unity-design team mailing list archive

[Marc Lajoie <manorapide@xxxxxxxxx>]

I am a writer. I write fiction using my computer, which for me is a creative
tool.
My workflow is maybe chaotic, sometimes illogical, but it works for me. An
interface that is not flexible enough to adapt to my creative workflow is a
system I will not use. I am not about to change the way I create my art at
the insistence of a machine.
This is the sort of thing a designer can't hope to understand without some
input from the end-user. Ubuntu is supposed to be for human beings, and
human beings are not always logical; This is not a bug but a feature.
A perfect example is the fullscreen text-editors that are popular among
writers. Interface designers, I suspect, are baffled at why any user would
want to hide the entire interface (including information-giving pieces of
interface that in no way cover or interfere with the writing space). But to
me, and to many writers, having an aesthetically pleasing writing
environment is inspiring. It is not the most logical, efficient possible
layout, granted. But it's pretty, and pretty makes me happy--and being happy
helps me write.

Marc Lajoie

On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 9:59 PM, Lee Hyde <anubeon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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