Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Plans For KDE Frameworks 5.0 Were Just Announced

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by misterpah View Post
    im just saying, it's good to hide all the complex things from the noob. of course the power user still can view the complex options
    The KDE devs did discuss having simple vs advanced options at one point. I don't remember the entire discussion, but it was basically shot down. I think the main arguments were that it was a hassle to maintain that way (even for documentation, you suddenly need 2 different screenshots for everything, and need to ask users what version they are looking at, etc.), and that no one would ever agree on which settings would belong in the "simple" group anyway. If there really were a set of clear "simple" settings versus the advanced ones, why wouldn't you just keep the entire app simple and move the advanced options into a config text file or something?

    It's sort of a difficult point to make. It probably does make sense in certain situations, but I believe the consensus was that in general it sounds nice in theory but doesn't tend to work in practice.

    So instead of just completely hiding advanced options, you can just make the options into a tabbed interface and put the simple ones first with advanced second. Or however makes sense for the application.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
      The KDE devs did discuss having simple vs advanced options at one point. I don't remember the entire discussion, but it was basically shot down. I think the main arguments were that it was a hassle to maintain that way (even for documentation, you suddenly need 2 different screenshots for everything, and need to ask users what version they are looking at, etc.), and that no one would ever agree on which settings would belong in the "simple" group anyway. If there really were a set of clear "simple" settings versus the advanced ones, why wouldn't you just keep the entire app simple and move the advanced options into a config text file or something?

      It's sort of a difficult point to make. It probably does make sense in certain situations, but I believe the consensus was that in general it sounds nice in theory but doesn't tend to work in practice.

      So instead of just completely hiding advanced options, you can just make the options into a tabbed interface and put the simple ones first with advanced second. Or however makes sense for the application.
      thanks smitty3268! i do think you answer my question very well. thinking it again, i don't know why i ever think this idea. No way i gonna maintain 2 type of KDE (if im a KDE developer)

      sorry Luke_Wolf if i'm a total stupid person asking stupid question. sorry if i destroy your mood today.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by misterpah View Post
        thanks smitty3268! i do think you answer my question very well. thinking it again, i don't know why i ever think this idea. No way i gonna maintain 2 type of KDE (if im a KDE developer)

        sorry Luke_Wolf if i'm a total stupid person asking stupid question. sorry if i destroy your mood today.
        My annoyance comes from the pretentious concepts that are behind making things minimalist by default, which seems to have cropped up somewhat in KDE, such as with Dolphin (Infopane is extremely useful and now new users won't know it's there, plus that loses the nepomuk integration for most, how are they supposed to tag and rate files and pictures now?).

        The School of Minimalist Usability says this: Our User is an absolute idiot, we know best and he should be contained into certain areas and not allowed to do certain things because he's too stupid to do them, what he want's to do doesn't matter.

        And you can't argue that's not the attitude because you just stated it was with your case study.

        Moreover there is no point designing for the absolute lowest common denominator, for the lowest common denominator it doesn't matter how user friendly or simple the interface is, even if the entire interface was simply a big red button that made fart noises because that's the childish ^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h (no that's an insult to children's intelligence), level they're at they would ask you how to make it work, simply because they want you to hold their hand rather than thinking at all for themselves. These are not the people we should be targeting, they are absolutely hopeless until they decide that they're going to grow up.

        The bottom you should ever assume is an ignorant but competent user who is willing to learn their environment, stick with that as your bottom you'll be fine, assume that your user base is lower and you should just go back to Gnome, Microsoft, or Apple to be with people who think the same about their users.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by kraftman View Post
          You don't want KDE to follow Gnome3 do you? Rather than removing options it's better to hide them somewhere.
          No, it's better to have them clearly visible on plain sight via standardised UI action, not have them "hidden somewhere".

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
            My annoyance comes from the pretentious concepts that are behind making things minimalist by default, which seems to have cropped up somewhat in KDE, such as with Dolphin (Infopane is extremely useful and now new users won't know it's there, plus that loses the nepomuk integration for most, how are they supposed to tag and rate files and pictures now?).

            The School of Minimalist Usability says this: Our User is an absolute idiot, we know best and he should be contained into certain areas and not allowed to do certain things because he's too stupid to do them, what he want's to do doesn't matter.

            And you can't argue that's not the attitude because you just stated it was with your case study.

            Moreover there is no point designing for the absolute lowest common denominator, for the lowest common denominator it doesn't matter how user friendly or simple the interface is, even if the entire interface was simply a big red button that made fart noises because that's the childish ^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h (no that's an insult to children's intelligence), level they're at they would ask you how to make it work, simply because they want you to hold their hand rather than thinking at all for themselves. These are not the people we should be targeting, they are absolutely hopeless until they decide that they're going to grow up.

            The bottom you should ever assume is an ignorant but competent user who is willing to learn their environment, stick with that as your bottom you'll be fine, assume that your user base is lower and you should just go back to Gnome, Microsoft, or Apple to be with people who think the same about their users.
            Just to start i'll stating i don't see any issuses with the usability of gnome or kde. Usability issues linux n00bs get hit by tend to be through driver isuses, dependecy problems and stuggling finding the right linux app for the job (perhaps they insist on stuggling to get all their windows apps running on wine). That said the idea of presenting a simple enviroment to guide new users around as they slowly uncover and identify new funtionality is an exilent learning tool when dealing with a complex and powerful interfaces. When done right. Not saying its what kde should do but the idea isn't about bowing to the total computer n00ds. Its to guild a new user though the features bit at a time without overloading them in one go at the same time not incoveniancing the expiriancenced users after with anything beyond what a simple tick box can fix.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Nevertime View Post
              Just to start i'll stating i don't see any issuses with the usability of gnome or kde. Usability issues linux n00bs get hit by tend to be through driver isuses, dependecy problems and stuggling finding the right linux app for the job (perhaps they insist on stuggling to get all their windows apps running on wine).
              Now that is something I can heartily agree with. There are no Major Usability flaws in either Gnome2 or KDE, minor problems sure, but unlike Gnome 3 or Unity the basic principles are sound. It's getting them to learn to use Calligra or LibreOffice instead of trying to install Microsoft Office and other examples that is a big problem.

              Originally posted by Nevertime View Post
              That said the idea of presenting a simple enviroment to guide new users around as they slowly uncover and identify new funtionality is an exilent learning tool when dealing with a complex and powerful interfaces. When done right. Not saying its what kde should do but the idea isn't about bowing to the total computer n00ds. Its to guild a new user though the features bit at a time without overloading them in one go at the same time not incoveniancing the expiriancenced users after with anything beyond what a simple tick box can fix.
              That's what sane defaults are for not this minimalist nonsense. I.E. All the general toolbars enabled by default whereas the more advanced toolbars may not be shown by default, Take LibreOffice as an example, There are 21 Toolbars you can have enabled however without tabbed toolbars aka ribbons or another toolbar style there is no point in exposing all of it because it'll just leave a tiny work area.

              Dolphin's newest default on the other hand is an example of what not to do. The problem comes that the newest default is a reduction to Nautilus level capabilities by default when there are more general options left that need to be exposed, I.E. The Info Pane and the Nepomuk tagging integration. Obviously though you wouldn't have the terminal set up to be shown by default though in dolphin. And actually I really like the ribbon concept for something like an office program because it exposes all functionality, categorized, instead of having to hide anything. Koffice takes a similar but different activities based approach, and that idea is something I really like.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by kayosiii View Post
                Which options do you cut? Just look here and elsewhere at the KDE 3.5 fans screaming bloody murder because a pet feature or option was removed between KDE 3 and KDE4 most of the grievances are over features that I never personally use or used. I imagine that the simplified set of options that you would want would not be the same as the simplified environment I would pick.

                I might question need for 5 different theming sections in configuration Widget Style, Gtk WidgetStyle, Colour scheme, Window Decorations, Workspace theme.

                I agree that setting system can be overly complex but I don't see any way to simplify it significantly without alienating a significant portion of the existing users, many who use KDE precisely because they can configure it to work precisely the way they want.
                KDE 3.5 was the most configurable desktop ever and the trend since KDE SC 4.0 was to dumbing down the options in systemsettings. What should be done rather is have levels like beginner, intermediate, advanced and only displaying the settings options for the user level. Advanced level will show ALL the advanced configuration options.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by DeepDayze View Post
                  KDE 3.5 was the most configurable desktop ever and the trend since KDE SC 4.0 was to dumbing down the options in systemsettings. What should be done rather is have levels like beginner, intermediate, advanced and only displaying the settings options for the user level. Advanced level will show ALL the advanced configuration options.
                  Its a long time since I used kde 3.5 but from what i remember despite it being hugely customisable it felt very simple and logical. Kde 4 May arguably be less configurable but its no simpler. The lack of configurability can't be due to them mollycoddling beginners.

                  My first Linux experience was with KDE 3 and as someone coming straight from windows and a little bit of mac I had nothing but good things to say about the experience. I remember I was really impressed by how easily I could make it look like windows or like a mac.
                  Last edited by Nevertime; 08-20-2011, 08:26 PM.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X