OSNews: Gnome Guy Goes KDE
Wednesday, 5 January 2005 | Jriddell
Christian Paratschek is a long term Gnome user who has has not looked at KDE for over two years. He has written about his experiences of testing out SimplyMepis for a week, comparing the two desktop environments and their applications and finding the areas in which KDE can tempt even a dyed-in-the-wool Gnome fan.
Comments:
only tempt - ooga - 2005-01-05
... as the writer points out Gnome's UI is considerably more consistent, simple and user friendly ... and this using C and GTK!! GTK/Gnome has great designers UI policy thouhg so it makes up for the horror under the hood. KDE has for too long focussed on using the "hammer" of C++ OO tech, the Qt toolkit and the ever more featureful KDE-libs to make the KDE UI "powerful" ... but the situation is out of control. The number of distracting buttons and widgets with poorly aliased and poorly scaled inconsistent icons bouncing and flashing gizmos is truly silly. It is *not* "powerful" anymore. Really it *needs a major cleanup*. It's unfortunate that stating the obvious is taken as flaming by KDE fans ... it makes me think that KDE UI "designers" have completely different brains ... quoting: "The main advantage of Gnome over KDE is definitely the better menu structure and the rigid rules on interface design that the Gnome Human Interface Guidelines impose. KDE's menu structure is a big mess compared to Gnome's. ... The KDE team has to do something about this because it effectively worsens the usability of KDE. Take JuK or Kuickshow as a positive example and throw some more bloat out of the other applications. The KDE Control Center, for example, is a nightmare." So so true ...
Re: only tempt - MacOSX_KDE - 2005-01-05
Umm apart from the glowing 3D buttons (no accounting for taste ... these can be changed by changing themes), the klunky clock (it's supposed to be like that) and a few blurry icons this screenie shows that KDE is pretty damn polished: http://www.kde.org/screenshots/images/3.3/snapshot11.png Note the control-center is not in the picture :-D
Re: only tempt - Anders - 2005-01-05
Hmm, I never understood what the problem with control-center is. I find it easy to navigate - and it does the job for me. (actually an important reason that I dont use GNOME is simply that I never managed to find the keyboard layout switcher in GNOME) My largest gripe right now is Konqueror. I whish I knew to edit the context menu (the one that pops up when eg. right-clicking a folder) and I REALLY think that Konq would benefit from being split into two apps: One for web browsing and one for filebrowsing. This would enable the preferences in "Settings->Configure Konqueror" to be split into manageable parts. Generally, though, I find that KDE rocks incredibly and I count the days to 3.4 :o)
Re: only tempt - Birdy - 2005-01-05
Comparing the GNOME-config-tool (gconf-editor) and KDE-config-tool (kcontrol), the GNOME version clearly an UI horror! The options that are reachable by a real UI are way to few for advanced users. Abd beginners barely use any option at all... About the context menu - what anoys me most is, that there is a "delete" and "move to trash". I only know people using one of these. So why not make _one_ delete item and make it's behviour configurable. By pressing SHIFT while clicking on delete would use the other "version". I don't think splitting up konqueror would be a really big benefit. But why not have konqueror show only the relevant configurations depending on the current "mode"? And maybe an additional button in the configuration dialog to show all options of konqueror.
Re: only tempt - Anonymous - 2005-01-05
> what anoys me most is, that there is a "delete" and "move to trash". I only know people using one of these. Actually use KDE 3.3 and turn off the "Delete" entry. > By pressing SHIFT while clicking on delete would use the other "version". SHIFT+Trash=Delete is working in KDE 3.4
Re: only tempt - Birdy - 2005-01-05
So what's the reason to keep "Delete" in the menu? Or will it be removed for 3.4? Anyway thanks for the hint - I'll have a look for it (have to find out how to disable "Delete").
Re: only tempt - Anonymous - 2005-01-05
> So what's the reason to keep "Delete" in the menu? Or will it be removed for 3.4? KDE 3.4 doesn't display "Delete" by default. > I'll have a look for it (have to find out how to disable "Delete"). File Manager/Behavior: [ ] Show 'Delete' menu entries which bypass the trashcan
Re: only tempt - Birdy - 2005-01-05
"KDE 3.4 doesn't display "Delete" by default." Wow - once again KDE is "faster" than it's users. I love it :-)
Why is there a menu entry for this? - Jason Keirstead - 2005-01-05
Having superflous menu entries like this is why people knock KDE so much. Consider... - Deleting directly by bypassing the trash can is not something you want novice users to do - Advanced users can easily learn keyboard shortcuts like Shift+Delete - that is if they don't know them already (this has been the shortcut in KDE for this for many moons) So why even have the option to put it in that menu?
Re: Why is there a menu entry for this? - Anonymous - 2005-01-05
Many moons? Shift+Delete has been working because there has always been a menu entry "Delete" with that shortcut. Try in KDE 3.3: Hide the "Delete" command, Shift+Delete will not delete anymore but trash. It's better in KDE 3.4 - and not "for many moons".
Re: Why is there a menu entry for this? - Jason Keirstead - 2005-01-05
As far as "For many moons" - Shift+Delete has bypassed the trash since KDE 3.0 at least, and I suspect even 2.2 and before, but I can't remember that far back. It's irrelevant *why* the shortcut worked. It is fairly simple to make Shift+Delete work without the menu entry (and it seems that has even already been done for 3.4). So the menu entry is certainly not required, for anyone.
Re: Why is there a menu entry for this? - Brandybuck - 2005-01-05
"So why even have the option to put it in that menu?" Because it's used with exceeding frequency. In my case it's the single most used item on that context menu. I want a delete function with usability. "shift+delete" isn't as usable as a context menu item. The primary usability problem is that I have yet another keystroke to memorize, and one which may conflict with a keystroke in the focused application. A lesser usability problem is that I now have to remove my hand from the mouse/trackball, move it to the keyboard, type the keystroke, and then move my hand back to the mouse/trackball. Keep the keystroke combination, by all means. It sounds damned useful for people who like to work that way. But keep the that delete option in the context menu. Yes, yes, yes, I hear your whining that newbies should not delete stuff (like my mom who though her 20Gb harddrive was full because she never emptied her trash), so make "move to trash" the default configuration, while granting intermediate and advanced users the option to change it.
Re: only tempt - James Richard Tyrer - 2005-01-05
> I REALLY think that Konq would benefit from being split into two apps: One > for web browsing and one for filebrowsing. People keep saying this and I ask one simple question: WHY???? Konqueror is a container and it already has two plugins one for HTML browsing and one for File browsing (more actually when you consider different formats). I think that some of what needs to be cleaned up in the KCMs for Konqueror are issues caused by a false division between File manager and Web Browser. Perhaps some of this confusion is based on a false assumption that Firefox is ONLY a web browser. Last time I checked, it will browse your local domain just as well as it will browse the web. So perhaps another question is to ask that you please explain exactly what you mean. I do not like the false distinction with the two View Profiles. I have tried to remove it from my desktop but have been unsuccessful. There is, however, something to be said for different Konqueror configurations based on the protocol (http, ftp, file, & etc) being used and/or the plugin being used. I would find this much preferred over the View Profiles.
Re: only tempt - S.C - 2005-01-05
I like the fact that Konqueoror can be made to have "multiple personalities". In my nebulous mind, I lump "View profiles" with "protocol", and it generally works the way I expect it to. Does anyone know if Konqueror can have different "tab behaviors" for "View Profiles" or are "tab behaviors" global through out konqueror? The latest i've tried is 3.3, and this does not seem to be the case. Thanks.
Re: only tempt - Olivier LAHAYE - 2005-01-05
DON'T SPLIT Konqueror, it's a fabulous application just like multiview was on the Amiga. I like very much the idea that a brouwser can browse any type of information whatever it is (a zip, a directory, a database videos, musics or web stuffs). At the end, it is data that is stored in different manners. Why having multiple browsers for multiple way of storage? this is useless. Having one APP for that is realy great! At home, do you have one table for each type of job? Is your kitchen table only able to handle plates and nothing more?
Re: only tempt - brockers - 2005-01-06
This is really a stupid complaint to constantly have. Even Evolution has basic support for HTML rendering. If we renamed the darn konqueror web browser link to KWebBrowser and made a symbolic link from that to the "kfmclient openProfile webbrowsing" they would NEVER KNOW THE DIFFERENCE. Heck, you would probably have a dozen KDE reviews that would talk about "the brand new KDE web browser, now entirely seperate from the file manager." Next time I hear this damn comment I am gonna yell "type /home into the location bar in foxfire and shut-the-hell-up!" Bobby
Re: only tempt - Janne - 2005-01-05
Well, that screenshot show the busy Kicker. I mean, why have Kmail, Kword and Help there? Help can be accessed through the Kmenu already, as can Kmail and Kword. Why are Kmail and Kword important enough to have a separate button in Kicker, whereas some other app does not have a button? And why do we have "Home" there, when we already have it in the desktop and you can easily access it through the Konqueror as well? The answer to that problem is to by default have only absolutely needed buttons in Kicker, and nothing else. And in my book that would mean Kmenu, Show Desktop and Konqueror (Konqueror is a separate app and it could be dropped from the Kicker. But, IMO it is a central app to KDE, so it could be there). That screenshot also covers the background-image which makes the desktop look busier than it should be. A solid color or a nice gradient would do nicely. If the user wants more flashy background he could add it himself. I mentioned elsewhere that I'm writing a document about KDE and it's UI. I have few simple guidelines I apply everywhere: 1. The UI should offer only the basic features by default. If the user is advanced enought to miss some of the more advanced features, he's advanced enough to add the functionality himself in the toolbars. Instead of offering everything at once and the user (newbies and advanced users alike) then needs to trim down the UI to make it seem less busy, KDE should offer the basic features by default (that still get the work done effectively), and the UI could then grow with the user as the user becomes more advanced with the system. 2. Don't show things that are not needed. Example: Why do we have bookmarks in the desktops context-menu? Bookmarks should be where they are used: in Konqueror. If we have bookmarks in the context-menu, why don't we have addressbook there as well? Fact is that bookmarks don't relate to desktop (that is used to house icons and acts as a background for the apps to run on) at all. They relate to web-browsing primarily. And even if some user does find the bookmarks in the desktop useful, 99% of the users have no need for it. Why clutter the UI just to please 1% of the users?
Re: only tempt - Anonymous - 2005-01-05
> Why are Kmail and Kword important enough to have a separate button in Kicker You lost me reading here. You have no clue for what most users use their computer.
Re: only tempt - Janne - 2005-01-05
"You lost me reading here. You have no clue for what most users use their computer." And you do? How do you know most user want to use Kmail or Kword? Why not some other apps instead? My point was (which you apparently missed completely) is that KDE should not try to guess what the user wants to do. Right now it guesses that the user wants to use Kmail and Kword. An assumption that may or may not be true. But instead of trying to guess what the user wants to do (and clutter the Kicker while trying to guess the user) let the user tell KDE what he wants to do. And, in this case that would mean that the user adds the buttons to the Kicker that he wants to have there! I do NOT suggest that we do not allow user to add buttons or features to the Kicker, far far from it! What I'm suggesting is that KDE gives a basic, clean Kicker by default, and the user can then add features to it as he sees fit. Instead of trying to guess what the user wants, let the user tell KDE what he wants. Instead of forcing the user to trim down the Kicker, let the Kicker grow with the user and his capabilities. Yes, many users will want to use Kmail and Kword. But many users also want to use Konsole, Quanta, Juk, Kate, Knode, Kstars etc. etc. Why don't they have buttons in the Kicker as well? Just where do you draw the line as to what should be in the Kicker and what should not? Kicker also has a button for Help. And while Help is useful, the user does not use it all the time, therefore we do not really need quick-access button for it. Help is already available in the Kmenu.
Re: only tempt - Birdy - 2005-01-05
"But instead of trying to guess what the user wants to do let the user tell KDE what he wants to do." Isn't it already possible? A user can customize KDE at a hight level. "... that would mean that the user adds the buttons to the Kicker that he wants to have there" Which leads to an empty kicker and at the end would at the end be a "linux from scratch" for every user?!? No - proper defaults are a very good thing! Finding those "defaults" is the hard task. Curently KDE may offer to much as default. But an empty kicker is for sure no good default either! "Instead of forcing the user to trim down the Kicker, let the Kicker grow with the user and his capabilities." Isn't it easier to trim down, than to "bild up" for the user? "Just where do you draw the line as to what should be in the Kicker and what should not?" Welcome at the hard task of UI design... "Help is already available in the Kmenu" But that needs way more mouse movement ans clicks. Getting in "contact" with a new DE it's handy to have help "at your fingertips".
Re: only tempt - Janne - 2005-01-05
"Isn't it already possible? A user can customize KDE at a hight level." Yes it is. But even with customization, KDE tries to "pre-guess" what the user wants. User then has to spend time correcting the wrong guesses made by KDE. "Which leads to an empty kicker and at the end would at the end be a "linux from scratch" for every user?!?" If you thought that I'm advocating "empty" KDE, then I apologize for not being clear enough. What I'm advocating is a clean KDE with sensible defaults that doesn't try to offer everything by default. "Empty Kicker" would mean Kicker with just the essentials. And I think "essentials" would be Kmenu, Show Desktop, Taskbar, notification-area (or whatever that thing next to the clock is called) and Clock. Other things that could also be there is virtual desktops and Konqueror. Everything else is just unneeded extra that could easily be added by the user if he so wishes. Of course you could also say that removing unneeded buttons is also easy, but why should the user waste his time on that? "Empty Kicker" would still let the user do his job effectively, whereas "Busy Kicker" would look cluttered and unappealing. And since Kicker is visible all the time, it makes the entire desktop look cluttered. Remember: first-impressions count! "Isn't it easier to trim down, than to "bild up" for the user?" IMO, not really. If you display all possible options and features, you make the app and UI busy and confusing. New user would be intimidated by multitude of buttons and features. Of course, there are speciality-apps that have (and need) lots of buttons and features (Blender for example), but we are talking about basic apps for regural Joe here. Such apps do not need multitude of buttons and context-menus that are as long as your arm. If we expect user to trim down the app, we are faced with a fact that when the user starts the app, he's faced with an app that is cluttered, confusing and frightening. In short: it's unappealing. The user might give up at that point, instead of spending time trimming it down. But if we give him an app that has clean UI and only _really_ relevant features readily apparent, the user could still get work done, and the app would not intimidate him. As time passes, the user would customize the app to fit his exact needs. Difference is that while that customization happens, the user feels like he's operating a sports-car instead of gigantic 18-wheeler. He's using an app that doesn't intimidate him and he knows he can control it, instead of using gigantic app that scares the user. "But that needs way more mouse movement ans clicks. Getting in "contact" with a new DE it's handy to have help "at your fingertips"." Not really. Maybe marginally so, but it's hardly relevant. And couldn't we use that explanation everywhere then? Accessing apps through the Kmenu requires too much clicking and mousing around, why not put each of those apps in the desktop itself? Sure, we would have few dozen icons on the desktop, but at least it wouldn't take many clicks or mousing around, now would it?
Re: only tempt - Anonymous - 2005-01-05
> KDE tries to "pre-guess" what the user wants. User then has to spend time correcting the wrong guesses made by KDE. There is no single "the user" whose preferences are to be correctly guessed.
Re: only tempt - Birdy - 2005-01-05
"User then has to spend time correcting the wrong guesses made by KDE." With "proper" defaults, it's not a lot of work. But it's a lot of work to "build up" everything up, if the default is "empty". "Of course you could also say that removing unneeded buttons is also easy, but why should the user waste his time on that" If kicker is "empty" the user has to add buttons to make KDE "usable" at all. It's always some work for the user done to customize a DE for his needs. With nice defaults, many users (especially beginners) can use it right off. "first-impressions count" Well - what impressions do you get from a nearly empty empty UI? I get the impression that is does not offer a lot functionality (=no good tool) "only _really_ relevant features readily apparent" Well - that would led to a nearly empty kicker (no taskbar, buttons, clock, dockbar, pager,...). That's because "_really_ relevant" means what _every_ user needs. That would be the KMenu and nothing more I guess. So it comes down, that there should be a nice default setup. But this setup should be rather simple but not "empty". This lets the user start right off, but still does not clutter to much and has room for improvements (more buttons for kicker). I'd say KDE's default should be a little bit more "simple". But not as simple as GNOME's. The hard task is to strip the deafult's but leave the needed. But no matter what the default exactly looks like, most users won't like it because they have to customize it ;-)
Re: only tempt - Janne - 2005-01-05
"With "proper" defaults, it's not a lot of work. But it's a lot of work to "build up" everything up, if the default is "empty"." The default is NOT "empty". The default is an UI that highlights the primary purpose and features of the apps, instead of throwing all of them at the user. "If kicker is "empty" the user has to add buttons to make KDE "usable" at all." By "empty kicker" I refer to Kicker that doesn't have buttons for individual applications. It would still be usable. You would still have Kmenu and the works. "With nice defaults, many users (especially beginners) can use it right off." And that's exactly what I'm suggesting! And what I suggest is that instead of overwhelming the user with multitude of options and buttons (it does happen, I have seen it myself), they are gently eased in to the application. Really, I'm not suggesting a "KDE from scratch". "Well - that would led to a nearly empty kicker (no taskbar, buttons, clock, dockbar, pager,...). That's because "_really_ relevant" means what _every_ user needs. That would be the KMenu and nothing more I guess." Well, you guess wrong. "I'd say KDE's default should be a little bit more "simple". But not as simple as GNOME's." I'm definitely NOT suggesting a GNOME-approach here.
Re: only tempt - Birdy - 2005-01-05
"The default is an UI that highlights the primary purpose and features of the apps, instead of throwing all of them at the user." But it also shouldn't hide it's power... The question is who are the "target users" of KDE. Advanced users, geeks, beginners, absolute novices? "Well, you guess wrong." For example you suggested to remove KPager. But Kicker without KPager is "worthless" for me. And so it is for every advanced user. "I'm definitely NOT suggesting a GNOME-approach here." For me it sounds like this. So could you explain me the difference?
Re: only tempt - Janne - 2005-01-05
"But it also shouldn't hide it's power..." Like I said elsewhere, I don't have an easy solution as to how the apps should present the more advanced features to the users. But the current system which intimidates the users and makes the UI look cluttered doesn't work either. And even with the current cluttered UI, we STILL have features that are relatively unknown. "The question is who are the "target users" of KDE. Advanced users, geeks, beginners, absolute novices?" Answer: all of them. The system should not be intimidating to new users (like the current system is), but it should be flexible enough so it can grow together with the user. "For example you suggested to remove KPager. But Kicker without KPager is "worthless" for me. And so it is for every advanced user." I did not suggest getting rid of Pager, I was talking about application-buttons. And all of the stuff I mentioned for removal could be added later by the user if he so wishes. "For me it sounds like this. So could you explain me the difference?" What GNOME does is that they remove features because they deem that they are "confusing" to the users. I do not suggest removing one bit of KDE's functionality, I merely suggest that the UI is designed in such way that the primary features of the apps are highlighted, while the less used whiz-bang features are not. Instead of prominently displaying all possible features to the user, the UI should focus on few key features, while keeping the more advanced features available, but not "in your face".
Re: only tempt - Birdy - 2005-01-05
"What GNOME does is that they remove features because they deem that they are "confusing" to the users." GNOME removed features?!? No - they hide them. That's about what you suggest. GNOME hides them very well. Many features are only available when usinge a gconf-editor. "Instead of prominently displaying all possible features to the user, the UI should focus on few key features, while keeping the more advanced features available, but not "in your face"." I do not agree. Reducing the UI to the minimum that is needed is no good UI. It should be reduced to the most used functions - but no more ;-) Reducing to a few key-features locks out many users from quite a lot of functionality.
Re: only tempt - fprog26 - 2005-01-06
>Reducing the UI to the minimum that is needed is no good UI. It should be reduced to the most used functions - but no more ;-) Exactly. That's why I proposed to add statistic 'click' counting of every menu items in KDE to be stored somewhere on disk when the app close, such that this info can be returned to developers who could make proper choices and have this info displayed on some stats.usability.kde.org webpage. Sincerely yours, Fred.
Re: only tempt - Janne - 2005-01-06
"GNOME removed features?!? No - they hide them. That's about what you suggest. GNOME hides them very well. Many features are only available when usinge a gconf-editor. " No, those are configuration-options, not features. "I do not agree. Reducing the UI to the minimum that is needed is no good UI." So, you want the UI to have more than what is needed? That is know as "unneeded clutter"
Re: only tempt - Birdy - 2005-01-06
"So, you want the UI to have more than what is needed? That is know as "unneeded clutter"" I want powerful applications. Having every advanced feature hidden reduces power, until I customize the application. But as every user, I'm very lazy in customizing every application. How many application's toolbar have you edited? Most people just customize their desktop-image, but not a lot more. So it would end up in reduced power of KDE. There is no black and white where black is clutter and white is the UI with only the needed functionality. There's also some grey between where clean and slick UI are.
Re: only tempt - Anonymous - 2005-01-05
> How do you know most user want to use Kmail or Kword? It's not about specific applications but application types/use cases. I do know that many people use computers only as typewriter and for Internet (especially Email). > Why not some other apps instead? You don't really expect KDE to put Evolution as standard mail client there, or? > Yes, many users will want to use Kmail and Kword. But many users also want to use Konsole, Quanta, Juk, Kate, Knode, Kstars That are different "many" in orders of magnitude.
Re: only tempt - Janne - 2005-01-05
"It's not about specific applications but application types/use cases." So where is Juk? Or Kalkulator? Kdevelop? "You don't really expect KDE to put Evolution as standard mail client there, or?" No, but if KDE has Kmail and Kword, why not have Juk (for example) there as well? Why does KDE have to have a button for mail-client in the Kicker in the first place? "That are different "many" in orders of magnitude." So, what is Kword doing there then? Why not Kate? Or Juk? Or are you saying that people write text so much more often than they listen to music that we absolutely must have Kword there, whereas Juk (for example) is not needed?
Re: only tempt - Andre Somers - 2005-01-05
Again: it's all about defaults. Defaults any distro can change if it deems that appropriate for it's userbase. Personally, I think the default of having the KDE word processor and email application there is sensible, and removing these is *very* easy. Still, I'm very curious to hear a good argument about what should be there and what not, and *why*.
Bad examples - Morty - 2005-01-05
>So where is Juk? Or Kalkulator? Kdevelop? >So, what is Kword doing there then? Why not Kate? Actually there are compelling reasons. Except maybe for Kalkulator. It's mostly based on the type of users and usage patterns for the different kind of applications. KDevelop are easy, since its a developer tool and not intended for the general users. Same for Kate, it's a advanced tool for editing text files compared to KWord which are a tool for writing documents. Users who need KDevelop and Kate in easy reach are also users with skill to add those applications to Kicker themselves. Juk on the other hand are not added for reasons of usage pattern. You start it once per session or even let sessionmanagment do it for you, the rest of the time it lives in the system tray. There is no reason to have it in easy reach in Kicer.
Re: only tempt - Birdy - 2005-01-05
"Why does KDE have to have a button for mail-client in the Kicker in the first place?" Because about 99% of the KDE's users use email. And they use it very often. KWord is not part of KDE, so it's not part of KDE's default (isn't it?) - maybe in your distribution's default setup. There's no juk, kdevelop, ... button, because I doubt any of these applications is used by more than 50% of the KDE users.
Re: only tempt - Janne - 2005-01-05
"KWord is not part of KDE, so it's not part of KDE's default (isn't it?) - maybe in your distribution's default setup." Well, Kword was visible in the KDE3.3 screenshot in the KDE-website (you know, the screenshot that sparked this discussion?). And, AFAIK, it's automatically added to Kicker if it's installed. My distro is Gentoo, and it offer basically the vanilla KDE with vanilla Koffice, and it has Kword in the Kicker by default.
Re: only tempt - Dolio - 2005-01-06
Gentoo doesn't automatically add kword to the kicker. Are you thinking of kwrite, perhaps?
Re: only tempt - Davide Ferrari - 2005-01-05
"No, but if KDE has Kmail and Kword, why not have Juk (for example) there as well? Why does KDE have to have a button for mail-client in the Kicker in the first place?" Sorry for flaming you but...are you stupid or what? It's simple: because the MASS uses email and so an email client. I think is quite obvious for everything. The mass using an audioplayer is really cut down when comes to corporate users. While emails keep a very strong point in this scenario.
Re: only tempt - Janne - 2005-01-05
And how do you know that most KDE-users are "corporate users"? Yes, email is very popular thing to do with a computer, but so are many other things. And besides, when I use email, I usually start it up once, and just let it run. Why do I need a quick-access button for that? I'm not constantly restarting it. "Sorry for flaming you but...are you stupid or what?" So, offering constructive criticism make me "stupid"? What a great attitude you have! I have spent quite alot of time trying to figure out ways to make KDE better, and I have spent time discussing them in a constructive manner. And when I do that, some armchair-expert comes along and says "are you stupid or what?". Maybe I should just shut the fuck up, since no criticism is apparently allowed? I guess all those people complaining that KDE does not have sensible defaults and/or the UI is messy with way too cluttered toolbars and too large context-menus, are all wrong and they just haven't "figured it out"? I guess they are "stupid" too for voicing their opinions? I at least offered ways to improve things, but apparently that's "stupid" as well. Fuck it.
Re: only tempt - fab - 2005-01-05
Please calm down all. I appreciate the thoughts of *all* people on dot.kde.org so please don't stop. We all have a common goal so let's keep focus! Ciao' Fab
Re: only tempt - Davide Ferrari - 2005-01-05
<i>"And how do you know that most KDE-users are "corporate users"? Yes, email is very popular thing to do with a computer, but so are many other things. And besides, when I use email, I usually start it up once, and just let it run. Why do I need a quick-access button for that? I'm not constantly restarting it."</i> Ok, so if you're are not stupid you love to play...I mean that email client is a *common base* for every kind of KDE user. The corporate user was only used as example to blame your "we have to put a media player shortcut too, then". And YOUR single experience is not meaningful at all. I, for example, tend to close very often KMAil or Kontact, and relaunch it when I need it. <i>So, offering constructive criticism make me "stupid"? What a great attitude you have! I have spent quite alot of time trying to figure out ways to make KDE better, and I have spent time discussing them in a constructive manner. And when I do that, some armchair-expert comes along and says "are you stupid or what?". Maybe I should just shut the fuck up, since no criticism is apparently allowed? I guess all those people complaining that KDE does not have sensible defaults and/or the UI is messy with way too cluttered toolbars and too large context-menus, are all wrong and they just haven't "figured it out"? I guess they are "stupid" too for voicing their opinions? I at least offered ways to improve things, but apparently that's "stupid" as well.</i> The "stupid" thing was related to the fact you were (and are) still answering the same exact things when tons of other people point you out you're talking about a non-issue, or if you prefer, a special case that only match your personal tastes. Good defaults are *definitely* the way to go (in KDE and in usability issues in general). And KMail on the kicker IS a good default, as it was a bad default having Konsole on it (and infact it was removed, thus with some criticism from CLI aficionados)
Re: only tempt - Janne - 2005-01-05
"And YOUR single experience is not meaningful at all. I, for example, tend to close very often KMAil or Kontact, and relaunch it when I need it." I did not intent to say that since _I_ don't restart Kmail all the time, we shouldn't have the icon there. We have as many different ways of using KDE as we have KDE-users. Some like to launch Kmail often (like you) some only once (like me), some not at all. What my real point about Kicker and the buttons was that they make the UI look cluttered. And they do. And using Kicker by default as a tool to quickly launch applications is difficult since you can't really know what apps should be there and what should not. Email is not IMO a "common base". Of course it's very popular, but so is media-playback. What metrics do you use to determine popularity of some certain function? How popular should it be in order to have a presence in the Kicker? "The "stupid" thing was related to the fact you were (and are) still answering the same exact things when tons of other people point you out you're talking about a non-issue, or if you prefer, a special case that only match your personal tastes." Clutter in KDE is a "non-issue"? To me that seems to be one of the biggest things in KDE people critique KDE for! No, I'm not suggesting removing Kmail (and Kword and Help) from the Kicker because it fits my personal usage-pattern. I'm suggesting it because we don't really know what apps should be there and what should not. removing them from the Kicker reduces the clutter, while not reducing functionality. The apps are still available just fine, they are not just thrown at your face when you log in.
Re: only tempt - Henrique Marks - 2005-01-05
Isnt this a problem with distributions? If some distributor thinks that KDE is bloated, mainly the menus, control-center and kicker, they can customize and deliver a better product. An example: conectiva 10 brings mozilla, instead of konqueror, in kicker. Why? Because the users, in the beta period, wanted that way. I'm sure other distributions do the same. And KDE is not far, by default, from your expectations, just take off kword and kmail. But i think that one navigator, one mail client and one editor is a good choice. As KDE cannot expect that the user has installed evolution, openoffice and mozilla, because of the dependencies, so they choose KDE programs. You see, you say that multiple workspaces are important: for me they are not, because kicker works so nicely that this option becomes irrelevant. My only flaming statement is: who took off the new tab button from the toolbar in konqueror ? Certainly some Windows ore Gnome advocate that says that KDE is bloated. I hate you :-)
Re: only tempt - Janne - 2005-01-06
"And KDE is not far, by default, from your expectations, just take off kword and kmail." If you think removeing those two fixes the issues with KDE, you are far, far off the mark.
Re: only tempt - Henrique Marks - 2005-01-06
"If you think removeing those two fixes the issues with KDE, you are far, far off the mark." No, for me its already nice. With kword and kmail in kicker. But you got the point, i'm sure about it.
Re: only tempt - Dolio - 2005-01-06
E-mail is something 99% of people use on computers. For some people, it's one of 3 or so reasons they have a computer. Media playback is less common than e-mail, especially when you consider that a significant number of people probably don't download/rip their music, so they couldn't use juk for their audio anyway (they'd need kscd). Also, juk runs in the system tray. This means it's likely to be started once, and then never again (assuming it doesn't crash, and you enable session management). Kmail doesn't run in the system tray (unless you get some kind of a tweak), so the average user is much more likely to be opening and closing it repeatedly over the course of their session. "Clutter in KDE is a 'non-issue'?" No. I think what he meant was that you're complaining about 'sensible defaults' and the fact that kmail is in the kicker, but that _is_ a sensible default, because _most_ people use e-mail. The fact that you don't understand that is what baffles most people here. You're also not being consistent with your arguments. You say in one place that you're not arguing that kicker should be devoid of all shortcuts, but here you're saying that there's no way to know what programs are sensible, so we should leave it blank. Having no functionality other than a menu isn't very sensible, in my opinion. Also, it _is_ possible to determine what programs are sensible by default. Look mostly at new users: 1. Most people use e-mail 2. Most new users won't be using 8 virtual desktops, so they won't want kmail open all the time, so they'll be opening it and closing it often, so it's good to have direclty at hand -- So put it in the kicker 1. Not everyone plays mp3s 2. You only have to open juk once and it uses a miniscule amount of screen real estate to stay open, so people won't be opening it and closing it all the time -- So it's not necessary to put in the kicker As for help: 'This is my first time in KDE. Look at all these icons without explanations. Let me move my mouse over them... Oh, this one says help. I'll click it to learn some stuff.' It can be useful for new users to have a 'press here for help' button right away. If you're an expert and know your usage patterns exactly, you can spend the 5 minutes it takes to set up all your own shortcuts. You only have to do it once.
Re: only tempt - Birdy - 2005-01-05
"The UI should offer only the basic features by default. If the user is advanced enought to miss some of the more advanced features, he's advanced enough to add the functionality himself in the toolbars." There's one problem. If functionality is "hidden", even advanced users don't see them. If thy don't see them, they don't know that it exists. If they don't know of it's existance, they won't search for it. If they don't "search" for it, they'll never add it. This even applies for advanced users. Only geeks or poweruser would look around if there is any feature that they may have missed... Just have a look at GNOME. It's nice for absolute beginners and geeks. But advanced users complain about all it's missing features - although most of them are only hidden.
Re: only tempt - Janne - 2005-01-05
What you say is true. And I do not suggest that we reduce KDE's (or it's apps) functionality one bit. So we then have a problem as to how to tell the user about the more advanced features that are at his disposal. I do not have a quick and easy answer for that. But I do think that just about anything is better than showing them all at once. That results in cluttered UI that is difficult to navigate and gets in your way when you try to do the everyday stuff. KDE should focus on letting the users do the everyday stuff with zero distractions and with clean UI. The advanced features should come only as the user sees fit. But, like I said, I have no easy solution as to how the user should be made aware of the more advanced features. Of course there's documentation and Kandalf's tips, but does anyone read those ;)?
Re: only tempt - uddw - 2005-01-06
"Of course there's documentation and Kandalf's tips, but does anyone read those ;)?" Maybe I would read the tips if they showed up when a new version of a program is installed and show information about changes and new features.
Re: only tempt - Brandybuck - 2005-01-05
"There's one problem. If functionality is "hidden", even advanced users don't see them." One reason they won't find them is because they won't be in the documentation. As wonderful as the KDE documentation team is, they have a difficult time keeping up with the pace of KDE development. If the documentor isn't tracking CVS commits, most featurettes are going to be overlooked.
Re: only tempt - Brandybuck - 2005-01-05
"Why do we have bookmarks in the desktops context-menu?" Maybe because they're frequently accessed from there? If I want to go to kde-look.org, for example, I can quickly select it from the context-menu bookmarks. Otherwise I must focus, restore, display, or perhaps even start the execution of Konqueror. While some may say this is a nonsense scenario, I find myself doing it all the time. It's an incredibly useful shortcut.
Re: only tempt - uddw - 2005-01-06
Or you click the K-Menu and choose "Bookmarks" from there. I also don't understand why Bookmarks belong to the Desktop context menu. It has nothing to do with the desktop. I don't create item on the desktop with it nor do I change its properties with it. And the desktop is often not even visible, while kicker is usually visible. We could just as well add the complete k-menu to the desktop menu, or did I miss a fundamental difference here?
Re: only tempt - Kosh - 2005-01-05
I have used gnome and for me I got very annoyed with it very quickly. One of the major issues I had was no url bar in the open and save file dialog boxes. I know this may not be really common for other people but about half the files I work with on a daily basis are remote resources and in kde I can work with all of them transparently from ANY kde application. Even better is that the io slaves integrate seamlessly with kwallet so I can have it remember usernames and passwords for these resources that are on remote servers and it makes my life a lot easier. I suspect that io slaves and being able to use them so easily from the open and save dialog box saves me a few hours/week of time. I ran into a similar issue when trying to use nautilus. My directories are mostly deep structures and spatial browsing was a major pain for me. I looked in the menus and could find no way to turn it off. I did look online and found a gconf key to turn it off but that was still a pain. Gconf is also something I HATE from a usability standpoint. I was looking in there for some stuff and many fields had limited inputs but had a textbox to type it into. If there are only 3 valid values a field can have then give me a drop down box or something to select one of those choices. Don't make me type n a 20 character text string that must be exact for it to work. I look through the web browser and could find no options anywhere to set the proxy settings. I never did figure out where that one once mostly by this point I had given up on gnome for being what I wanted to use to get my work done. Under kde it was easy for me to find proxy settings, it was even easy to figure that out in mozilla, firefox, opera, and ie. Sure many people may not need network transparency for normal usage but some of us do and it saves a lot of time. Many people complain that an app is unusable when it has x feature that they don't use and it has a button. However those same people complain when it is missing feature y that they do want. Everyone wants something different from the system and I am sure the features I want in an audio ripping program are different then your features. The only way I rip cds is to 500kbps or so ogg files. I did not see a way to do that in gnome with the audio encoder I found. I do get sick and tired of people talking about app x as unusable. I almost never hear them state WHY it is hard to use. Unless you state something very specific about why something makes an app hard to use, ways it could be improved etc then your comments are pretty much valueless. As you can see up above I stated very specific reasons of why I did not like using gnome. Here is a screenshot of my desktop. http://aesaeion.com/mydesk There are many things I think that could could do to improve things. In konqueror for instance I don't really see why cut copy and paste should be in the default bar. However just because I don't use it does not mean that others don't. What we need are real measurements. Some kind of process on kde that recorded every feature activated and how that feature was activated to see how often various features are used and how they are used. If almost nobody ever uses a given button then it probably does not have to be there but without real numbers there is no way to judge what makes something more useful for people.
Re: only tempt - Janne - 2005-01-05
"In konqueror for instance I don't really see why cut copy and paste should be in the default bar. However just because I don't use it does not mean that others don't." Right now, Copy/Paste is available through these: - Menubar - Keyboard-shortcuts - Context-menu - Toolbar - Drag 'n drop Do we really need them all? Why not remove the ones that clutter the UI the most? And I would guess that the buttons in the toolbar are the ones that do the most cluttering. If we removed the corresponding buttons from the toolbar, it would not reduce the functionality one bit. And, if the user really wants to have those buttons there, he's free to add them there. Of course, some people probably support multiple levels of redundancy (in this case we have five levels), but I think enough is enough.
Re: only tempt - Birdy - 2005-01-05
Very good idea! - Menubar has to be kept - every (global) functionality should be present in the menubar (my opinion). - Keyboard-shortcuts don't clutter the UI (just a short "string extension" at the menu items - Context-menu. Ok clutters the menu, but make a lot of sense there - Toolbar clutters UI a lot. But at least I didn't ever use it. - D'n'D does not clutter UI at all
Re: only tempt - Luke Chatburn - 2005-01-05
None of these ought to be removed. DnD is not complex, and many advanced users appreciate it, as with the context menus (useful for fine granularity c&p) and keyboard shortcuts. To a beginning user, however, these facilities are invisible, and don't affect them adversely in any way. Most basic users will use either the menu or the toolbar. I think Janne is labouring under the misapprehension that cleanliness = functionality. This misunderstanding runs through many discussions of Gnome's current drive towards 'usability' (I use apostrophes to differentiate the actual word from the way some people use it). The toolbar is a very specific development in UI terms that has provided massive benefits to users for decades. It allows for fast access to core commands, and offers a nice small set of options to beginner users, who aren't able to take in/don't want all of the menu options. We use icons to make the purpose evident, and labels in some cases. Turn off the toolbar and address bar in your browser for a day, and see how much slower you operate when you have to search menus for the functions you need quickly. Many beginners don't know about Ctrl+X/C/V, context menus, or drag and drop, but they know what the icons and menu entries do. This is a good thing, and it's a major success of software that so many users have been introduced to a task that is not visually obvious. Hence: Toolbars work. They work for a lot of people, and a lot, if not most users (by total users, skilled and unskilled) use the toolbar buttons as their primary means of operating applications; and also their primary means of copying and pasting. If it doesn't suit you, then that is fair enough. KDE provides a very straightforward toolbar organisation tool, which you can get by right-clicking on any toolbar. Just remove the icons that you don't want. This is the power of C++ & QT which allows for functionality to be inherited like this; something that GTK doesn't do and every application has to have their own custom-coded solution. Same as the good old file selector problem in GTK. Finally, it is also important to be aware that toolbar icons play a vital role in enabling visually-impaired people to use computers. Often, searching through menu items is far more difficult, frustrating and error-prone than for those with 20/20 (or corrected) vision. Being able to click on large, colourfully-distinctive icons allows the visually impaired to be able to use computers more readily and face one fewer barrier in the work place and in an increasingly computer-oriented world. Again, KDE provides single settings for large fonts throughout all applications, large menu fonts and large icons, which are a massive help and only need to be set once, for the entire system. Again, thanks to QT and the KDE base classes, which provide these settings to all programs. Sidenote: It is also important to not say "Well, if it's on the toolbar, it doesn't need to be in the menu system", as screen readers for the blind are very frequently forced to only use menus, and are unable to describe toolbar icons accurately to the user.
Re: only tempt - Janne - 2005-01-05
"DnD is not complex, and many advanced users appreciate it, as with the context menus (useful for fine granularity c&p) and keyboard shortcuts. To a beginning user, however, these facilities are invisible, and don't affect them adversely in any way." I was suggesting that C/P-buttons could be removed from the toolbar, and the reason is that the functionality in question is already available through numerous other ways. And I have yet to see a user who doesn't know about Ctrl+x/c/v, and I work with alot of users. "I think Janne is labouring under the misapprehension that cleanliness = functionality." Yes and no. Clean UI makes the app more functional than cluttered UI would, in my opinion. I'm laboring with the current design-philosophy of "we must have all possible features, and we must present them in as visibly as possible". That results in UI that is cluttered and confusing. If you had to choose between cluttered UI and clean UI, which would you choose? I'm not advocating removal of features, far from it. I'm advocating cleaning up the UI. What Gnome-folks have done is to remove functionality altogether. Sure, they can make the system appear "cleaner" (I would use the word "dumber" thouhg) that way. I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting that we keep the existing functionality, but we emphasize the really _relevant_ functionality. if the user wants to use the more advanced functionality, he should be able to do so. But the UI should reflect the primary functionality by default. So, instead of designing the UI in such way that it prominently displays some advanced features that 99% of users never use, why not design the UI in such way that the REALLY useful features are prominently displayed, with the rarely used features are not visible by default, yet available? A good example of this is the file-dialog (I had a discussion about this a while back in the mailinglist). Have you noticed that it doesn't have a place to enter a filename? It has an entry called "Location" (which IMO implies an URL or a directory), but no filename. Yes, you use "location" to type the filename. This thing was very confusing for my wife, and as I thought about it, I agreed with her. Do you know why it says "Location", and not "Filename" (or something similarly descriptive)? It's because you coulse use KIO-slaves to save in to remote filesystems, and it should reflect that fact. Well, that's fine and dandy, but 99.9% of users simply want to type a filename and not use some whiz-bang features. They just want to save (or load) their file! yet this thing is designed around a feature that gets rarely used, instead of the primary purpose of the app that gets used over and over again. "KDE provides a very straightforward toolbar organisation tool, which you can get by right-clicking on any toolbar. Just remove the icons that you don't want." So, new users should spend their time trimming down the UI, instead of using the app in question for the purpose it was designed for? This is what I meant by apps growing together with the user. Right now KDE pushes newbies right in the middle of humungous number of options, buttons, menus and features, and they should then just remove what they don't like. What it should do is to gradually guide them in it. New users are not prepared to go through options and configuration-tools. Advanced users have no problems doing that. Advanced users can clean up the UI, but newbies are not so prepared to do the same. That is why it's better IMO to let the app grow with the user. As the user gains more knowledge, he can enable more features and change the UI. But as he first uses the system, he's presented with a clean and intuitive UI, instead of UI that has humungous context-menus, lots and lots of icons and insane number of options. Advanced users can sort it out, newbies cannot. Right now we expect newbies and advanced users alike to go through the options. With my suggestion, we would only expect advanced users to go through the options. And they are alot better prepared to do it than newbies are. Form Follows Function. What is the primary purpose of the app? Then design the UI to reflect the primary purpose of the app. And keep the UI clean and functional, so that the primary functions are highlighted. I don't think that's unreasonable.
Re: only tempt - Kosh - 2005-01-06
>So, instead of designing the UI in such way that it prominently displays some >advanced features that 99% of users never use, why not design the UI in such >way that the REALLY useful features are prominently displayed, with the rarely >used features are not visible by default, yet available? So how do you know what features 99% of people use? If you have some magical method for knowing that I would love to know it but without real numbers I have doubts that anyone has even a good clue on what people use. Until there is some way that kde can track that information and it can be submitted back for analysis the answer is that nobody really knows that. Until that information is really known then removing visible choices in most cases is a very bad idea since you don't know the effect that has on people. The gnome people removed the text box from their file dialog box and so you can't type a url in there anymore or anything else for that matter. No matter what arguement is given it is removed for usability and they know best. It is all BS and I don't want to see that here. Until you have numbers to back up your viewpoint stuff should not be removed, renamed etc. I have see how people have used some of the stuff I have written and it did not match how I thought it would be used at all many times and stuff I thought would be a usability issue was not and stuff that I hadn't even though of confused people and so I changed it. The point is that you don't make these decisions in an information vacuum.
Re: only tempt - Leo Spalteholz - 2005-01-06
I think you are Janne are basically saying similar things, it's just that you don't agree on which features should be displayed prominently, like in the toolbars, and which should not be. As for the copy/paste/cut buttons, I agree with Janne that they should not go on the toolbar. You can make a case, as you have, that they may be beneficial to certain users, but for the vast majority, they are either superfluous or distracting. For someone who is seriously visually impaired, just adding a few icons to the toolbars will not make the application any more usable. These people have specially designed environments or will use assistive tools so that regular menus are usable for them. (Seriously, my job is to design special interfaces like this). Also, we can't ignore the example set by other systems and applications. I'm on Windows XP now but lets inspect the toolbars of a couple random apps I have installed on this computer. Applications WITH the copy/paste/cut buttons in the default toolbar: Openoffice Writer Applications WITHOUT the copy/paste/cut buttons in the default toolbar: Firefox Eclipse Adobe Acrobat Reader Winzip Internet Explorer Movie Maker Photoshop Outlook Express So of all these apps, in which copy/paste are useful functions, only one has them in the default toolbar. Only Openoffice Writer, whose primary purpose is text manipulation, has the buttons. Why should KDE be so different? I've never heard of anyone complain of lack of toolbar buttons, the reason people don't like gnome (me included) is lack of features, not lack of buttons.
Re: only tempt - Maynard - 2005-01-06
The problem you noted with GConf about having to type a text field where only 3 values are possible is NOT a GConf problem, but is a problem with the developer who put those options there. GConf has ways of making sure you can only select certain options, and in any case, gconf2-editor is NOT meant for editing apps by normal users, but by developers or normal users. It is just an interface which doesn't even have to be in the distro.
Re: only tempt - Kosh - 2005-01-07
Okay so if it is not meant to be used by normal users then how do I do stuff like turn off spatial mode by default? I found no gui option anywhere for it and only found instructions to use the gconf editor to do it. It seems if there are options that regular uses will need to change then there needs to be a way to change them. Saying that gconf editor is only for developers is a cop out around the crappy ui they have for setting stuff. I also did browse through gconf editor and I did not see even one case where it had a selection box instead of a text entry box for limited inputs. So while it may support that in theory it does not support that in practice. It seems a lot of useful options where removed from the gui in gnome to make it "easier" and the only real way to change them is using the gconf editor so I don't see how that can even be an optional component.
Re: only tempt - regeya - 2005-01-05
Bear in mind that I actually used the first Linux-Mandrake release because it had KDE bundled. As I recall, that was one of the only differences between it and Red Hat at the time. Now, I'm using Ubuntu Linux for chiefly the same reason I installed that first Mandrake: I get a mostly mainstream distribution with the added benefit of a polished desktop already set up. I've been a big cheerleader for KDE in the past, and even admonished RMS a couple of times for his "ban", rather than working to get the licensing mess straightened out. I used to think of GNOME as a waste of bandwidth and storage, and a pointless project whose reason for existence was over. Nowadays, they've got their HIG, their initiative to remove the cruft, and their drive to integrate with freedesktop.org standards and software. It's a nightmare under the hood, yeah, but it's sweet-looking and sexy. There's something really nice about being able to do those things that Windows is supposed to make effortless, like plugging in a camera or a USB drive, and just have them work, and it works on my current desktop. App integration is another nice thing. Keeping up with the Joneses in the form of a searchable desktop is another nice thing, and it's getting close to being ready for prime time. There's something nice about having system tools that work more or less the same on all supported systems, and I've got that now. Now, if only it weren't GNOME... I mean, once you get past the sexiness, things start getting annoying. Using gconf2-editor to change application settings because adding them to a preference panel was "too confusing"? Annoying. gThumbs insisting on printing at 72dpi, and giving no options to change that? Annoying. Sound-Juicer not having an option for quality settings? Annoying again. In fact, I can point to apps, point to features that were once in apps but have been ripped out because they're too confusing, and I can point to mailing lists where users were patronized for wanting the "confusing" feature back. This is progress? The cleaned-up interfaces are nice, but, c'mon, 72DPI OUTPUT WHEN PRINTING PHOTOS? DUMB, DUMB, DUMB!!! Heck, Ubuntu uses Mozilla Firefox instead of Epiphany as their default Web browser. I think that's pretty telling; I know I prefer the features to the, erm, elegant interface. Um, yeah, you have to open the bookmark editor to move things around on the Bookmarks bar. That makes sense. Uh-huh. Sure. Whatever. *ahem* What I meant to say was that the simplified interfaces are nice at times, but sometimes they just get in the way. I look forward to the future of KDE, when they've cleaned up interfaces, dumped cruft like aRts in favor of using gStreamer, and I suspect it will be awesome again by the time GNOME disappears under the mountain of lawsuits that are sure to come when they start using more Mono apps for the base system. C'mon, guys; KDE used to be a nice, simple, easy-to-use *n?x system. It can be again. Show the GNOME folks how it should REALLY be done. ;-)
Re: only tempt - Janne - 2005-01-05
As it happens, I have for some time spent time writing a document where I go through the UI of KDE and various apps. I will point out weaknessess and features that make the UI seem more busy than it should be and I will mace suggestions as to how to fix the situation. Now, I'm not a KDE-developer nor am I some uber-expert when it comes to UI's. I'm just a KDE-user that has used KDE since 1.x-days and who applied some common sense to things :). Hopefully I can spark some discussion when I'm finished with the document.
Re: only tempt - aleXXX - 2005-01-05
You surely will spark some discussion. But this is not enough. If you really want to help, find weak points, suggest improvements and try to get in contact with the developer who works on this code. Work with him (i.e. exchange mails) until you have a result. If you stop earlier, your work might not have much effect. Bye Alex
Re: only tempt - Davide Ferrari - 2005-01-05
If the document is like your posts here, please drop it, it would not be very useful to have something saying: "it has to be so because I say it". Don't get me wrong, there are definitely some things wrong with KDE and UI but, first of all, let's wait final KDE 3.4 to renew the debate, since lots of work has already be done and we are so close to get it finished.
Re: only tempt - Janne - 2005-01-05
"If the document is like your posts here, please drop it, it would not be very useful to have something saying: "it has to be so because I say it"." It's not. It's about some of the most common things people have criticized KDE for. It outlines the problems, it mentions why they are a problem, it offers potential solutions to the problem and rationale behind those solutions. It has before/after-screenshots and it has some comments from new users. But hey, apparently it's not useful, so I'll just drop it. Forget I ever mentioned it at all, apparently I have just wasted my time.
Re: only tempt - Davide Ferrari - 2005-01-05
I know I've been harsh on kmail/kicker thread, but your way to talk about it made me do that... I think you have to finish your work on which you had spent time and publish it (the best place is kde-usability mailing list). Even if there is only one good, motivated and well explained criticism (and ideas to improve the situation, obviously), your document will be useful.
Re: only tempt - Janne - 2005-01-05
"I know I've been harsh on kmail/kicker thread, but your way to talk about it made me do that..." I honestly don't know how I should have talked then. I made no personal attacks. I told why I think the current system is less than ideal, and I told how it could be fixed, and I gave some rationale that explains my proposal. Seriously, I don't know what else I could have done. But, if I have to choose between voicing my opinions and stirring some emotions in the process, or remain silent, I choose the former. That way I can spark some discussion, and maybe something good will come from it. "I think you have to finish your work on which you had spent time and publish it (the best place is kde-usability mailing list)" that is the place where I plan to publish it. We'll see. "Even if there is only one good, motivated and well explained criticism (and ideas to improve the situation, obviously), your document will be useful." Well, so far it has stuff regarding Kmenu, Kicker, Konqueror, context-menus and the like, together with screenshots, with more stuff being planned.
Re: only tempt - Birdy - 2005-01-05
I don't think such a work should be dropped. KDE 3.4 may have some enhancements, but most "problems" still exist. I would rather make first results public (just like open source code). The mailinglist "kde-usability" is a great place to discuss such results with the right people. And after some discussions one can see which kind of "enhancements" are accepted by KDE and work in this direction for further application.
Re: only tempt - Davide Ferrari - 2005-01-05
Obviously we can start to talk about some issues before 3.4 but I think that, in primis for technical and time schedule reasons, they won't never be in 3.4 For example, long discussions have been mad on KControl on kde-usability even before 3.3 times, but the KControl will only change in KDE4, when more things could be changed without problems (I mean, there will be a major binary change, a major UI change could happen too)
Re: only tempt - Anonymous - 2005-01-05
I have used KDE exclusively since KDE 1.1.1, so my opinions on Gnome are mostly based on heresay. But, if KDE is mildly overloaded, I must say that I think Gnome is severly crippled. To me that is much worse. Gnome has dumped usefulness for usability.
Re: only tempt - Anonymous - 2005-01-05
> GTK/Gnome has great designers UI policy thouhg so it makes up for the horror under the hood. I always failed to understand why specifying pixel distances in the interface style guide makes up for the horror of the framework not supporting/enforcing them.
Nope. - Jel - 2005-01-05
KDE has a UI policy, just like GNOME does. What's more, it's far more integrated, advanced, and complete, and has a useful set of widgets, including full database support, docking toolbars (ie, it doesn't suffer UI nightmares like GIMP). I used to be a GNOME fan. Even a KDE hater. But basically, if you think GNOME and KDE are still competing, you're still thinking of GTK 1.x days. They're long gone, and anyone who's really sat down and USED KDE for a while will tell you it's lightyears ahead. At this point, I'm pretty much convinced that KDE has won. Checking out the difference in development progress in the two (not just desktops, but apps for them) will make that fairly clear. When Krita gets here, it'll start to become obvious to all just how much better KDE is.
Re: Nope. - medgno - 2005-01-06
"KDE has a UI policy, just like GNOME does." I think the point that was made WRT the UI policies was that GNOME projects will try to adhere to the interface guidelines very strictly. I've read both the interface guides, and have seen that some almost official KDE apps have UI quirks that the interface guide wouldn't want. A prime example was amarok before 1.1 (iirc) where the menu could only be accessed by a button, not by a 'normal' menubar. Little things like that can make a huge difference to some people. One other thing that's probably the only thing keeeping me on GNOME is the tendency of core KDE components to work almost as they should. Sometimes not having a feature can be nicer than an only semi-functional version of it. An example that shows this well is konqueror's tendancy to hold on to filehandles and fam locks it shouldn't. If I mount a device by going to devices:/ in konqueror and do something on it and hit 'back' to get back to devices:/, I should be able to right-click and unmount it properly. I've not gotten that to work ever. I've voted on various bugzilla entries but still no progress has been made since I first ran into this issue (3.1.?) I think there's still a place for both the environments on the linux desktop, especially since competition tends to challenge both to do better.
Re: Nope. - Leo Spalteholz - 2005-01-06
I had the same problem with file handles, it was fixed in 3.3 though. Are you running the latest version? Also, don't install the fam daemon, its useless as far as I can tell and creates a ton of problems, all you need is libfam.
Re: Nope. - medgno - 2005-01-06
I uninstalled the fam daemon and started a kde session (first time on a new user) and tried mounting my /dev/sda1, creating a file, 'back'ing up and then unmounting it. konqueror complained there was an error unmounting. 'lsof | grep sda1' shows konqueror holding an open filehandle to it. This is on the most up-to-date KDE that Debian has (3.3.1) Is there some special option to put in fstab or somewhere else to tell konqueror to be careful about its handles?
Re: only tempt - Roland - 2005-01-05
> So so true ... No, not true: For example his claim: "Experts are able to edit text-files or use the command line anyway, novices are just scared away by too many features." is just complete nonsense. What experts? Will experts in spreadsheet-apps be able to edit text-files? An expert has - by definition - great expertise in a field, but lacks in another. Or more importantly, will experts be wanting to check out all configuration files? Where will the experts find out what configuration settings are valid anyway? I can edit text files, but I sure don't want to go hunting for features in them. Please, don't listen to such rants.
Re: only tempt - Kosh - 2005-01-05
I certainly agree with this. I would qualify as an expert in python and zope but that does not make me an expert in apache, bind or anything else for that matter. Editing some text files is okay depending on what they are an how easy it is to find them but I hate having to turn on stuff using those text files outside the areas I am an expert it. Trying to find features and turn them on in gconf SUCKED. I like kde since it has just about every option I need and I only have to set those settings once for every major version of kde. I have not had to reconfigure almost any setting since kde 3.0 came out. KDE also supports the way I work by having things be url transparent and having components shared. I know others may not care but in kde you have essentially one advanced kind of text editor no matter how you open it. You can configure the kate component once and it doesn't matter if you open a file in kdevelop, kate, kwrite, konqueror etc it will be identical and that is a HUGE gain for me. I have become so used to that stuff being shared that I use the colors that code is highlighted in as part of how I read it since it just works everywhere I need it. It is one reason I can't stand using other systems since components are not shared. KDE goes beyond just that though, the address book, proxy settings, spellcheck, etc are all shared. I can setup once how I want a feature to work and everywhere that feature is used it works the same way. That is a major gain in my mind and I hope kde goes ever farther in that direction.
Re: only tempt - ac - 2005-01-05
Go figure. Gnome's HIG may be the only reason I'll never consider using it. A matter of taste, I guess.
Re: only tempt - Brandybuck - 2005-01-05
If you read the article carefully, while he praises GNOME's simplistic interface over and over again, he still ranks most KDE applications above their GNOME equivalents because they are more featureful. He prefers more features over more simplicity. You can't have both.
C++ vs C - AtWork - 2005-01-05
GNOME is programmable in C/C++/C#-Mono/Python, etc. The GTK GUI libs will soon be pretty complete and featureful and stable over binary releases. The decision zbout how much GNOME to build into GTK is being made over time (vfs and native versus GTK widgets like file choosers etc.) After that whatever these very flexible and ever smaller and more efficient libraries can be bound to is whate GNOME will be programmed in ... my guess is that for OO it will be C#/Mono and Java moreso than C++.
Maybe Gnome's UI rules are more strict - christian - 2005-01-05
but they also do not make me happy. Therefore, sticking users in an unhappy way of life prevents them from staying with Gnome. However, this is not important. I cannot say why, but overall, I find Gnome unusable and I like KDE as is. Everyone has its tastes and smells, so I really hope Gnome and KDE will keep being different. If KDE would evolve towards Gnome, I won't upgrade anymore, so let KDE be as KDE folks want it to be, and use whatever you like.
KDE Menu complexity - fprog26 - 2005-01-05
I think that the K menu shown in the screenshots... shows some of the problem. http://shots.osdir.com/slideshows/slideshow.php?release=156&slide=1 slides 26-32 http://shots.osdir.com/slideshows/slideshow.php?release=164&slide=1 slides 52-65 KDE menus have the following: More Programs > ---------------- GtKpod K3b (CD & DVD Burning) KMix (Sound Mixer) KRec (Recording Tool) KsCD (CD Player) Kwave Sound Editor RealPlayer 10 (Media Player) xine XMMS (Multimedia Player) While Gnome menu looks like this: CD Player Music Player Sound Juicer CD Ripper Sound Recorder Totem Movie Player Volume Control Also Notice that the icons are more "meaningful" in the sense that some icons represent more the task at hand. Some icons in KDE are good, some are not obvious. KDE added the (description) parenthesis in the menu to add usability, which is some sort of a good idea to a problem where the name is not obvious. Now it may be disrupting to "rename" application to hard core KDE fans just to please other people. It would be nice to do, for applications that are "way off track" or for which the name is meaningless. In marketting, that's a common way of solving an issue where customer don't buy the product because the name is irrelevant, not appealing or not selling well. The major problem I see is alignment and meaningfulness. When someone reads this menu, the brain spin. Don't worry the same problem exists on most bloated Windows menu. The idea is to reduce the information, make it to the point and make it easy to discriminate the task at end from a list. The first thing your brain is doing is trying to focus on too much information, then trying to discriminate by grouping them and actually trying to read the information. Since it cannot do that easily, what you end up doing is reading what is on the left within parenthesis, the second problem is that doing this task is actually hard since the parenthesis content is not aligned. So a first small improvement would be: More Programs > ---------------- GtKpod........\t...(iPod Manager) K3b...........\t...(CD & DVD Burning) KMix..........\t...(Sound Mixer) KRec..........\t...(Recording Tool) KsCD..........\t...(CD Player) Kwave.........\t...(Sound Editor) RealPlayer10..\t...(Media Player) xine..........\t...(Xine) XMMS..........\t...(Multimedia Player) At least now, the element are aligned, but since the content is far from the icon it's still a bit hard to associate. Let's try to read what we are looking for first. More Programs > ---------------- iPod Manager........\t...(GtKpod) CD & DVD Burning....\t...(K3b) Sound Mixer.........\t...(KMix) Recording Tool......\t...(KRec) CD Player...........\t...(KsCD) Sound Editor........\t...(Kwave) Media Player........\t...(RealPlayer10) Xine................\t...(Xine) Multimedia Player...\t...(XMMS) Now let's sort it by description More Programs > ---------------- CD & DVD Burning....\t...(K3b) CD Player...........\t...(KsCD) iPod Manager........\t...(GtKpod) Media Player........\t...(RealPlayer10) Multimedia Player...\t...(XMMS) Recording Tool......\t...(KRec) Sound Editor........\t...(Kwave) Sound Mixer.........\t...(KMix) Xine................\t...(Xine) Now, it starts looking like a Gnome/Apple menu. Actually, there's nothing wrong with putting the names instead of the description, if the names are meaningful, such as this: More Programs > ---------------- KCD Burning..........\t...(K3b) KCD Player...........\t...(KsCD) KiPod Manager........\t...(GtKpod) KMultimedia Player...\t...(XMMS) KRealPlayer10........\t...(RealPlayer10) KRecording Tool......\t...(KRec) KSound Editor........\t...(Kwave) KSound Mixer.........\t...(KMix) KXine................\t...(Xine) If everything starts with a K, then the sorting actually makes sense, or just rip it off and assume that in console it takes a K prefix... More Programs > ---------------- CD Burning.......... CD Player........... iPod Manager........ Multimedia Player... RealPlayer 10 Recording Tool...... Sound Editor........ Sound Mixer......... Xine................ Some grouping might also help: More Programs > ------------------------------------------ CD & DVD Burning....\t...(K3b) CD Player...........\t...(KsCD) iPod Manager........\t...(GtKpod) ------------------------------------------ Recording Tool......\t...(KRec) Sound Editor........\t...(Kwave) Sound Mixer.........\t...(KMix) ------------------------------------------ Media Player........\t...(RealPlayer10) Multimedia Player...\t...(XMMS) Xine................\t...(Xine) ------------------------------------------ * Mock-up anyone? The best would be to omit (parenthesis) or have names that are so meaningful that it's just so easy to remember. KEdit, KWrite, KPaint, KolourPaint, DigiKam, Kuickshow, KGhostView, KPDF The major problem is that there is so many competing app, that it may not be fully possible. Also, don't make the menu too big and make it visually and logically grouped by task whenever possible. If the menu is too big, add submenu, but use proper folder names not "More Programs", "All Programs", that's meaningfulness. Basically, it doesn't provide any plus-value information. Also, make the menu editable on the fly by drag-n-drop. Hide menu bar features into an advance submenu with a proper grouping and organize it in an easy to find 3 clicks thing with a keyboard shortcut. If the user use it "often", the user can simply drag'n'drop the menu item and edit it in place [if you really want to provide editable menu] or learn/redefine the keyboard shortcut ALT-CTRL-SHIFT-K (even better). One thing, you might wanna do is add a "feature counter plugin" KPART into some KDE apps and ask users to provide you with statistics on frequently used features by sending their results via some HTTP website when connected in XML format by clicking "send KDE usability results". That might help developpers "justify" the cut the visibility of the kitchen sink, by having proper statistic to support it. Also, having icon contest with meaningful icons is a good idea. Getting inspired from other graphical environment is also a good idea. Long life to KDE! Sincerely yours, Fred.
Re: KDE Menu complexity - Anonymous - 2005-01-05
> I think that the K menu shown in the screenshots... shows some of the problem. > GtKpod > RealPlayer 10 (Media Player) > xine > XMMS (Multimedia Player) A really good idea to blame KDE for non-KDE applications added by the distributor. ;-) > KDE added the (description) parenthesis in the menu to add usability KDE's default though is to display the description and in parenthesis the app name.
Re: KDE Menu complexity - Barney - 2005-01-05
Hope somebody in the KDE inner circle took notice to Freds well articulated point Perhaps instead of comparing KDE to what others do wrong, KDE designers should look at Apples UI, as I think most would agree that have set the standard for polish and ease of use. Also it is time for KDE to get out of its hacker mode. And get companies like Novell and IBM to participate more. KDE is great it just needs a little direction (and a name change) Barney
Re: KDE Menu complexity - Anonymous - 2005-01-05
> as I think most would agree that have set the standard for polish and ease of use Really? I want to bet that "most" have never used an Apple computer.
Re: KDE Menu complexity - Luke Chatburn - 2005-01-05
:) Or have tried to and said "Okay... Now how on earth do I do task X? I don't see an obvious way of doing it." At which point their Mac tutor points out the way, or something similar with the statement that it is "More intuitive this way!". One day, someone is going to tell me how dragging a disk icon to the trash bin to eject it is in the least bit intuitive. For a new user, I'd be deathly worried that all my work was going to be deleted, after spending half an hour wondering where the 'Eject' option was. Anecdote: A very intelligent man came to my shared house a year ago to just check his webmail on my friend's OSX Mac while he was away from home. I head off to work and return for lunch three hours later. Turns out, he's playing games, because after two hours, he couldn't find the web browser. You see my friend had Mozilla installed, and the big cuddly 'M' on the dock, amidst 25 other icons didn't exactly shout "Hey! I'm a web browser!" at this chap. Poor choice of icon on the part of the Mozilla Foundation, perhaps, but then, OSX didn't provide any tooltip or program menu structure to guide him to the fact that it was a browser, either. And similarly to Gnome, I've spent a great deal of time in the last two years trying to change settings on clients' Macs for networking and behaviour that Apple decided were too intricate for normal users and text files had to be hacked every which way to solve the problem. There is a danger in discussions of usability in modern times that too many people assume that Apple has 'got it right'. If they had usability perfectly solved, working on a Mac would be so much more comfortable and improve work flow, that every company would be compelled to Switch in order to save the man hours in efficiency gains and reduced administration time. That hasn't happened, and even desktop market share isn't growing beyond the current 3.5-5% that Macs currently occupy. If Apple were really so good that we should pay attention to everything that they said and did, they'd have the 80%+ market share that Windows has, right now.
Re: KDE Menu complexity - Davide Ferrari - 2005-01-05
Well, apart that he said wrong things (the default of clean KDE 3.3 installation in KMenu is "App description (App name)"), apart that he should give a look to the new KMenu and kicker of 3.4 (kudos to Aaron Seigo)...well, he could, yes. (if you don't get it this last sentence is ironic)
Re: KDE Menu complexity - Illissius - 2005-01-05
Personally, I don't have a problem with app names. We are not a corporation and have no reason to emulate one. Having developers choose whatever names they want for their apps highlights the fact that this is software written by real, actual people, who are doing it because they like doing it; lends a sort of intimacy to it. Having a description next to the names solves the usability issue nicely, and lets us avoid those terrible corporatesque names like Internet Explorer.
"a dyed-in-the-wool Gnome fan" - Anonymous - 2005-01-05
He doesn't even know how to write GNOME correctly.
Context menu's are really crowded - Tim - 2005-01-05
I like tho control center although i don't like the way searching is done. When i type a search word then there apear the topics, then i have to click on the topic further down to get the help page. The indirection in the middle could IMHO be removed. Another cool thing could be the configuration dialogs based on skill level like xine does it. Although it requires a lot of work to get it right an imposes new problems. For example missing options. One thing which is really crowded are the kde context menu's for drives. The most used item "unmount" lies inbetween not so much used functions. Especially for newbies who are no familiar with mounting /UNMOUNTING this makes it even harder. Cheers Tim
Skill level - Morty - 2005-01-05
>configuration dialogs based on skill level This is a developers nightmare, on many levels. First of it adds lot of complications to testing, and getting usefull bugreports would become even worse. And the problems it creates for user support are huge. The Gnomes used to have skill setting in Nautilus, I don't think they do anymore.
usability - nick - 2005-01-05
i think the main usability criteria should be possibility to do all things only using keyboard [shortcuts]. for example, i've hidden all toolbars and menu in kmail and opera
Re: usability - Davide Ferrari - 2005-01-05
No, this is about power and flexibility of a DE, but not about "usability" in general. Anyway, it's a great KDE feature, you can do almost everything by keyboard shortcuts
Well... - John Usability Freak - 2005-01-05
I know that there was even some discussion on wether a 3.4 release should happen or not. But why not have a 3.5 release that focus on UI improvements only? It would not distract developers from 4.0 that much and it would allow them to get feedback on those changes and see how everything worked before committing them to 4.0.
Re: Well... - Mikhail Capone - 2005-01-06
Maybe I'm missing something, but why not put the big UI/useability changes in 4.0.. After all, that's what major releases are for, no?
Re: Well... - John Usability Freak - 2005-01-06
"Maybe I'm missing something, but why not put the big UI/useability changes in 4.0." So many motives. Remember 2.2->3.0->3.1->3.2->3.3? When developing 4.0 most of the focus be on technical issues, porting to a new Qt version, new sound server, and some new features, etc. And right after the release it will be much more important to fix bugs on the new foundations, and after that building new features that take advantage of the new foundations. Also the feedback on non-UI issues will be overwhelming. In the event of a 3.5, developers would have a stable framework to test UI changes (3.4), and feedback on that release would concern UI changes alone. Developers could then take that feedback into account as they work on 4.0. That's the only way I can see it working. "After all, that's what major releases are for, no?" 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 are all major releases.
KDE - Jonathan - 2005-01-05
I think KDE is fantastic. It looks great, is packed with features and has great technology behind it. However, I would really like it if the default settings were cleaned up as I am sick of all the Gnome zealots going on and on about how "unusable" it is because of things like cluttered toolbars. Whenever I install KDE on a new machine, I always spend 20 minutes going through all the options and toolbar configurations to make it less cluttered. It isn't terrible, I just hate it when people insult the effort that has went into KDE just because of some extra icons or something else that can be changed in 30 seconds. Anyway, I've attached a screenshot of my regular Konqueror window as an example of the kind of cleanups I'd like to see. As you can see, my toolbar only contains: Back, Forward, Home, Up, Stop, Address Bar, Go/Enter. Regular users won't need anything else (I'm a programmer and that's all I need too) and advanced users can add more items if they want them. Very importantly, all buttons are on one horizontal toolbar to take up minimum space. My web fonts are set quite large and I have big friendly icons for file management. I use the same profile for both file management and web browsing, with my homepage set to my home directory. I've never actually used the sidebar except when exploring it, so I turn it off by default. I think this setup looks very appealing, except perhaps for the status bar at the bottom. It has too many ugly looking frames, the little green circle serves no real purpose and I have never needed the "lock view" button". Just in general though, the toolbars are very overloaded with things. This would take a minimum amount of time to fix and make things look a lot less cluttered. For example, in Kontact there is a "Print" icon in the toolbar for emails, address book contacts and news groups which I have never ever used. I personally find Gnome very spartan of useful features and personally don't like the look of it (the default fonts and theme aren't attractive). However, I would very much appreciate if some of the visual complaints that Gnome users keep applying to KDE were addressed so that they would only be compared on features, and KDE is far superior here.
Re: KDE - Morty - 2005-01-05
I see you have removed the "Clear Location Bar", I can't actually understand how you mangage without? It's the thing I miss the most each time I try Firefox, and the reason I stay with Konqueror as browser. Probably combined with the fact that there is no other gain using Firefox over Konqi. I have 16 icons in my Konqueror toolbar, and regularly use 8-9 of them. I could spend the 30 seconds removing a few of them, but Konqueror would not become any more usable for me so why should I bother? Of course if the icons was not there to begin with, I would not add them. But it would not become more usable either.
Re: KDE - Jonathan - 2005-01-05
I removed "Clear Location Bar" because I find it easier to 1) double-click on the address to select all the text 2) type in an address (which automatically clears the previous one). The clear button isn't used everywhere so I'm just not drawn to using it, whereas selecting text works with all text-entry boxes. Hmm, 16 icons on your toolbar is far, far too many in my opinion. What are they all? I think the KDE designers should remove all the toolbar icons that are very rarely used by most users. The whole point of the toolbar is to allow certain features (like "Back") to be accessed with just one click. When you have too many icons, it not only looks cluttered, but you now have to scan along all the icons to find the one you want because there are so many. Having 20 odd icons looks very daunting also as it makes the application look far more complicated than it actually is. Like I said in my first post though, I know I can change the toolbars myself and I do, but I just wish the default settings were a lot cleaner looking so that people couldn't use it as a lame reason not to use KDE.
Re: KDE - Morty - 2005-01-05
Typical use of "Clear Location Bar" are when I use MMB to copy, like the URL from the post below. Highlight it, press "Clear Location Bar" and click MMB in the location bar. The 16 icons: up/back/forward/home/reload/stop standard navigating. Then the edit icons cut/copy/paste, usually I don't use them, prefer MMB. Then there are print/print frame and find. Next are increase/decrease font size, which i use frequently. And the last two are security and download manger, which I can agree to should be removed:-) As for the clutter and scanning for icons, this was perhaps a problem although very minor, for the first hour or so using Konqueror. I think close to the only ting you gain making the default settings cleaner looking are, fewer whiners and people couldn't use it as a lame reason not to use KDE. But they would only find other things to whine about and even lamer reason not to use KDE.
Re: KDE - Nadeem Hasan - 2005-01-05
Pressing MMB in the konqueror should auto-paste the current selection in the location bar. Just 1 step needed instead of 3.
Re: KDE - Morty - 2005-01-05
And now I have learned something new AND usefull, this is a god day! Thanks:-)
MMB - John Kraft - 2005-01-05
instead of clearing the location and pasting there, you can just click MMB in the konq body to go to a copied location. That's become fairly standard in unix browsers I think. My clear button is gone, and also my "go" button at the far right. I've never used it, although I suppose some people do. I've found it useful to keep the kget down-arrow button, only to access the "list all links" item. I haven't found that in the menus, although it's probably there somewhere :-)
Re: MMB - John Usability Freak - 2005-01-05
"instead of clearing the location and pasting there, you can just click MMB in the konq body to go to a copied location. That's become fairly standard in unix browsers I think." Which is terrible feature in my opinion. I keep missing MMB clicks on links to open in new tab, and ending up in some random url I had highlighted before.
Re: MMB - Davide Ferrari - 2005-01-05
Have you tried to middle click on a link and see what happens actually?
Re: MMB - John Usability Freak - 2005-01-05
Yes, of course I have, sometimes I don't miss them. In konqueror by default it opens a new window if I recall correctly, in my konqueror I changed it to open in new tab, in firefox it opens in new tab, in mozilla it's new window I think. Why do you ask?
Re: KDE - Jonathan - 2005-01-05
I think the cut/copy/paste buttons are a waste of time personally. When I want to do these operations, I either use the right-click context menu to bring up the options (which will appear next to the cursor so are quicker to click on in general) or use CTRL+X/V/C. I know people who have used computers for several years who still don't know how to copy and paste so I don't feel the 3 buttons benefit enough people for the amount of space they take up. Print/Print Frame are pretty pointless too. How often do you print a webpage? I probably print shopping receipts a couple of times a year and that's it, and I imagine most people are the same. Not sure about the font size one either. Did you look at my screenshot? I've got my minimum and medium font size set to 11; all websites look fine and I can always read the text so I never need to use the zooming. I realise these are just my thoughts, but I think my reasoning is sound. I think KDE is very easy to use, I just wish the defaults toolbars were a little less cluttered because it makes application look very complex. Imagine, for example, a mobile phone with 12 buttons and one with 20 buttons. The first one is obviously going to look more appealing because it looks easier to use (although it might not be) and it will just look neater/cleaner.
Re: KDE - Anonymous - 2005-01-05
> Print/Print Frame are pretty pointless too. Pointless as all the complaining people using non-current KDE versions? "Print Frame" is no more in the toolbar in KDE 3.3.
Re: KDE - Anonymous - 2005-01-05
Clear Location Bar is also a keyboard shortcut... I use Ctrl+L to clear the loc bar and F6 to select it (so F6+Del = Ctrl+L)
Re: KDE - Morty - 2005-01-05
Actually I didn't know that, but in it does not help very much in my case:-) Using MMB to past to location bar. Since I use my right hand opperating the mouse and the L key are located on the right side of the keyboard, use of this shortcut is not very efficient.
style - gerd - 2005-01-05
http://www.starstore.com/acatalog/Homer_Car_kit.jpg The problem of usability... not really. hmm. I think the only thing needed is style. So it is important to get the Control Center's themes engine in place and hide all the subfunctions (styles, Wallpaper ecc.) Themes need artist's dictatorship. Some persons like to copy WinXP, Mac Os ecc. I prefer an own unique style. What apple did with its brushed metal style can also be done with wood. A warm magohany style. Also the wording has to be improved. No third lightweigt xy style but unique, consistent names.
I like KDE how it Is - Henry - 2005-01-05
I don't think dramatically changing KDE because GNOME people don't like it is a good enough reason. The reason I hate GNOME is because you end up spending all your time at the command line...can't really get anything done with the GUI except surf the web and basic stuff like that. Things like CVS integrated into Konqueror, GPG in Kmail, rotating images right in the file browser, and ripping CD's straight from the browse are awesome...but they will always be considered bloat to the purists. I do admit there may be one too many toolbars in Konqueror and some other apps and alot of menu options, but it is one thing to polish KDE and another to follow GNOME down the yellow brick road. The only reasonable solution I have heard, is the one that has been proposed for so long: You select Newbie or Advanced, and your desktop will conform to either showing basic options or all the advanced options. Simply saying advanced users can use the command line is not a good solution. While that may be in the spirit of GNOME and I do believe it is, it has never been KDE's solution to say "Well, use the command line or edit the text files, duh!" Besides, that's the great part of having two desktops on Linux. If they just mirrored each other...why not just have one? In regards to the KMenu naming, using names like "Music Player" is cute, but not helpful if you know what app you want. KDE's solution of combining that with the app name is workable, just not elegant. Again, polishing that idea is what KDE needs to do, not just follow GNOME. GNOME's current infatuation with user interface design (to the point of over-designing) does not really make them great user interface designers. Take the new Spacial model (or whatever it's called). It's the most annoying thing since bread crusts, especially with Linux being nested at well over 5 directories...on the lower end. You end up with dozens of subdirectory windows open cluttering your desktop. Ugly...Yes. But unsable too. No one I know has ever figured out to use it quickly and efficiently. I'm sure it sounded all cute in some design paper somebody wrote, but it's terrible on a day-to-day basis. I say these Gnome attacks light heartedly, so don't get pissed. I appreciate GNOME and know it's perfect for some people...just not me.
Re: I like KDE how it Is - Lyle - 2005-01-05
I pretty much agree with this. While there are things that can be polished in KDE, I don't want to make it like GNOME. I use KDE, because I like it for the most part the way it is. I can't stand using RedHat anymore, because they totally messed up KDE for me. I still just get the sources and install the default so I can use it the way I like it. I also don't use GNOME, because I don't like it as much. If we make KDE like GNOME, I won't like KDE as much either... And, while the menu can be improved upon, I don't like the idea of changing all the names to things like "CD Player", etc. Which "CD Player"? There are lots of them, and that's what I like. I like to be able to choose the one I like. If KDE were some child's toy with a few integrated apps, then that would be fine. But it's not. It's an open desktop where people can contribute their apps. Let's not oversimplify things in an effort to clean things up. Like I said, I use KDE because I like it the way it is. I don't use GNOME, because I don't like it the way it is. Let's not try to make them the same.
Re: I like KDE how it Is - fprog26 - 2005-01-05
I think RedHat which have Gnome'ized KDE is not a good thing to do. I prefer Knoppix, Mandrake or similar distro. I don't think that changing names to "CD Player" is a good thing neither, but it would be easier if the app names where just a little bit more meaningful. At least having "CD" or "Player" or "Media" in their name. When you have app names like: MS Word, KWrite, KPaint, KEdit, EditPlus, NotePad+, CuteFTP, CuteHTML, WordPad, WinZip, WinRar, WinAce, Equation, FlowChart, ExpressPCB, Easy CD Creator, Internet Explorer, Netscape, SuperFTP, FTP Expert. I mean you don't even need a description it's quite straight-forward, what they meant to do. Some bad names: K3B = B like burning? easy to remember tough. Kate = ???? Is it an acronym? Quanta Plus = ??? Quantum? Quantum computing plus? Xine = ???? Is it an acronym? You see what I mean ;)
Re: I like KDE how it Is - Corbin - 2005-01-05
GoLive! WinAce WinRar ExpressPCB (I don't even have a clue what this is) RealOne QuickTime Neo Quick Starter If you hadn't ever used windows you would have no clue what any of those were (saying you also weren't rather tech savy). Better naming isn't exactly the answer (though it wouldn't hurt), what would be better is improving the Name (Description) technique. Like if in the first run configuration wizard the user selects the non expert option, show the KMenu something like this: Kate (Advanced Text Editor) Xine (Video Player) Kaffeine (Media Player) amaroK (Audio Player) KDevelop (Integrated Development Environment) Kommander Editor (Dynamic Dialog Editor) (NOTE: It would be ordered alphabetically based on first letter in program name, just don't feel like actually doing that) The description would be all lined up making it easier to read, or an alternate way that could be used, still displaying all the same information: Advanced Text Editor (Kate) Video Player (Xine) Media Player (Kaffeine) Audio Player (amaroK) Integrated Development Environment (KDevelop) Dynamic Dialog Editor (Kommander Editor) (NOTE: It would be ordered alphabetically based on first letter in program name, just don't feel like actually doing that) The second may be better for the newest users, while still showing the user the name of the program. It would look nicer cause of the alignment (may have some issues on smaller displays). If during the first run configuration the user selects the expert or experienced option, it would JUST be the program name (since they would already know what they all are). Some menus this method may not be appropriate, like for games. I say KDE right now doesn't need any big changes for experienced users (which know how to configure stuff), though the newbs out there that have trouble understanding the concept of a file may need really dubbed down defaults.
Re: I like KDE how it Is - fprog26 - 2005-01-06
GoLive! Bad. It's a product from Adobe to do webstuff... the name is clueless. WinAce Good. Windows application to open ACE format like WinZip. KAce ? WinRar Good. Windows application to open RAR format like WinZip. KRAR ? ExpressPCB Good. It's a product to create PCB (Printed Circuit Board) easily. RealOne Bad. Probably the new version of Real Player... Marketting? QuickTime Bad. However, people know this because of marketting from Apple. Neo Quick Starter. Bad. No clue what is it...
Re: I like KDE how it Is - fprog26 - 2005-01-05
>I don't think dramatically changing KDE because GNOME people don't like it is a good enough reason. The reason I hate GNOME is because you end up spending all your time at the command line...can't really get anything done with the GUI except surf the web and basic stuff like that. Fully agree. >Things like CVS integrated into Konqueror, GPG in Kmail, rotating images right in the file browser, and ripping CD's straight from the browse are awesome...but they will always be considered bloat to the purists. No that's fine, there's nothing wrong with that at all. The problem is space organisation and grouping. The common task should be easy to do and easy to find in 1 or 2 clicks. Burning a CD is great but should be 2-3 clicks away, such that newbies can find it easily and hackers can find it easily too. I'm not saying remove stuff, I say remove stuff from the main menu and put it downward the submenu hierarchy where it should belong, add some grouping so it's easy to find and straight-forward. >I do admit there may be one too many toolbars in Konqueror and some other apps and alot of menu options, but it is one thing to polish KDE and another to follow GNOME down the yellow brick road. No that would be plain dumb. The goal is to "clean up" and regroup, not to remove useful feature. Also, some very exotic "rarely used" feature might belong to another app or to another place where it should belong or to an advanced tab. >The only reasonable solution I have heard, is the one that has been proposed for so long: You select Newbie or Advanced, and your desktop will conform to either showing basic options or all the advanced options. Nah, nobody wants that since the desktop should be usable to everybody. This is an old 1990's concepts, I found in PC Tools back then "advanced vs newbie" and it doesn't work. Since even Expert want to do newbie stuff easily, but just don't want the clutter. I'm sure that spending a good amount of time, regrouping stuff in a usable way could please both people: advance and newbies. It's just a matter of trial and error and use of some usability statistics. >Simply saying advanced users can use the command line is not a good solution. That would be PLAIN DUMB! >While that may be in the spirit of GNOME and I do believe it is, it has never been KDE's solution to say: "Well, use the command line or edit the text files, duh!" Please someone shoot the guy who ever said that! =P >Besides, that's the great part of having two desktops on Linux. If they just mirrored each other...why not just have one? I don't think that Gnome is perfect, neither Windows or Mac or KDE neither. They all have their own issues, their advantages and disadvantages. The goal is to reach a "better, improved and more polished" platform than the other ones. >In regards to the KMenu naming, using names like "Music Player" is cute, but not helpful if you know what app you want. I fully agree. Like I said the best would be to have meaningful icons and meaningful app names. The other problem is that KDE apps, don't have the marketting power that Windows or Mac have. Of course, some apps are getting well-known while others are not yet... So, it's a question of finding the best compromise that would please everyone. >KDE's solution of combining that with the app name is workable, just not elegant. Again, polishing that idea is what KDE needs to do, not just follow GNOME. Fully agree. >GNOME's current infatuation with user interface design (to the point of over-designing) does not really make them great user interface designers. Some ideas are good, some are terribly wrong. >Take the new Spacial model (or whatever it's called). It's the most annoying thing since bread crusts, especially with Linux being nested at well over 5 directories...on the lower end. You end up with dozens of subdirectory windows open cluttering your desktop. Ugly...Yes. But unsable too. No one I know has ever figured out to use it quickly and efficiently. I'm sure it sounded all cute in some design paper somebody wrote, but it's terrible on a day-to-day basic. I agree. That's a stylish designer idea, surely not a usability designer idea. =P >I say these Gnome attacks light heartedly, so don't get pissed. It's not a question of getting pissed, it's more a question of comparing our KDE solution to other people solution and find out what works and what doesn't, then trying to improve the solution to please more people along with the hard core KDE fans. Sincerely yours, Fred.
Re: I like KDE how it Is - Illissius - 2005-01-05
Likewise. Sometimes I wish someone would take advantage of KDE's infinite customizability and release a distro/version with it customized to be as close as possible to exactly like GNOME -- not because it's necessarily better, just to see how the gnomeish people react ;). (Before anyone suggests, unfortunately it can't be me, as I haven't used GNOME in my life. Fell in love with KDE's architecture at first sight.) I do think we should 'borrow' some things from GNOME-land; just cleaning up the UI basically (hence 'borrow'; this should be self evident, I think, and not something of GNOME's invention). Not their extreme and backwards minimalism (leave the configuration dialogs alone, for one thing -- make them easier to use if possible, sure, but don't remove things from them and put them into fucking GConf/KConfigEditor instead and pretend that it's a usable thing to do); just clean up the toolbars and menus in general, or even (*gasp*) have one program per task in the base distribution. The evolution of Opera's UI from the early v7s to the current v8 beta (ftp://ftp.opera.com/pub/opera/linux/800b1/beta/en/i386/) would be good model to follow: they made the default UI a great deal simpler and more usable at no expense in functionality (quite the opposite). (The parallels between KDE and Opera are striking in many other ways besides, which I'm not going to detail here.) And now for a suggestion which I expect to cause a bit of controversy: button order. Changing the default button order was a bad decision, exchanging marginal if at all improved usability for GNOME for inconsistency and reduced usability for Linux/X11 as a whole. However, now it is a done thing, and it would be wishful thinking to expect it either to be changed back or for GNOME to just fade away and make the issue irrelevant. So perhaps the solution would be to just suck it up, take the high road, and change ours as well. I would rather have a unified Linux/X11 front than mimic Windows in this respect. Besides, in the few GNOME/GTK apps I've tried (the GIMP mainly), I find I actually like it -- feels more natural. (A stark contrast to the dialog I get when I try to close Konsole with multiple sessions open -- my first instinct is always to jab at either 'cancel' or 'close session', and often do, when in fact what I want nearly always is 'quit'. I don't know why this is, but it would seem to suggest that there's some actual substance to this whole button order thing and it's not all just mindless theorizing.)
Re: I like KDE how it Is - Anonymous - 2005-01-05
> So perhaps the solution would be to just suck it up, take the high road, and change ours as well. Are you crazy? Just now when the Gtk+ staff has added an option to switch back the button order and application developers (eg GIMP) start to implement support for it?
Re: I like KDE how it Is - Illissius - 2005-01-06
Hmm, they did that? Didn't think they would. Feel free to ignore my post, then ;).
Re: I like KDE how it Is - Dolio - 2005-01-06
KDE has had an option in a config file since 3.2 or 3.3 that lets you switch the button order in all apps. It's not in any configuration panel, so you have to edit a text file in .kde/ but you can do it. I'll post a link if I can find it. "my first instinct is always to jab at either 'cancel' or 'close session', and often do, when in fact what I want nearly always is 'quit'. I don't know why this is, but it would seem to suggest that there's some actual substance to this whole button order thing and it's not all just mindless theorizing." And whenever I'm in a Gnome app (or, Gimp or Firefox, actually), I always end up hitting their cancel button at least once before correctly completing an action that I want to do. It's not any more natural at all. It's just what you happen to be used to (do you use the Gimp a lot, by any chance?).
Re: I like KDE how it Is - Dolio - 2005-01-06
In file: ~/.kde/share/config/kdeglobals Section: [KDE] Add: ButtonLayout=1 That should change buttons to the Cancel-OK order. Here's the source. It seems I'm not allowed to post HTML comments: http://dot.kde.org/1084435433/1084480486/1084497461/1084500121/1084538057/1084556111/1084862849/
Re: I like KDE how it Is - Illissius - 2005-01-06
Thanks for the tip, I'll give that a try, and see how I like it. I very rarely use GTK apps in fact -- I think the GIMP and Firefox are the only ones I have installed, and only use the former when there's some image manipulation I need to do that Kolourpaint can't handle (rare), or when there's a site Opera doesn't render correctly (likewise), respectively. I'm perfectly fine with the button order in most cases, the GTK one just felt a bit nicer; it's just the Konsole 'close session' dialog that seems to be especially incompatible with me for whatever odd reason.
Re: I like KDE how it Is - Jonathan - 2005-01-06
I strongly dislike the button order for Gnome. My problem is that it doesn't look natural and doesn't read well. Here's some examples: Do you want fries with that? Yes or no? Do you want fries with that? No or yes? Do you want to save or not save? Do you want to not save or save? Do you dislike or like computers? Do you like or dislike computers? The second one rarely occurs in natural speech or writing and just looks strange. It also looks strange on the computer screen to me and they should be set up to be read like a piece of paper or a paper form you have to fill in. What if the computer was to read aloud the options to you as well as display them? It would sound very strange to hear the options that way around too. I want the computer screen to look nice, and I think this ordering just looks silly, like it's a mistake. I honestly don't buy the argument that it's easier to click OK (which you click most often) because it's on the right-hand-side of the screen and that's where most people rest their cursor. I can personally say I notice when a GUI saves me a mouse click or having to move the mouse at all (for example, tabbed browsing saves me several mouse actions which greatly increases my speed), but the difference of moving an inch or two less isn't going to make any change, especially when the vertical positioning of the buttons vary anyway.
Re: I like KDE how it Is - Henry - 2005-01-08
That is exactly what I mean by over-designing or over-engineering. And it is typical of us geeks. We'll support our claim with logic like "the button is closer to where you normally rest your cursor, which means it would be faster to click." However, there is something more important that probably isn't measurable in a conventional way: "Does it feel natural?" "Is the speed gain worth trading for other losses?" It reminds me of at work, when fellow programmers write ugly terrible code to "optimize" what would otherwise be very simple code. I tell them that their ugly yet optimized code might save 0.1% of CPU time, but that it is going to cost the company many many hours the next time a programmer has to figure out how the code works. My point being that there is more to the code than simply how fast can it run. What about how easy it is to maintain, debug, and verify? You do optimize for speed where it's important, like loops. However, you make bullet-proof, verifiable code where it is mission critical. You write maintainable code when there will be many members working on the same code. Also, as far as a minimal GUI being easier to use for the masses, I've noticed that many or most non-geeks prefer the cluttered AOL browser over using their own browser on the side (which I do). Why? Because you get lots of features all in the same GUI. This is another example where the GNOME approach fails. I guess it's the same as the whole single appliance that we've always heard about that is supposed to merge your TV, Computer, Phone, Game Console, and everything else into one. It seems like seperate, dedicated devices are always easier to use, although you can do cool things when they are merged. I think I heard of Bill talking about this recently.
Let's add usage statistic to menu... - fprog26 - 2005-01-06
I think it got lost in the thread, so I'll repeat here. Do you think it would be a good idea to add a "usage statistic counter" to every menu in KDE for every app? Yes or No. Explain. Mainly, it would be few lines of codes in kdelibs and when the KDE application quits the "counter" data would be written to disk in the user home directory. After a month of usage, users should be able to send "easily" this data to the website. For instance, a quick pop up in the menu after one month and 3 months of usage, asking the user to send some data. Of course, user would have to "opt in" to get their menu usage monitored, after the KDE installation is done. First KDE boot? The frequently used features statistisques would be send via some HTTP website when connected in XML format by clicking "Send KDE usability results ? [&Yes] [&No] [Ne&ver]". That might help developpers to justify why they cut out the visibility of the kitchen sink, by having proper statistic to support it. The result would be displayed on some: stats.usability.kde.org You could see this as a huge "poll" for KDE apps. Sincerely yours, Fred.
Please do not castrate KDE - Matt - 2005-01-06
please please please do not take away the power of KDE. It's what we love KDE for! You should polish the menu and the control center, but do not castrate it. You can even add an option for a newbie / advanced / poweruser menu, I agree that that could be helpful. But please do not take away all the nice powerful options. I would even like more of them! Please also do not rename all apps. Nice names do a lot to give a good feeling when using the apps. Evolution does sound better than "PIM program". I think even in GNOME the name "Evolution" is used, isn't it ;-) I switched to KDE *because* of the power. It is a competitive advantage. Why throwing it away! Another thing is to polish it. As an example lets look at gFTP and kBear. The UI of gFTP is much cleaner. kBears UI is not easy. I even use mini apps such as kasablanca because of the easier UI. But at the end I always come back to kBear. The KDE power it has is just so much better. It is just so much more userfriendly when I can simply continue working, even if a connection has timed out in the meantime. kBear does the reconnect for me, in the background. *this* is userfriendly, this is power. This is why I use it. Despite that it needs some UI polishing. But not castrating, please. Thanks!
Defaults are not the only option. - Victorov - 2005-06-18
What people fail to realize is that it is ok to dumb down KDE's _default_ layout. The good thing about KDE is the point to which one can customize it. Having a dumbed down DEFAULT layout doesn't take any power from a power user first. Chances are that they'd customize the damned thing anyway. I doubt most people like the default KDE layout. Oh and to the devs, if you want to make this easy for Windows users, you don't HAVE to make it look like Windows. A good layout is intuitive, which Windows really isn't. Make a good intuitive layout.