Re: [Ayatana] Unity2D -- wow! (And hidden window buttons)

That's exactly the reason I'm worried about. All users new to Ubuntu 11.04 that I have seen (of course, not hundreds of people, but in my University we made a workshop on Linux for students of Physics, people that uses only Windows), and I noticed that when they wanted the launcher, they always mouse over the Ubuntu button. Even if it's possible to reveal it by simply mousing over the left side of the screen, which for me and for other people is the *obvious* way to reveal the launcher (because of the hidding animation), the people I observed moused over the Ubuntu button, I think **because of they looked for the only visual element that suggests that launcher can be discovered**, that is, the Ubuntu button. The people that attended that workshop is not stupid, of course. They are undergraduate students. But their only contact with computers all their lives was on Windows. It's a reallity. Of course, I would like Linux distributions to be designed totally independent of the other OS's, but if the goal is to attract people to Linux, ignoring that reallity is not an alternative.

At least in 11.04 Ubuntu button is there, and they could perform the action they wanted by simply mousing over the Ubuntu button. What would happen to new users if window controls are also hidden?

In 11.04, menus are hidden and I was also concerned about that, but, at least, tipically there are other buttons on application's UI that are used for performing the most frequent actions. Window controls are used frequently. They're an important element of a window. Why not to have an option in somewhere that allows everything to be hidden and let the new users to get a clean and intuitive interface?

Isn't Ubuntu "Linux for human beings"?!
From Wikipedia:
Meaning of ubuntu: "humanity towards others"
"The original aim of the Ubuntu team was to create an easy-to-use (freedom for users rather than freedom for programmers) Linux desktop with new releases scheduled on a predictable six-month basis, resulting in a more frequently updated system."

*Easy to use (freedom for users rather than freedom for programmers)*

2011/8/27 Evan Huus <eapache@xxxxxxxxx>

On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 1:20 AM, Jo-Erlend Schinstad
<joerlend.schinstad@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Den 27. aug. 2011 06:24, skrev André Oliva:
>>
>> Really I think its oversimplification of things. Not everyone wants an
>> "elementary-style" OS GUI, really. Simply there is a limit in simplification
>> of things. I simply don't understand the reason for oversimplification.
>> People simply don't want fullscreen in every application they work. I
>> remember that Unity was first created for space efficiency. But really,
>> there is **a lot** of space now. Why hide important things like window
>> controls and Ubuntu button? Things that are common for a lot of operating
>> systems...
>>
>
> Explain why it is oversimplifying to not show everything that can be shown?
> Why are menus collapsed, for instance? Isn't that oversimplifying the UI?
> How are people ever going to understand that menus can be used if they
> aren't shown? Perhaps we should have blinking arrows pointing at them
> and a voice that keeps repeating a message every fifteen minutes:
> «You can click on menus to open them». That way people won't forget.

Hyperbole aside, I think an experiment like this would have two effects:
1) It would be very annoying, obviously.
2) People who stuck with it would use the menus A LOT.

Blinking arrows and a repetitive voice are too much, but anything we
can do to gently make new users aware of existing functionality
(without overwhelming them) seems like a good thing. I believe the
ideal situation when a user wants to perform a brand new task is for
them to think: "Oh ya, I saw a button for that over here somewhere".
They should already know how to do the task just by interacting with
the interface in general.

> No. You can keep using the word oversimplify as often as you like, but it
> doesn't become anymore real. What I would like to hear, is a very good
> explanation of why it is important to show buttons that cannot be used.

I can really only think of two reasons. I'm not particularly convinced
by either of them, but they do exist:

1) Aiming - When an element is hidden and you have to mouse over it to
activate it, then it's very hard to know which part of a very large
screen to mouse over in order to find it. This applies less to the
window buttons (since they're always very top-left) but more to the
menus. If I'm in an app with a lot of menus, and I want to go to menu
X, I can't immediately find it. I have to make two motions: a vertical
one to the menu bar and then a horizontal one along the menu bar to
the menu I want. If I knew immediately where the desired menu was
placed, I could make one, diagonal movement straight to it.

2) Discoverability - When a user isn't sure how to do something, they
typically don't make any actions (including moving the mouse). They
visually search the screen in its current state, looking for an
element that seems related to their goal. I imagine that some small
subset of new Ubuntu users, having maximized a window, would do this
and never think to mouse over the window title at all. Sure, it's
where the target element used to be, where it normally is, but it's
clearly 'not there' anymore.

> Because it really is not possible to click a button without having the mouse
> close to where you're clicking. Your argument that the buttons need to be
> visible because they are visible in Windows, is not a valid argument. First
> of all, because they haven't always been that way.
>
> I think it's much more useful to see the title of the page you're currently
> reading than it is to show me the buttons for eight hours a day, six days
> a week. Do you really feel that a normal person won't be able to
> remember that the buttons are always in the upper left corner? Then
> how are they able to use the computer at all? I mean... They would
> also forget where the button is to power on the computer.

Remembering the purpose of an item you can see is a lot easier than
remembering the location and purpose of something you can't see. Not
that users aren't up to the task, but it does add one more piece of
complexity.

> However, remembering the title of the page you are reading, requires
> much more mental capacity. Do you really disagree with that?

No, but I would argue that knowing the full title of the current
window is less frequently used than closing/maximizing/minimizing it.

---

I'm honestly not 100% sure where I personally stand on this issue. I
do like how clean the interface becomes for maximized windows in the
new unity, but I'm also a little bit worried about the usability
implications of that decision. Time will tell, I suppose.

Evan

_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp