the
worst idea I've ever heard. Who wants the dialog to actually be
different in each app?
Not only do many in COLA argue against such an idea, they do not want users
to even have the *choice* of consistent dialogs.
Post by wetpixel
Now, the fact that you imagine using shortcuts in different apps is
fine, but it isn't a sign of a failed design. It could be overcome by
making each app store different shortcuts in the same dialog. It could
be that each app might recall a different save location, as most do
today. Heck, we could imagine a hierarchy of shortcuts.
But to assume that dialogs actually need to be made differently, and to
give up on consistency and simplicity just because we like shortcuts?
No, I don't think you have a useful idea there.
Apps already can recall the previously-used file location; that's
already better than imaging them going to a standard location and
having shortcuts available.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
JEDIDIAH
2009-04-06 16:19:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by wetpixel
[snips]
Would someone *please* explain to me why the issues with adding items to
the sidebar in open/save dialogs is such a horrible example of Linux
desktop integration problems?
Because the things I want on my image viewing app's open/save dialog are
not the same as what I want on my word processor open/save dialog which
are not the same as what I want on my development app open/save dialog
which are not the same as what I want on my various games' open/save
dialog.
Unless, of course, you can make a compelling argument for including the
shortcut to "Hot babes in bikinis" in the file dialogs for the word
processor, or the shortcut to "Tunes - Classic Rock" in the image editor
file dialogs.
Feel free to explain how that sort of idiotic nonsense makes for a better
computing environment.
Okay; this is going to be easy.
First, your need for shortcuts is fine, and I'm sure someone can come
up with a handy way for you to have shortcuts in a dialog.
But inconsistency between apps? For a basic dialog? that is about the
worst idea I've ever heard. Who wants the dialog to actually be
different in each app?
...perhaps someone that might want to use it differently.

Someone else has already brought up good reasons that you
might not want your UIS to be tyrranically conformist.

[deletia]

Ultimately, the computer should adapt to the user and not the
other way around. In this day an age, something like HID policies
shouldn't be something that are hard coded into applications
anymore.
--
The best OS in the world is ultimately useless |||
if it is controlled by a Tramiel, Jobs or Gates. / | \
wetpixel
2009-04-05 21:14:44 UTC
Permalink
People using KDE tend to use few, if any Gnome apps. And what about XFCE
apps? What about the other Desktop environments for linux?
They must *all* submit to the Great God Conformity, or be destroyed.
So much for those lightweight distros, perfect for netbooks and older
machines and other low-resource environments where KDE and Gnome aren't
really viable options. Entire ranges of devices must be discarded to
serve the masters of conformity. All you kids with your new OLPC
machines? Either upgrade them so they'll run KDE with all the bells and
whistles, or throw them out. All you people who bought ultraportable
netbooks, ones which don't have the horsepower to run a heavy DM?
Upgrade 'em or throw 'em out.
All such variation *must* be quashed. The Great God Conformity has
spoken.
Where *do* they get these people?
From universities and places where people read books and think.
The idea isn't the have just one distro for everything, regardless.
It's to use the good UI bits consistently, so that people do not spend
any time confused, checking, reading the stuff that's supposed to
happen easily and quickly.
In other words, think about a variety of distros/functions/packages,
but in every app the close box is in the right place for a close box,
the command to begin a new file or save an open one is always the same
across apps, and pathnames use the same symbology across every
platform. These are all benefits, when one is foun to be right we
should be applying it to all the rest.
(We are still in an age of computing where people shun consistency, in
spite of its benefits, for the sake of doing something differently, in
spite of its having no benefits!)

It's not about the big things being consistent -- apps should functions
differently, and have different tools, and encourage thinking. But the
OS is supposed to be transparent, simple, and never cause us to ever
think about the computer's needs.
People using those have *chosen* to do so, and who are you to suggest
that another layer of complexity should be introduced?
One which, in many cases, was expressly and intentionally left out in the
first place, so as to make for a lightweight, low-resource tool suitable
for lesser-powered environs.
Too bad, they must go.
That's ridiculous; no one suggested that -- you're emotionally reacting
to something you misunderstood.
Again, a UI can be consistent even in hundreds of distros, like this
low-power example you've mentioned at least twice.
Especially given
the fact that to achieve your level of "integration" it is simply doing
the assignment of those entries into Gnome *once*
Or KDE. Whichever.
Wow -- you are condemning people who want to reduce variation, but your
expansive taste ranges between... two choices?
His entire position is, as you note, to spend endless hours of
development time, eliminating the things people do want, all to get some
supposed integration nobody seems to actually care about, all to save
himself the trouble of a couple seconds' worth of adding a thing or two
to his open/save dialogs.
That's not what I've understood from this.
UI transparency is supposed to have obvious benefits, but yes, it's
very hard to examine, and impossible as a hobbyist. You need people
informed about testing on psychological grounds. That's how the
industry got started in UI, and it's floundered since then.
As I said, given what he's described thus far, his "integrated" system
would have to improve the performance of such things by a factor of
several million to achieve *any* actual productivity increase,
That's ridiculous, too -- it doesn't have to improve performance at
all, because the benefit of a tranparent UI is clear already. It is
known and certain to achieve better productivity and better products --
it's just hard to reach and the variations are making it harder to
investigate.
and he's
yet to show any reason to think his approach would even be at par, let
alone that much more efficient.
I hope you'll see it now.
Hadron
2009-04-06 12:09:22 UTC
Permalink
[snips]
Would someone *please* explain to me why the issues with adding items to
the sidebar in open/save dialogs is such a horrible example of Linux
desktop integration problems?
Because the things I want on my image viewing app's open/save dialog are
not the same as what I want on my word processor open/save dialog which
are not the same as what I want on my development app open/save dialog
which are not the same as what I want on my various games' open/save
dialog.
Bullshit. You DO wan them the same widgets. And here's hint - they didnt
compile in the widgets YOU wanted. They compiled in the ones they
thought they wanted (or made it easier).
Unless, of course, you can make a compelling argument for including the
shortcut to "Hot babes in bikinis" in the file dialogs for the word
processor, or the shortcut to "Tunes - Classic Rock" in the image editor
file dialogs.
Oh dear me. You dont know how widgets can filter?

But to take your point, how come my gnome file manager uses the same
shortcuts in all folders?

With your lame example you would need a different "widget" for every
file type save in every applications. How dumb are you?
Feel free to explain how that sort of idiotic nonsense makes for a better
computing environment.
It's called consistency. It's well known in the UI world. You clearly
know nothing about it.
--
In view of all the deadly computer viruses that have been spreading
lately, Weekend Update would like to remind you: when you link up to
another computer, you’re linking up to every computer that that
computer has ever linked up to. — Dennis Miller
JEDIDIAH
2009-04-06 16:21:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hadron
[snips]
Would someone *please* explain to me why the issues with adding items to
the sidebar in open/save dialogs is such a horrible example of Linux
desktop integration problems?
Because the things I want on my image viewing app's open/save dialog are
not the same as what I want on my word processor open/save dialog which
are not the same as what I want on my development app open/save dialog
which are not the same as what I want on my various games' open/save
dialog.
Bullshit. You DO wan them the same widgets. And here's hint - they didnt
Great. Now you are trying to tell him what his requirement are.

That's great software development methodology.

The best argument that this Mac-boy nonsense is all just a put on
from the Lemmings is the fact that standard widgets in Windows are
specifically designed to be replaced. So any whining from the Lemmings
about "consistency" is all just hollow hypocrisy.
Post by Hadron
compile in the widgets YOU wanted. They compiled in the ones they
thought they wanted (or made it easier).
[deletia]
--
The best OS in the world is ultimately useless |||
if it is controlled by a Tramiel, Jobs or Gates. / | \
Snit
2009-04-06 17:34:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hadron
[snips]
Would someone *please* explain to me why the issues with adding items to
the sidebar in open/save dialogs is such a horrible example of Linux
desktop integration problems?
Because the things I want on my image viewing app's open/save dialog are
not the same as what I want on my word processor open/save dialog which
are not the same as what I want on my development app open/save dialog
which are not the same as what I want on my various games' open/save
dialog.
Bullshit. You DO wan them the same widgets. And here's hint - they didnt
compile in the widgets YOU wanted. They compiled in the ones they
thought they wanted (or made it easier).
Why not have a choice? Adobe offers it in Photoshop, for example. I can
use the standard OS Save / Open dialogs, or I can use the Adobe ones; I can
use the standard OS color selection tools or I can use the OS ones.

This gives the best of both worlds... and it makes sense. There are things
about the Adobe color selector, for example, which are vastly superior to
the Windows option and in some ways even better than the OS X option (though
the OS X option also has many benefits). The user is in control. The user
has choice.

I would love to see Kelsey and others explain why they think such choice is
bad.


...
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
wetpixel
2009-05-03 20:22:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hadron
Feel free to explain how that sort of idiotic nonsense makes for a better
computing environment.
It's called consistency. It's well known in the UI world. You clearly
know nothing about it.
I don't know why so many people miss this, but the difference is that a
good UI should _not_ distract you. If you have to think about what to
do next, or why it's different in that new context, then it failed.

Consistency is one of the best ways to have that -- and it often comes
from making things simpler, not more complex or comprehensive. Not
trying to put every feature in every operation.

I'm thinking of Windows allowing deletion and file-copying and
file-moving function within the dialogs for other operations, like
Save!

I'm not saying it isn't convenient to be able to do those things -- I'm
saying that the Save dialog isn't ideal yet, and the user should not be
thinking about those other functions once he's started the Save
process. It should just happen, so that he can do those other functions
in the common file-manager environment.

But, God, if you atually stop and look around at every operation, as so
many Linux hobbyists seem to be fascinated, because you've got some
other custom construction in there, then your UI is as bad as it can
be. It stopped you from working! There is no worse condemnation.
Snit
2009-05-03 20:49:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by wetpixel
Post by Hadron
Feel free to explain how that sort of idiotic nonsense makes for a better
computing environment.
It's called consistency. It's well known in the UI world. You clearly
know nothing about it.
I don't know why so many people miss this, but the difference is that a
good UI should _not_ distract you. If you have to think about what to
do next, or why it's different in that new context, then it failed.
Consistency is one of the best ways to have that -- and it often comes
from making things simpler, not more complex or comprehensive. Not
trying to put every feature in every operation.
I'm thinking of Windows allowing deletion and file-copying and
file-moving function within the dialogs for other operations, like
Save!
I'm not saying it isn't convenient to be able to do those things -- I'm
saying that the Save dialog isn't ideal yet, and the user should not be
thinking about those other functions once he's started the Save
process. It should just happen, so that he can do those other functions
in the common file-manager environment.
But, God, if you atually stop and look around at every operation, as so
many Linux hobbyists seem to be fascinated, because you've got some
other custom construction in there, then your UI is as bad as it can
be. It stopped you from working! There is no worse condemnation.
My goodness... someone posting to COLA and CSMA who understands that
consistency is a clear benefit. Good to see.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
wetpixel
2009-05-03 20:37:39 UTC
Permalink
There are some things that make sense because of the way the mind works
...yes, because everyone's mind is identical.
Dude, everyone's mind _is_ indentical -- in the way that is relevant
here.
It's their attitudes and emotions that vary, not their basic processes.
Eyes send signals in a specific way. The signal is processed by a
standard and common part of the brain, in a fashion that has developed
over a very long time.
Different people do not have different-model eyes and brains that all
do these things in different ways, with different signals and different
processing.
This is a bad idea that's currently en vogue due to a certain brand of
political correctness. It is very much untrue. People are inherently
diverse. This diversity is more than many people can handle.
You are wrong; people are inherently the same in _this_ way.
It is in attitudes, training, socialization, ideas, knowledge and
beliefs that people differ, and of those only knowledge is relevant to
basic UI design. (Well, socialization, too, but that's well-known in
each environment, and doesn't really require experimentation to
integrate.)

I see I need to give examples of why there are differences in our
statements:

Reading left-to-right, top-to-bottom, is a socialization, not a result
of psychology. But where we hold a book is a physical necessity, and
our arms fold downward, so we should all be holding books at the
bottom. That makes reading downward a more natural and logical and
simple process.

Handedness is a commonality; it suggests that most devices should apply
to being held in our left hand when we need to manipulate with the
right (calculator), or in the right hand when we need it as a directed
tool (hammer).

If you reach your right hand to the top left of your monitor, your arm
covers most of the monitor contents. This implies you are not using
that content; your mind is comfortable not seeing it. So this is a
proper way to stop using content.

Now, a mouse is a virtual fingertip, so we know that the upper left is
a good place to put a close box.
We do not yet know if it is better than other places, but we know this
one will work within our other limitations.
Snit
2009-05-03 20:47:33 UTC
Permalink
There are some things that make sense because of the way the mind works
...yes, because everyone's mind is identical.
Dude, everyone's mind _is_ indentical -- in the way that is relevant here.
It's their attitudes and emotions that vary, not their basic processes. Eyes
send signals in a specific way. The signal is processed by a standard and
common part of the brain, in a fashion that has developed over a very long
time. Different people do not have different-model eyes and brains that all do
these things in different ways, with different signals and different
processing.
This is a bad idea that's currently en vogue due to a certain brand of
political correctness. It is very much untrue. People are inherently diverse.
This diversity is more than many people can handle.
You are wrong; people are inherently the same in _this_ way. It is in
attitudes, training, socialization, ideas, knowledge and beliefs that people
differ, and of those only knowledge is relevant to basic UI design. (Well,
socialization, too, but that's well-known in each environment, and doesn't
really require experimentation to integrate.)
I see I need to give examples of why there are differences in our
Reading left-to-right, top-to-bottom, is a socialization, not a result
of psychology. But where we hold a book is a physical necessity, and
our arms fold downward, so we should all be holding books at the
bottom. That makes reading downward a more natural and logical and
simple process.
Handedness is a commonality; it suggests that most devices should apply
to being held in our left hand when we need to manipulate with the
right (calculator), or in the right hand when we need it as a directed
tool (hammer).
If you reach your right hand to the top left of your monitor, your arm
covers most of the monitor contents. This implies you are not using
that content; your mind is comfortable not seeing it. So this is a
proper way to stop using content.
Now, a mouse is a virtual fingertip, so we know that the upper left is
a good place to put a close box.
We do not yet know if it is better than other places, but we know this
one will work within our other limitations.
Even if everyone was different, the fact Linux does not put control in the
hands of the user when it comes to basic UI elements such as menus, dialogs,
etc., means it will serve *nobody* well. That is a pretty big problem with
desktop Linux - do not know how much it applies to phones.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...