unity-design team mailing list archive

[Mitja Pagon <mitja.pagon@xxxxxxxxxx>]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with full-screen writing software from design perspective, actually they make a lot of sense in that particular case (backed by science), it's just that that doesn't make full-screen an optimal case for every application. 

I suspect that you are somewhat misinterpreting what interaction/user experience (even industrial) design is, it's not about forcing designers own views upon users, that called bad design and it's sadly omnipresent, it's rather about understanding your target audiences needs and providing an optimal interface for those needs. 

Users existing habits and work-flow are a common obstacle to adoption of new interfaces, but that has more to do with the fear of change and the unknown and it doesn't imply that said interface is bad. MS Office ribbon interface is a good example of that, lot's existing users complained, but new users and users who got beyond that initial fear, were actually very pleased with the experience (a similar example in the field of programing languages is VB.NET at the time it was released). 

Cheers, 
Mitja 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Marc Lajoie" <manorapide@xxxxxxxxx> 
To: "Lee Hyde" <anubeon@xxxxxxxxx> 
Cc: ayatana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 3:37:11 PM 
Subject: Re: [Ayatana] Design problems in general 


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 



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