On 16/03/11 13:01, Thorsten Wilms wrote:
> If you are not under too tight constraints, the questionshouldn't be
> how something is being done, not even how users would like to do it, but
> rather: how should they do it?
I thoroughly disagree with this assessment of UI/X design for the
following reasons:
1. It flies in the face of Ubuntu's "Linux for Humans" motto
2. There is a risk of over-intellectualising UI/X design
As I see it (and do correct me if I'm wrong) there is a lack of data
to support the 'how it should be done' philosophy. How does one
arrive at a conclusion of 'how it should be done'? Have there been
any mouse tracking or eye tracking studies on the subject? If so did
any of them cover the ease with which end-users adapted to UI
changes such as the adoption of left-alignment of window controls or
UI changes resulting from switching operating systems? Is there any
data concerning uptake of packages and/or settings to subvert
changes to the UI/X (beyond the mere existence of such packages)?
Without such data I fail to see how one could arrive at a conclusive
decision regards a UI/X redesign.
It would be nice to have some form of opt-in anonymous data
gathering package (census?) for precisely this kind of data
gathering. Something similar to Mozilla's Test Pilot and LabKit
add-ons which could be used to enrol users (which their prior
knowledge and ultimate control) in new UI/X studies and
prototype/proof-of-concept UI/X designs. Whether you'd get enough
participants to make it worth the developers efforts I don't though,
although I would certainly participate in any studies and many
prototypes on offer.
There is of course a place for artistic license, but not at the cost
flexibility or at the risk of dictating how the end-user must use
their computer. For example, would it really be so terrible to offer
the end user options such as positioning of the Unity panel (bottom
or top), or positioning of the Unity dock/springboard? Would it be
terrible to consider the users upgrade path when designing (or
rather setting up) the interface. A lifelong windows user might
prefer a bottom-aligned panel and right-aligned window controls to
smooth the transition whilst a MacOSX user might prefer precisely
the opposite.
On 16/03/11 13:01, Thorsten Wilms wrote:
> Sometimes the problem may be certain users stubbornness rather than
> anything else, especially if you design for the long term. So the answer
> may have to be wrapped up in a strategy to "sell" it.
It's not always simply a case of user stubbornness.
Speaking from personal experience, the decision to enforce
left-alignment of window controls in Unity will have a negative
impact on my own work flow. Due to circumstances beyond my control I
have little choice but to dual-boot both Ubuntu and Windows. I work
within a laboratory environment wherein many proprietary control and
data analysis software is reliant on a Windows platform (often
legacy). Hence I fund myself having to dual-boot or VM into Windows
frequently, to translate and/or manipulate data gathered via
laboratory equipment. This is a very jarring experience, and the
shift to and fro left-aligned window controls certainly impacts on
my efficiency.
Of course the above use case is a rather nice scenario, but I am
sure than numerous office worker suffer from similarly strict
(although for different reasons entirely) IT provisioning that
forces them to use Windows in the workplace. Some thought ought to
be given to the 'forced to dual-boot' community, as I'm sure it's a
sizeable one. The consistency of user experience should be a goal,
not only within Ubuntu itself, but throughout the users experience.
The Windows platform is unlikely to offer a left-aligned mode, and
so it falls to Ubuntu/Unity to offer an (optional) right-aligned
mode lest risk vexing their 'forced to dual-boot' user base. As
things stand, I will have to forgo Unity in favour of gnome-panel
until this particular issue is addressed (assuming it ever will be)
but if push comes to shove I will have little choice but to default
to Windows (laboratory equipment manufacturers are unlikely to
provision Linux based software any time soon) and I can see myself
using Ubuntu less and less (which is a shame, as I far prefer it to
Windows).
--
"The second basic thesis is that intellectual freedom is essential
to human society — freedom to obtain and distribute information,
freedom for open-minded and unfearing debate and freedom from
pressure by officialdom and prejudices. Such a trinity of freedom of
thought is the only guarantee against an infection of people by mass
myths, which, in the hands of treacherous hypocrites and demagogues,
can be transformed into bloody dictatorship. Freedom of thought is
the only guarantee of the feasibility of a scientific democratic
approach to politics, economics and culture."
-- Andrei Sakharov, The New York Times (July 22nd, 1968)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature