KDE Desktop Usability Survey
Tuesday, 29 March 2005 | Anon
The HASE (Human Aspects of Software Engineering) group at the University of Maryland Baltimore County is conducting two online surveys for KDE users. They expect to obtain results that will lead to useful discussions about the overall usability of KDE. The results of this research will be shared with the KDE community. The surveys take about 15 minutes to complete.
Comments:
Aim? References? Timeframe? - annma - 2005-03-29
Who exactly are those people? What previous work did they do? What's their aim? Quote: "will lead to useful discussions about the overall usability of KDE" -> how do they plan to do that? Are they subscribed to the Usability mailing list? Will they work with other usability groups such as OpenUsability.org which is deeply involved in making KDE better in usability? Will they work with the doc team to make KDE documentation better ( there's a question about that and no need to take a survey to know that docs have to be improved -> that needs people)? How are the users targeted? Only through the Dot? Currently, the KDE Usability Team (http://usability.kde.org/) is working with OpenUsability.org (http://openusability.org/). They do their best helping developers by testing programs and writing clear usability reports. I find this approach the best (from the base to global) versus the survey approach: from global to the base. I disagree with that kind of news being on the Dot without further information (previous work, published results of previous work, timeframe for the survey, suggested help in writing a KDE HIG,...). I hope HASE will clearly answer those questions.
Re: Aim? References? Timeframe? - chouimat - 2005-03-29
Why complain against this survey? It's probably just students trying to do an assigment. If you find this survey a wast of your time just don't do it
Usability? - koldpete - 2005-03-29
Because its a waste of a perfectly good opportunity to do something useful. As it stands, what they have here is not a usability study, its a popularity contest between KDE and Gnome (they applied there too), asking the enthusiast communities who likes their favourite desktop best. If they really wanted to tell us someting we didn't already know, they'd sit down with *ordinary* people (the other 90% of people) and find out where the *real* problems lie. At best, with this, all we're going to find out is who among power users subjectively (!!) prefers copying files most. As a further sign of quality, they ask gnome users how much they enjoy using the "konqueror" file manager.
Re: Usability? - ac - 2005-03-29
Frankly I am shocked anyone else is interested in KDE. It bears the thought that with the kind of corporate backing behind GNOME and Windows that 3rd parties would favor those systems exclusively. KDE is just so insignificant it doesn't deserve the kind of outsider attention GNOME and Windows do. KDE already has its internal posse of snubs who are more than happy to use the desktop and keep it to themselves. KDE don't need no stinking outsiders. </sarcasm>
Re: Usability? - Richard Dale - 2005-03-29
"KDE already has its internal posse of snubs.." I love this idea, maybe it could be KDE's killer feature - even better than, say DCOP. I can imagine snubs would be short, swarthy and rude - indeed a whole posse of them would be an impressive sight. They would lurk in the dark bowels of the desktop, and only come out at night when you weren't there..
Re: Usability? - Some KDE user - 2005-03-30
Please excuse, but what are snubs? (I am not an English native speaker and can't find its meaning)
Re: Usability? - Richard Dale - 2005-03-30
It's a typo, the guy was actually trying to type 'snobs'. But I find the typo is actually much funnier than what he intended to say :)
Re: Usability? - Some KDE user - 2005-03-30
Thanks
Re: Aim? References? Timeframe? - annma - 2005-03-29
The Dot is not the right place to advertise students assignments. Nor are KDE mailing lists.
Re: Aim? References? Timeframe? - ac - 2005-03-29
Please do some minor research first. The HASE people are: Dr. A. Ant Ozok, Assistant Professor Dr. A. Gunes Koru, Assistant Professor Do *you* have a doctorate?
Re: Aim? References? Timeframe? - Boudewijn Rempt - 2005-03-29
No, I've only got an M.A in comparative linguistics. But this survey is so widely spammed, so imcompetently setup and just so plainly unusable for any serious scientific purpose that I strongly suspect that the actual goal of the survey is not an analysis of the data entered, but an analysis of the reaction of users and developers of KDE and Gnome to yet another survey. I guess Dr. Ozok and Dr. Koru are busy tabulating all the responses on the Dot, OS News and the mailing lists. That, or they are really incompetent, despite their Phd's. In any case, I've had my fill of surveys... There are two kinds of people: people who think they must fill out surveys because it's their civic duty, like voting, and who feel important because they're asked anyway: the people who offer all the necessary data to let people steal their identity without a blink because they're asked. And then there are people who survey the surveys and think about it and decide only to cooperate if the survey looks scientific and useful. And otherwise they prefer to work on their projects.
Re: Aim? References? Timeframe? - anon - 2005-03-29
"All HASE surveys are reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of UMBC. HASE is not funded by any company, governmental agency, profit or non-profit organization, except University of Maryland Baltimore County. HASE has no vested interest in its research studies and findings." This is as serious as it gets.
Re: Aim? References? Timeframe? - ac - 2005-03-29
Did you read the article? Click the HASE link to find out who the people are and what their references are. Their aim is explained in the article. I understand you have a team doing the same work and so you have a vested interest in the matter, but why does your team have to have a monopoly?
Re: Aim? References? Timeframe? - annma - 2005-03-29
What you read is not what you get. There will be no results, if we're lucky we'll get some kind of global comparison between the 3 desktops KDE, GNOME, Windows. When I first reacted, I did not even know the same "survey" (I am not sure what a survey really is, scientifically speaking) was done for GNOME and Windows. Hence the KDE survey page is misleading as it implies there'll be some kind of results. I read the page and I even mailed the HASE team (2 people). They don't know when they'll publish any results nor where. I just say that we get tons of surveys demand like this and we never see any results. So people are free to do them, no problem, but don't think this can bring something to KDE. And if it does not bring anything to KDE, well, it's kinda useless on the DOt. Leave it for OSNews! Oh they already have it! They appeal to do the GNOME "survey"!
Re: Aim? References? Timeframe? - ac - 2005-03-29
They said they *will* contribute the results back to KDE. They just don't have a specific date for when the project will be completed yet. You can say the same thing about many KDE projects. You don't have to attack these people like that unless you want to ruin their survey or bias it against KDE for some reason.
Is this a Dot-worth news? - annma - 2005-03-29
Those surveys (there is the same for GNOME and Windows) have no scientific basis and no purpose at all. I just wrote the HASE people and they answered me they don't know when they will publish their results nor where. In clear, those surveys are no help at all for any project as they cannot be called serious work. I regret that the DOT posted such a misleading article without getting some idea about what they were dealing with. Political surveys for example are conducted on a panel of people. Lately, surveys about Open Source have been numerous as a new area to research. We cannot assess the seriousness of these surveys and usually we never see any results. By posting this on the Dot, at least it should be written that the results will be freely available, when and where. This is the minimum. A quick survey to finish: do you think surveys are useful? <maybe> <not sure> <why not?> <let me sleep>
Re: Is this a Dot-worth news? - smt - 2005-03-29
> By posting this on the Dot, at least it should be written that the results will be freely available, when and where. This is the minimum. why? If you don't want to do the survey, then don't do it. I didn't do it. I also didn't raise a stink about it. jeez.
Re: Is this a Dot-worth news? - John Usability Freak - 2005-03-29
"at least it should be written that the results will be freely available, when and where" Yes and they should also fill out a form that allows kde e. V. to sue them if they fail to comply. Come on! It's a credible institution and credible people, who probably know a hell of a lot more about surveys than you'll ever know. I see no point in flaming them. Another interesting survey would be: are annma comments on this thread sensible? <maybe> <not sure> <lol?> <who cares> (And by the way, off topic - I really respect and appreciate your work in KDE, particularly on KDE-Edu, so thanks!)
Re: Is this a Dot-worth news? - thatguiser - 2005-03-29
> do you think surveys are useful? only if people take them. it accumulates information, so it can't be bad. I took it, and I think it might bring up some interesting details on the user's perspective. So stop moaning please, it's much more unproductive then this survey. You go anywhere and do anything productive instead of whining here, please. Everyone who doesn't like surveys will skip the read; skipping your comments in this thread is much more difficult. So would you please STFU.
Re: Is this a Dot-worth news? - Troy Unrau - 2005-03-30
What I might find interesting is some unrelated-to-KDE results, such as, people who are programmers rarely use the Find functionality, etc. while non-programmers might weight the theming sections a hell of a lot higher. They could be testing a very bad hypothesis that programmers absolutely need to arrange their icons on a daily basis. Either way, I'm all for skewing the bell curve - anyone else?
Re: Is this a Dot-worth news? - illogic-al - 2005-03-30
bell curve skewing is key.
Redundency - Stephen Leaf - 2005-03-29
Always gotta love it when they repeat questions or ask the opposite of a previous question in surveys :) However how can they talk about usability when their own survey page is that ugly? They know what to expect but not what to give or how to do it?
Re: Redundency - frank dux - 2005-03-29
I hope that you're joking. It's standard policy of long surveys to ask redundant questions or similarly phrased questions to test for consistency and accuracy.
still, it confused me. - thatguiser - 2005-03-29
I'm pretty confused me right now. blblblblblbbbblllb....11!!1! ehh, yeah, second occurence (B3 & B6) of the same question I just N/Aed it. I feel guilty now. and, ehhrr .. confused. fffssmnnsssne...
Re: Redundency - John Usability Freak - 2005-03-29
You've already been answered, but I cannot help myself. Not only you've shown you know nothing about surveys but also that you didn't even stop to think about it. Yes redundant questions are common in surveys and they have a purpose.
Re: Redundency - Timothee Groleau - 2005-03-30
As an expert, maybe you'd care to enligthen us about what is the purpose having the exact same copy/pasted question, spaced at 3 question interval (B3, B6)? Some references would be nice too. I can perfectly understand "similar" questions being asked, maybe phrased differently, and/or having a different response pattern (rate good-to-bad vs. agree-disagree) to check consistency in the respondant's answers. "Triangulation" I think it's called. But having the exact same question, I don't see any purpose. And also I don't think it shows Stephen didn't stop to think about it. In fact, the very fact he posted showed he did notice, thought about it and concluded it was annoying. And I did the same. I'm no survey expert, but I did think about consistenty. So what did I do? I scrolled back up, check my answers and made sure I made the same in the duplicate question. What's my feeling as a respondant: waste of my time. And can you tell me what the surveyer is going to learn from my duplicate answer to his duplicate question?
Re: Redundency - Boudewijn Rempt - 2005-03-29
There's a difference between redundant questions and copy & paste duplicated questions, isn't there? In the case of this "survey" the questions were just duplicated, spelling mistakes and all.
Usability = Distributions Problem - Henrique Marks - 2005-03-29
All the time that i read about usability, i remember the only problem i see in KDE: the start menu . And then i remember this is a distribution problem. If you use a distribution that installs a small part of KDE, and provides a menu with less options, you dont have a "menu" problem. Another problem: the toolbars. Again the distribution can deliver the KDE products with any buttons they want. The same applies to kicker. The distributions can install just a small part of kcontrol, just some modules. Like kcontrol-light. Another complain: why KDE has kedit and kwrite ? Complain to your distribution again. There are many other complains that must be answered by the KDE community. But the distributions can work to deliver a better product to their costumers. And i tried to answer the survey just to stop in the middle. It is just terrible. The tasks part is an example of non-usability.
Re: Usability = Distributions Problem - Janne - 2005-03-29
No, it is KDE's problem. I use a distribution that uses vanilla KDE as shipped by the KDE-team. And the Kmenu is overcrowded, the toolbars are cluttered, control center is huge, there are too many menu's in the menubar with too many entries and context-menus are cluttered. Thinking that it's not KDE's problem but distributors problem is a bit wrongsighted IMO. By same token you could say that bugs in KDE are not KDE's problem, since the distributor can choose to fix them themselves. Blaming the distributors is wrong, plain and simple. Of course the distributors COULD spend time trimming down KDE. And they could spend time fixing KDE's bugs, making it faster, making it look better etc. etc. So they are all distributors problems, and not KDE's problems. So what problems in KDE are KDE's problems? Aren't they all "distributors problems"? With thinking like that, KDE will be doomed to fail. I for one think that KDE-team should make releases that kick ass by default. Thinking that "let's ship something and let the distributors fix it" is wrong on so many levels. Note: I do NOT think that KDE-team thinks like that. I think that KDE keeps on getting better all the time. But there's still alot to be done. "Another complain: why KDE has kedit and kwrite ? Complain to your distribution again." I choose to complain to KDE which ships with three editors. Thinking that "oh it's not KDE's problem, it's distributors problem" is just plain WRONG. Can you say "pass the buck"? With your thinking, KDE could be as crappy as possible, and it wouldn't be KDE's problem, but distributors problem, since they do not spend their time fixing KDE. "But the distributions can work to deliver a better product to their costumers." I'm not a customer, I'm an user and a member of a community (both Gentoo-community and KDE-community). To whom should I complain? To Gentoo-folks? Why? Why not to KDE-folks? After all, Gentoo ships with vanilla-KDE. Why should Gentoo concern themselves with how KDE is designed, isn't that KDE-team's responsibility? Instead of trying to fix the problems upstream (in the distributions), shouldn't they be fixed at the source instead? That way ALL users and distribution would benefit!
Re: Usability = Distributions Problem - Dolio - 2005-03-29
Well, if you're a Gentoo user, you should know that starting with 3.4, the KDE ebuilds have been split up into many packages, so that you only have to install what you want. In other words, you can install kate/kwrite, kedit, both or none, as you see fit. As for why both exist, as far as I know, kedit is there to support bidirectional text rendering, which kate doesn't have yet. Some people need that sort of thing, so getting rid of it would make KDE worse for some people, even if it made it a tiny bit better for you. Since the split, I've had to do much less menu configuration. The only thing I really have to do is pull some things out of the 'More Applications' groups, because I don't like seeing those. If, for example, KDE split their big packages into hundreds of small ones to allow for finer grained installation, it would have the following consequences: 1) More work for the KDE developers maintaining hundreds of little packages. 2) More time spent for 99% of Linux distributions who have to do a ./configure on each package, instead of building the monolithic package and creating small packages as necessary from there. 3) Gentoo users might have a little less clutter in their menus. So I fail to see how we could make an argument for the KDE developers to solve this problem, considering it would cause more problems than it would solve. If you want to pick and mix individual applications from KDE, use a distribution that allows you to do so. Now Gentoo does, but Debian has been doing that for a while. The monolithic packages are primarily intended for distro packagers to use and split up as they see fit (as I understand). Choosing a distribution that ships vanilla, monolithic KDE doesn't grant an excuse to bash this. I toolbar, menubar, context menu and other such issues should be solved at the KDE level, I agree. However, package management isn't really their area of concern.
Re: Usability = Distributions Problem - Janne - 2005-03-29
"Well, if you're a Gentoo user, you should know that starting with 3.4, the KDE ebuilds have been split up into many packages, so that you only have to install what you want" you don't say? And how do split ebuilds (which I use) help solve the problem with cluttered toolbars, cluttered menubars, cluttered Control Center and cluttered context-menus? The split ebuild help you to reduce the number of apps that are installed, but the number of apps is NOT the main reason (it is one of the reasons, however) why KDE is cluttered. "In other words, you can install kate/kwrite, kedit, both or none, as you see fit." So it solves ONE problem. And the fact remains that by default KDE offers three text-editors. Maintaining three editors is pointless and wastes resoures. For how long have they planned to drop one of them? even two editors would be one too many IMO. I know I know. Plan is to have one full-featured editor and one simple editor. But we are talking about _text editor_ here! Just how complex can even "full featured" editor be? Hell, when user starts Kate, he should be presented with a blank document and he can start typing away. How is that "complex"? where is the need for "simple" editor? "Since the split, I've had to do much less menu configuration." For editing Kmenu, perhaps. But how about toolbars, menubars, contents of the menu's, the hysterical featuritis and the overall "busyness" of the UI? Split ebuilds do not help there at all. "1) More work for the KDE developers maintaining hundreds of little packages." They already maintain hundreds of packages, the only difference is that now those small packages are re-packaged in to larger packages. Or do you think that when someone hacks Kmail, he doesn't really hack Kmail, but "kdepim"? And besides. I haven't said that splitting the packages up solves the problem. "So I fail to see how we could make an argument for the KDE developers to solve this problem, considering it would cause more problems than it would solve." What on EARTH are you blabbering about? I talked about how KDE has cluttered toolbars, cluttered menu's, too many menus and the like. And you start talking about how KDE is packaged. Uh, the way KDE is packaged has nothing to do with how cluttered the UI is! It helps with the number of apps, but even there it doesn't solve the problem, it merely goes around it. Instead of having KDE fixing it, the task is left to the user. "However, package management isn't really their area of concern." Then why did you start talking about it? I sure as hell didn't start talking about it. I did mention that KDE ships with too many apps (in this case: text-editors), and it's true. But that's not really about how KDE is packaged.
Many editors problem... - Stop trolling - 2005-03-29
Hi Janne, The fact that you say that there is too many editors just show that you are actually TROLLing. Why people just don't stop working on vim, emacs, nano, pico, ed and all starts working on SuperDuperTextEditor ? Obviously, that's way too many editors ship by default from Linux distro!!! --> because people have various divergent preferences! and there's nothing wrong with that. Nobody is eating the same food or drinking the same thing. Developpers won't start dropping support for those editors to work on YOUR prefered editor. People want choices. More importantly they want BETTER choices. Obviously, the MOST POPULAR choice will prevail over less popular ones. Even on Windows, you have at least three editors by 'default' and nobody complains about: Notepad, Wordpad and Microsoft Word plus maybe two more: FrontPage Express and MS-DOS Editor plus maybe thousands more specialized one: Visual Studio, Notepad+, EditPlus, CuteHTML, Understand, Eclipse, etc. They simply serve different purposes. Now, to go back to your argument, the best way to 'solve' this would be to have one KVeryRichText Widget and using it with various configuration on different kinds of editors, [load or not syntax highlighting, etc], so it can be easily reused in: KWrite, Kate, KDevelop, Kalc, KMySuperEditor, etc. So, that features can be *shared* around, while people can tweak their menus/toolbars/status/shortcuts to their own taste. Now, of course, usability can be increased for default KDE apps and there's nothing wrong about that. Currently, it's some sort of time consuming 'trial/error' process with unfortunately a laggy/incomplete feedback from the user community. We are getting there, it takes time... The openusability.org project is there to help out and the kde-usability mailing list is also there for just that, please feel free to contribute with your own feedback.
Re: Many editors problem... - Richard Dale - 2005-03-29
One nice feature of KDevelop is that it doesn't have its own text editor. By default it uses a Kate KPart, but you can replace that with a vim clone KPart if you prefer. One vim clone is about to be retired from the CVS, but I believe there is another one being actively developed. There was a story about it a few weeks ago here on kde dot news - I've forgotten the name of it. Both KWrite and Kate use the same KPart, so they aren't really different editors. It allows uses with simpler non-programming requirements to use KWrite, and they don't have to see a load of programmer specific options in Kate.
Re: Many editors problem... - Christian Loose - 2005-03-29
> There was a story about it a few weeks ago here on kde dot news - I've forgotten the name of it. kyzis - http://www.yzis.org/
Re: Many editors problem... - Janne - 2005-03-29
"The fact that you say that there is too many editors just show that you are actually TROLLing." I said that KDE has cluttered toolbars, menubars, menus, Control Center and the like. I also mentioned that KDE shipping with three text-editors is rather pointless. I was then made to believe that the split ebuilds that Gentoo offers, solve the problems. Well, they _partially_ solve ONE of the problems, and it does so in only Gentoo! the other problems (the more important problems IMO) are left unsolved. I find it really surprising that when I offer valid criticism (and I think my comments were valid), people like you decide that I must be trolling. So, users can't voice their opinions nor can they offer any possible solutions. If they do, they are "trolling"? Yes, I think KDE ships with too many text-editors. How exactly is that "trolling"? "Why people just don't stop working on vim, emacs, nano, pico, ed and all starts working on SuperDuperTextEditor?" That has NOTHING to do with my arguments. I NEVER said that "developers should stop working on <NAME OF APP HERE> and work on <NAME OF ANOTHER APP HERE> instead!" "because people have various divergent preferences! and there's nothing wrong with that." Then KDE should not ship with three editors, but with dozen editors? Seriously, your whole post misses my point completely, and it's just full of pointless rambling. "Developpers won't start dropping support for those editors to work on YOUR prefered editor." And I never said that they should! Sheesh! I'm not gung-ho about text-editors. I simply think that it's pointless to have a full-featured editor and a crippled-editor, just for the sake of "simplicity". Why not instead have the full-featured editor, that is also easy to use? Kate should be like so that user can easily start editing text with it (isn't that the whole idea of having "simple editor"?), but it would also be capable of doing more advanced stuff (like it does today). Having those possibilities in one editor does not mean that the editor is too complex for basic editing. But, let me clarify on my point: Kedit, Kwrite and Kate are text-editors. Their purpose is to edit text. One of the has an important feature that the other two lack (BiDi-support), and that is why it's needed. But why three? Apparently so that we have full-featured editor and simple editor. But really: what's the point? Kate (the full-featured editor) can be simple editor as well. We are talking about editing text here! Just how complicated can it be? But hey, maybe KDE should ship with "dead-simple-editor", "mediocre editor", "full-featured-editor", "The cool-looking-editor", "Boring-looking-editor", mouse-controlled-editor" and "keyboard-controlled-editor"? I mean, we all have different preferences, right? Yes we do, but KDE itself should offer one editor. Do we REALLY NEED three (or two) _text editors_? Maybe KDE should ship with Krusader alongside Konqueror, since the two offer different approaches to filemanagement? And maybe KDE should ship with dozen mediaplayers, because someone might like the "Yet another mediaplyer 2". One text-editor would be enough. If the user wants something different, he's free to install third-party editor. Hell, even the apps you listed do not ship together, no, they are offered separately. Yes, Windows ships with two editor (notepad and Wordpad), but does KDE have to do something because "Windows does it as well!"? You seem to think that I'm advocating the "do not code any more text-editors! Let's focus on just one!". I'm not. I think the developers should be free to write dozens of text-editors if they so desire. What I'm saying that KDE should only _ship_ with one. And since Kate is the best of the editors (espesially when it gets BiDi), it would be the obvious choice. NOTE: Just because KDE would only ship with one editor, the user would not be denied the right to choose. If he doesn't like the editor in KDE, he would be free to install any other editor he wishes to use. And there are plenty to choose from! Really, KDE should have one app for one category. One text-editor, one music-player, one video-player, one filemanager, one calculator etc. etc. But, for some reason KDE ships with THREE text-editors! Yes, Bidi is important, but how long will it take to implement it in Kate?
Re: Many editors problem... - ac - 2005-03-29
> "Developpers won't start dropping support for those editors to work on YOUR prefered editor." > > And I never said that they should! Sheesh! Do you actually read what you're writing? Quote: "Maintaining three editors is pointless and wastes resoures." Quote: "Really, KDE should have one app for one category." Seems to me like you have no clue how FOSS works.
Re: Many editors problem... - Janne - 2005-03-29
"Do you actually read what you're writing? Quote: "Maintaining three editors is pointless and wastes resoures." Quote: "Really, KDE should have one app for one category."" Seriously: the developers can freely write zillion text-editors if they so choose. I merely question the reasons of shipping them in KDE. Should KDE include every possible app just because some user might find it usable? Yes, maintaining three separate text-editors does waste resources. But if the developers want to do it, so be it. But I find it rather weird that same people (more or less) who maintain one text-editor also maintain a separate yet very similar text-editor. If the developer wants to do it, go right ahead! But that doesn't mean that KDE should ship with all of them. "Seems to me like you have no clue how FOSS works." I know very well how FOSS works, thankyouverymuch. I know all about "scratching an itch", and I support it wholeheartedly. But I do not think that they should ship in KDE by default. Seems to me that you have no idea what I'm trying to say here.
Re: Many editors problem... - Christian Loose - 2005-03-29
> NOTE: Just because KDE would only ship with one editor, the user would not be denied the right to choose. If he doesn't like the editor in KDE, he would be free to install any other editor he wishes to use. And there are plenty to choose from! If you don't like/need KEdit or KWrite, then don't install their packages. I sometimes just need a simple text editor that starts instantly. Kate can not provide that because of its feature-richness and that's is okay. As a developer I do need those features and then I can wait a few more ms. > But, for some reason KDE ships with THREE text-editors! No, your distribution ships three text editors. KDE just provides source code packages.
Re: Many editors problem... - Janne - 2005-03-29
"If you don't like/need KEdit or KWrite, then don't install their packages. " Again: that goes around the problem, it doesn't fix the problem. Maybe I'm just crazy when I would like to see the problem fixed, instead of simply avoided. "I sometimes just need a simple text editor that starts instantly." On my machine Kate does starts instantly. "No, your distribution ships three text editors. KDE just provides source code packages." No, KDE ships with three editors. My distributor offer me what KDE releases. I can try to go around the problem by specifying what apps I install, but the fact remains that by default KDE ships with three text-editors. That fact doesn't change no matter how much you try to twist around. really: download KDE from kde.org. (rather: one of the mirrors). See how many editors are included. THIS is the KDE I'm talking about!
Re: Many editors problem... - aleXXX - 2005-03-29
Kate and kwrite are not really two editors, they share the same editing component and offer different GUI around it, the kate one offering more features than the kwrite one. AFAIK it is planned to remove kedit for KDE 4, since then katepart is planned to have all the features kedit has (AFAIK it's currently a limitation in Qt). Then KDE will ship with let's say 1.5 editors :-) Alex
Re: Many editors problem... - Janne - 2005-03-29
"Kate and kwrite are not really two editors, they share the same editing component and offer different GUI around it, the kate one offering more features than the kwrite one." I know that, and it's a good showcase for the underlying KDE-technology. But as far as end-user is concerned, the two are different apps.
Re: Many editors problem... - Morty - 2005-03-29
>But as far as end-user is concerned, the two are different apps. Exactly, they are different apps, but intended for different usage patterns. It's like a carpenters toolbox, he may have both a hammer and a nailgun. Two tools doing the same thing, but it is the nature of the job who decides which tool is the best to use.
Re: Many editors problem... - Janne - 2005-03-30
"Exactly, they are different apps, but intended for different usage patterns." But we are talking about _text editing_ here. Should KDE also have several filemanagers as well? Maybe Krusader alongside Konqueror, since it too is inteded for different usage-patterns? And maybe KDE should also include text-based web-browser besides Konqueror, since it too would be targeted at "different usage-pattern". Of course we would also need text-based mail-client, several different kind of media-players etc. etc. since they would all be targeted at "different usage-patterns". "Two tools doing the same thing, but it is the nature of the job who decides which tool is the best to use." So you do think that if there are more than one way of doing certain task, there should be separate app for each way? So we do then need several filemanagers, several mail-clients, several mediaplayers... I for one think that KDE should offer one way of doing things (and text-editing isn't exactly rocket-science), and if the user really wants an alternative way of doing things, he could freely install a third-party app (and there are plenty of those). Many people prefer Krusader for filemanagement instead of konqueror, but KDE doesn't ship with Krusader. But now, all of a sudden there is a need for several _text editors_? And the only difference between the two is that one of them is crippled, whereas other one is not. This is madness.
Re: Many editors problem... - Morty - 2005-03-30
>talking about _text editing_ here. We are not talking about the rather trivial task of changing and adding characters to a text based file, it's the process of working with those files which is the important part and the reason for different tools. It's a fairly well known concept and not hard to get at all. In fact there are in reality 5 (4 if you don't need RTL languages) text editors in KDE, with your thinking you have to count KDevelop and Quanta too. As for your filemangar example, you can configure Konqueror in many different ways depending on how you want to use it. And you always have the commandline. And there are already "one shot", "advanced with playlist" and "jukebox like" mediaplayers for the different ways to work with media. For your mail reading needs you can already chose between KMail standalone or the Kontact suite. It's all about the right tool for the job.
Re: Many editors problem... - Janne - 2005-03-30
"We are not talking about the rather trivial task of changing and adding characters to a text based file, it's the process of working with those files which is the important part and the reason for different tools. It's a fairly well known concept and not hard to get at all." In the end, text-editing is creating, replacing and deleting text. Nothing more, nothing less. And like I have repeatedly said, I REALLY fail to see the point in having several tools for that. I mean, we have three tools doing the exact same thing! Saying that "but they are meant for different styles of work" or something like that is IMO quite stupid. If we though like that, EVERY app in KDE should be redundant with several different apps each doing the exact same thing in slightly different way! Why is KDE afraid of saying "in this system, this thing is done like this by defaula. If you want to do it in some other way, feel free to install another app to do it". What do you think KDE would look like if it had several mail-clients, several PIM's, several filemanagers, several browser, several media-players, several terminals, several different versions of same Solitaire, several IM's etc. etc. Crazy, right? then why is several text-editors an absolute-necessity, whereas those other things are not? Is it because KDE has traditionally shipped with one browser (for example), whereas there has been three editors for a while now? A case of "this is the way it has been done, and this is the way it will be done in the future as well!"? I don't see the difference between several editors and several IM's (for example). "As for your filemangar example, you can configure Konqueror in many different ways depending on how you want to use it." Krusader is still quite different thank Konqueror, maybe we whould add it there as well? Can't you see this is getting ridiculous? The "different styles of working" is just an excuse people use trying to justify the current system. If KDE shipped with just text-editor, and they now tried to introduce another text-editor, I bet you would be thinking "Huh? What's the point, I already have Kate?". "And there are already "one shot", "advanced with playlist" and "jukebox like" mediaplayers for the different ways to work with media." And do we need all of them? Really? Why not simplify the system? Again: people seem to be afraid of saying "this is what we offer. But feel free to install another thing instead, if you are not happy with these". Instead, we have a case where we are told "we have this. But if you don't like it, we also have this, this, this, this and this as well! They all do the exact same thing, but they do it slighly differently". Again: Madness. "It's all about the right tool for the job." And I REALLY fail to see how that applies to "full-featured editor" and "crippled editor". Really, Kate is not that difficult to use when compared to Kedit (or was it Kwrite), I really, REALLY fail to see the point in having them both available! "For your mail reading needs you can already chose between KMail standalone or the Kontact suite." If I were asked, Kontact would be the default client in KDE. But the individual apps could also be available, but maybe not displayed in the Kmenu (the advanced users who want Kmail, instead of Kontact can add it there by themselves). And no, having both Kontact and Kmail does not go against what I have told about redundant apps. Kontact is collection of different apps, one of which is Kmail. "Right tool for the job" is a great euphenism for "we can't decide what to focus on and what to offer you, so we offer it all and let you work it our yourself!". It causes confusion and bloatness. maybe some people don't like Kicker, but one of the Kicker-replacements instead? Maybe they should be shipped with KDE as well?
Re: Many editors problem... - Luka - 2005-03-30
Well editing text files is not as straitforward as you might think. For instance there is a need fo no nonsense "notepad" style text editr. It should be as simple as it can be, Just Open save exit. No font changing, MYBE, MAYBE some syntax highlighting etc(witch should be turned off by default). Then you have Programmers text editor(Kate). You want syntax highliting you want line nubers, code folding, you want code completition you want context sensitive help, you want shell integration, debugger friendly etc. You also want good integration with build sytems code control systems, If we are taling about interpeted languages (php, perl, python, ruby) you want integration with interpreter etc. Plus you want plugins. You shouldnt even compare Kate to KWrite its more of KDeveloper type of programm. This is not just another way of doing things, this is diferent task altogether. That might share a few similarities but thats it. Its like saying hey i have bike licence why do I need truck licence as well, after all both are licenses to operate motor vehicles
Re: Many editors problem... - Macavity - 2005-03-30
Spot On(TM)!!! >MAYBE, MAYBE some syntax highlighting etc(witch should be turned off by default). No way! :-) lets keep KWrite as trimmed as at any way possible. It should have next to no features, and load in a microsecond ;-) >You shouldnt even compare Kate to KWrite its more of KDeveloper type of program. Full ACK. The description "Advanced Text Editor" scares off people who dont need it, but is makes sense to have it as quite a large portion who uses UNIX are.. well.. advanced! This must be acknowledged and acted in accordance with. The day KDE becomes "moms-and-dads-only" kind of desktop, is the day where we will se a fork of the project! And to you Janne: Which editor should be left behind? The one that you prefere?... or the one which is used the most hours a day in total? (kate for sure), or the one that the most can figure out? (KWrite fir sure) Cheers! ~Macavity
Re: Many editors problem... - blacksheep - 2005-03-29
> Windows ships with two editor (notepad and Wordpad) Wordpad is not really your plain text editor. Yes, Wordpad can write in plain text format, but so can Word. Wordpad is more like a light word processor. By the way, I totally agree with your points.
Re: Usability = Distributions Problem - ac - 2005-03-29
> Then why did you start talking about it? I sure as hell didn't start talking about it. Actually, you *did*. You said: "And the Kmenu is overcrowded,[..]" and Dolio explained that this is a problem of distributions that ship the original cvs modules as is. > I talked about how KDE has cluttered toolbars, cluttered menu's, too many menus and the like. You know that there are very different types of users. To some the toolbars are cluttered. Others want as much toolbar buttons as they can get. KDE can only try to ship sane defaults and make those customizable. I'm not saying that the current defaults are perfect, but I agree with Henrique that the distributors could help with the situation. They know what users they are targeting. They are in direct contact with the users. So why don't they change the defaults, so that the settings fit the users? IMHO the distributors are missing a chance here.
Re: Usability = Distributions Problem - Janne - 2005-03-29
"Actually, you *did*. You said: "And the Kmenu is overcrowded,[..]" and Dolio explained that this is a problem of distributions that ship the original cvs modules as is." I did not complain about how KDE was packaged, I complained about Kmenu and number of redundant apps. Saying that since it's possible to install separate apps on Gentoo solves the problem is wrong IMO. It goes around the problem (on Gentoo), but it does not fix the core-issue. Instead of trying to cure the symptom, why not cure the reason? Besides it is not distributors problem as such. They offer what KDE offers them. And besides, alot could be done to clean up the Kmenu. Why have separate entry for "Editors"? Why was Control Center moved from "Settings" to the root of the menu (creating yet another entry in the menu)? Besides re-organizign the menu, the number of apps COULD be limited. and no, splitting the packages up to individual apps is not a REAL solution to the problem. It merely passes the responsibility to others and tries to work around the problem. it doesn't solve the problem. "You know that there are very different types of users. To some the toolbars are cluttered. Others want as much toolbar buttons as they can get. KDE can only try to ship sane defaults and make those customizable." Are menubars customisable? Are the contents of the menus customisable? With Kiosk-tool, some of them are AFAIK. But that sort of editing is a bit too much to ask. I do not think that there are any users who would like to have their UI cluttered with zillion buttons and menus. There ARE users who want lots of features at their disposal. But having lots of features doesn't have to mean that the UI must be cluttered. I'm not advocating for removal of features. "IMHO the distributors are missing a chance here." IMHO KDE is missing a chance here. Instead of trying to pass the responsibility to distrobutors, why not try to fix the issues right in KDE? Hell, if we pass the responsibility to distros, then the users would never see KDE in the way it's developers intented it to be seen. And that would IMO be rather sad, since KDE IS kick-ass desktop. Instead of having "KDE", there would be "SUSE Desktop" or something like that. I for one do not want distribution-branded desktop, I like my KDE as KDE. That way I will have consistent desktop when I move between different distros (should that happen) and I get to enjoy KDE the way it's developers meant it to be. And it allows me to offer improvements to KDE-folks, since my KDE would be vanilla-KDE and not distro-modified KDE. Since the two are different, my suggestions might not apply to vanilla-KDE.
Re: Usability = Distributions Problem - ac - 2005-03-29
> I did not complain about how KDE was packaged, I complained about Kmenu and number of redundant apps. Strange. I don't have redundant apps here (e.g. only Kate) and my KMenu isn't cluttered. My distribution must be doing someting really special. Maybe they package the apps separately and don't just dump the cvs modules on its users? Remember the cvs modules are only there to help organize things. They were never meant to be shipped as is. > Why have separate entry for "Editors"? Well this is a valid comment --> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-usability > Are menubars customisable? Are the contents of the menus customisable? Yes, when the app uses XMLUI like most KDE apps do. (http://developer.kde.org/documentation/tutorials/xmlui/preface.html) > Instead of trying to pass the responsibility to distrobutors, why not try to fix the issues right in KDE? Because there is no single answer? Did you ever read the usability mailing list archives?
Re: Usability = Distributions Problem - Janne - 2005-03-29
"Strange. I don't have redundant apps here (e.g. only Kate) and my KMenu isn't cluttered." Well, we have three editors, separate apps for updating the menu and editing the menu, three (IIRC) media-players and we have apps that have very limited use (floppy-formatter? couldn't that be done some other way instead of having yet another app to do it?). "and my KMenu isn't cluttered." Kmenu has 21 entries by default (+ the entries in "most used applications". Of those 21, 14 have submenus/entries. That's ALOT of entries! The Kmenu is HUGE. "Remember the cvs modules are only there to help organize things. They were never meant to be shipped as is." then why are they shipped as is? When I try to download KDE from kde.org, those are the packages that I'm offered. And let me re-iterate: the problem is not the way how KDE is packaged. You can try to avoid the problem by re-packaging KDE, but it doesn't solve it IMO. "Yes, when the app uses XMLUI like most KDE apps do. (http://developer.kde.org/documentation/tutorials/xmlui/preface.html)" So, not only should I spend time going through Control Center and application toolbars, I'm required to learn XML and go through XML-documents if I want to make the UI a bit more clean? And people laugh at Gnome-folks when they have to use Gconf.... "Did you ever read the usability mailing list archives?" Actually, I'm a subscriber to that very list. And how can you disregard my suggestions by saying "there is no single answer"? I mean, couldn't you also push for a change using that very same argument? Instead of simply accepting status quo, shouldn't we be REQUIRED to try to figure out better ways of doing things? I'm at least trying, but quite many seem to think "there is no problem. If there is a problem, it's not KDE's problem". You know, that kind of thinking doesn't really encourage people to offer suggestions.
Re: Usability = Distributions Problem - Morty - 2005-03-29
>The Kmenu is HUGE. The number of applications in the K-menu are not only the distribution responsibility, it's also the user/administrators responsibility. If you don't want three editors, DON'T INSTALL THEM! It's so simple, you don't have to install all the KDE applications and "clutter" your menu with applications you don't use. Like with all other applications you don't install, you don't have to install them just because they are KDE applications. It's the same thing as I don't install Emacs and Apache even if they are include on the CDs of my distribution. >When I try to download KDE from kde.org, those are the packages that I'm offered. No, you only get the source code. To install you have to build the packages and there you have the options tho select what you want to install. So they are not shipped as is, as it is only source.
Re: Usability = Distributions Problem - David - 2005-03-29
"The number of applications in the K-menu are not only the distribution responsibility, it's also the user/administrators responsibility. If you don't want three editors, DON'T INSTALL THEM!" If there is no point in three text editors then don't create more work for people in uninstalling them. As applications in KDE are in whole sections like kdebase etc. it can sometimes be fairly impossible to uninstall them. It's not worth the effort - people will use something else if they have to do that. "To install you have to build the packages and there you have the options tho select what you want to install. So they are not shipped as is, as it is only source." No, you don't get the option as to what applications they install. KDE comes as whole sections of functionality, libs, base, pim etc. I can see that many people have a huge conceptual problem over this.
Re: Usability = Distributions Problem - Morty - 2005-03-29
>If there is no point in three text editors But there are! They are different tools for different kinds of work and pattern of usage. They have some overlapping functionality and use, but different needs demands different solutions. This is not a place where "one size fits all" apply. >As applications in KDE are in whole sections It seems like most distributions mange to split them up quite nicely so you clearly don't have a point there. Debian, Mandrake, Suse, Fedora and Gentoo does it. >No, you don't get the option as to what applications they install. >KDE comes as whole sections of functionality, libs, base, pim etc. The libs are a special case, but libs do not take nay place in menus anyway. For all packages containing different applications the DO_NOT_COMPILE(or whatever it is called) flags apply, giving you the power to select what to install. >I can see that many people have a huge conceptual problem over this. Yes, and it looks like you are on of them. It's like a toolbox, you only put in the tools you need. Not all tools available from the toolmanufacturers catalog.
Re: Usability = Distributions Problem - Janne - 2005-03-30
"They are different tools for different kinds of work and pattern of usage." Like I commented elsewhere: Should KDE then ships with hunderds of apps, each targetted at "different usage-patterns"? Text-based web-browser? text-based mail-client? Several filemanagers? Several mediaplayers? Several different tools to format a floppy? They all have "different usage-patterns", shouldn't KDE offer them as well?
Re: Usability = Distributions Problem - ac - 2005-03-30
KDE (as in the servers) already offers development and storage space for offering applications for different usage patterns in all varieties for ages, may it be as part of official modules, as part of official but independently schedules modules, as independent extra gear modules, or as part of kdenotbeta/kdeplayground testing efforts. Duplication never had been a concern since code is being share whenever possible, and that's made easier when the code lives in the same CVS server. KDE is not pushing/shipping anything of that. It's users and distributions capable of making a selection and compile it who pull what they want to have. You are appreantly incapable or completely unwilling to get that part so please finally stop this silly thread.
Re: Usability = Distributions Problem - David - 2005-03-30
Then KDE is not a desktop environment. It is KDE's job, not a distributors, to bring that together. I'm afraid this is just total and utter denial in facing up to the problem.
Re: Usability = Distributions Problem - Janne - 2005-03-30
"If you don't want three editors, DON'T INSTALL THEM!" Again: going around the problem instead of fixing the problem. You expect users to do extra work in order to fix shortcomings in KDE. Yes we all do that when we change desktop backgrounds and the like, and that sort of things are expected. But enough is enough. A better solution would be to ship with a set of core utilities, and if the user wants those three editors he can install it himself! IMO KDE should ship with essential utilities, and not with kitchen sink + 200 other apps. If the user REALLY wants to have all those extra apps, they should be available as optional apps. But the core-utils of KDE should not include three text editors (for example), when one would do just fine and it would practically cover all usage-patterns. But, if we look at KDE the way it is shipped, it includes multitude of apps. Some are redundant, some are so limited in their use that they could be merged with other apps, and some could be dropped entirely. "No, you only get the source code." And that source comes in large packages. Suppose I wanted to install KDE as shipped by the KDE-team, and I want to do it straight from the source. I would go to my closest mirror, and what do I see: http://ftp.funet.fi/pub/mirrors/ftp.kde.org/pub/kde/stable/3.4/src/ I see packages like kdepim-3.4.0.tar.bz2. I see no Kmail, Kontact, Kopete etc., I see large packages. That is the source I'm offered. And, like I said, the problem is not the way how KDE is packaged. talking about the way it's packaged only tries to go around the actual problem. What you are talking about is going around the problem, I suggest fixing the problem instead.
Re: Usability = Distributions Problem - Morty - 2005-03-30
>going around the problem instead of fixing the problem. This is the correct way to do it, and it is not a problem. If the user installs to many applications and has problems caused by this, the problem are clearly the user an nothing KDE can do will cure this problem. The most widely used distributions comes on 3+ CDs or DVD, but the users don't go around installing everything do they. >look at KDE the way it is shipped, it includes multitude of apps. For the convenience of the users who download the KDE packages from kde.org, programs are grouped in packages containing related functionality and applications. As opposed to offering 200+ different packages. >IMO KDE should ship with essential utilities KDE does, it's called kdelibs and kdebase. >And that source comes in large packages. Made up in such a fashion the person compiling can easily choose which parts she/he want installed. >I suggest fixing the problem instead. No you are not, you are making up problems trying to make your solution fit.
Re: Usability = Distributions Problem - Janne - 2005-03-30
"KDE does, it's called kdelibs and kdebase." you are talking about different thing than I am. "No you are not, you are making up problems trying to make your solution fit." you may think that having redundant apps that do the exact same thing is not a problem. But I do. They make the system more complicated, they make it bigger than it needs to be and the make the system confusing. Newbies will be confused when they see apps that do the same thing in slightly different way. And there's no reason whatsoever to have apps like that. Really, you are just making excuses to defend the current situation. "oh yes, we absolutely NEED several almost identical text-editors!". If that is the case, then surely we need redundancy in other apps as well? How about shipping several web-browser by default? Or several IM's? Or several mail-clients? Several word-processors? Why aren't those needed? Why are several text-editors needed? "Because that's the way it has been done for a long time already!". Seriously, it's like I'm talking to a wall here!
Re: Usability = Distributions Problem - ac - 2005-03-30
Thanks god you are finally noticing that you are talking to a wall.
Re: Usability = Distributions Problem - David - 2005-03-30
We're talking to total idiots, that's what. If this is what you think then sorry, KDE is not a desktop environment.
Re: Usability = Distributions Problem - ac - 2005-03-31
You are trying to convince people you don't even know about something you apparently have no idea about. In my book this is a definite case of talking to a wall. If you think something needs to be changed please first inform yourself about how this project actually works since nearly a decade now.
Re: Usability = Distributions Problem - Morty - 2005-03-30
>absolutely NEED several almost identical text-editors! Since they are made for rather different needs, and have different featurestets they are not almost identical. And you never HAVE to install more applications than you NEED, As for talking to walls it's more like this: -Too many applications, users get confused. +You don't have to install everything. -But, they are in the package. +All decent distributions splits the packages, and they are made to be split when installing from source. -But that's not the problem, when I install everything I get too many applications and get confused. +Why do yo install everything, when you don't need it or get confused. It's made for installing only the parts you select. -It's too may applications and I get conused when everything is installed.
Re: Usability = Distributions Problem - Janne - 2005-03-31
You just don't "get it". Like I already said: since there's obviously a need (according to you) for two almost identical apps, then surely there is a need to have multiple filemanagers as well? Web-browsers? mail-clients? Why aren't those needed, but there is a need for several editors? Or if you do think that KDE should ship with those as well, then surely you see what kind of utter mess KDE would be? When I talk about KDE, I'm talking about the integrated and cohesive DE as shipped by the KDE-team. And in that DE I see redundant apps. And no, I do not want to pass the blame to the distributors, I think this should be fixed at KDE itself. The multitude of apps is a symptom of the same thing that plagues KDE's configuration-options. Instead of making strong decision about what kind of desktop KDE is, KDE makes vague suggestions, while leaving most of the burden at the user. you might call that "flexibility", but you wouldn't have to sacrifice flexibility for common sense. And when you say that there is a dire need for several almost identical text-editors in KDE, I find that common sense to be lacking. Seriously, people are telling me how there is a need for full-featured editor, and an easy to use editor. Instead of shipping two editors, why not make that full-featured editor easy to use? Not only does two editors increase clutter, it reduces the incentive to make Kate fit the needs of all users. What I want KDE to be, is to be a kick-ass desktop that ships with best of breed apps, and NOT with gazillion of redundant apps, or apps that have very limited use. is there anything wrong with that? If there is, what is it? Is it too much to ask for elegance? Obviously it is. KDE should be a hobbled together collection of gazillion apps, and it needs the distributors to clean it up. Instead of relying on distributors, why not rely on KDE itself? Instead of having a KDE that makes vague suggestions to the user (like when it drowns the user in multitude of apps and configuration-options), I would like to see a KDE with clear vision and a path towards it. By having multitude of apps and multitude of options, it seems to me that KDE has a identity-crisis. it's afraid to take a stand and say "this is what we offer, this is what we do". Instead, it tries to offer everything to everyone, and it ends up looking confusing and busy. I do see where you are coming from with your opinions. But I disagree with them. I do not want to pass the blame to the user or to the distributor. I would like to make improvements right in the KDE instead. that way we could have one clean and kick-ass KDE, instead of having several distributor-driven's KDE's with different feature-sets and the like. Having KDE that is clearly KDE is alot better than having "Lindows Desktop" for example. It would make KDE stronger, and not weaker.
Re: Usability = Distributions Problem - Macavity - 2005-03-31
>You just don't "get it". Yes we "get it".. we've gotten it for quite some time now, as you have been stating the same thing over and over again, just phrased in different ways and with different arguments for it.... Sorry if that came out rude. I just came to the point where I couldn't bare reading any more of this. >Like I already said: since there's obviously a need (according to you) for two almost identical apps [snip] "Almost identical" is, as quite a few have pointed out, not the right comparison for Kate and KWrite. They are VERY different. The one is a single-file + simple-operation editor, and the other is a multiple-files + advanced-operation + development-tool-support editor. To cut it out in large freindly cardboard letters: KWrite is for files with the .txt suffix. Kate is for files with .c .cpp .php .pl kind of suffixes. That the later kind happens to have the same format as the former is just a matter of history. In this context it is also worth to point out that Kate is just as much about what you do *with* the files as it is about what you do *to* them. Claiming that they serve the same purpose is very similar to saying that Kuickshow and GIMP serve the same purpose. Yes, Kuickshow can crop and rotate, which are strickly speaking not a "viewing thing". No, GIMP is not an image viewer even though you can see your images with it... However, I am willing to give you that perhaps KWrite has become too feature rich. Personally I think it should be stripped down to just a tad more then what Notepad has (the "tad more" is on principle matter; KDE should always have just a few more "goodies" then M$). >then surely there is a need to have multiple filemanagers as well? Web-browsers? mail-clients? Due to the nature of an opensource project, you have to cater for both users and developers, hence a development editor and a does-the-trick editor. Now if KDE was trying to become the defacto DE for insanely-complex-server-farm-, huge-cluster-solution- and giant-campus-network- administrators, then YES, KDE should have two filemanagers. One that targets InsaneSysops(TM) and one for the rest of us. The same goes for Web-browsers and Mail-clients: If KDE was targeting a special group which has very special/complex needs, it would include a win-you-over-application in that special area. The bottom line is: KDE mainly targets two kinds: Users and Developers. Hence the two biggest "side-projects" are KDevelop and KOffice. >[snip] Instead of shipping two editors, why not make that full-featured editor easy to use? [snip] For two reasons: A) A development editor will never ever be *truely* easy to use, and still remain a Real Development Editor(TM) B) "One size fits all" *always* ends up fitting *no-one*! Microsoft has been trying to do this for ages, with the same poor result. It is quite easy to grasp that developers have *completely* different views on what is clutterd or not, and what is bloated or not, then an ordirany or somewhat advanced user. If you dont belive me, then look at "man gcc".. what you see there is what I call "a heaven of options", but to my freind who just starded coding a few weeks ago it is a dreaded hell he only dares venture when im near by (his remark was: "Would it be difficult to make gcc automize all this?!?". >What I want KDE to be, is to be a kick-ass desktop that ships with best of breed apps, and NOT with gazillion of redundant apps, or apps that have very limited use. Thats funny.. thats what most people want ;-) What you *completly* fail to grasp, is that an app that may seem redundant [or of limited use] to *you* may very very well be *another users* sole reason to use KDE. The same thing goes for configuraion options, btw.... >[snip] it's afraid to take a stand and say "this is what we offer, this is what we do". This problem is being adressed by the usability team. However it takes time, as it has to be close to Done Right(TM) the first time around. This is because many programmers prefere to implement features, as opposed to re-design previous work because §101.2b changed from bold to italic... >Having KDE that is clearly KDE is alot better than having "Lindows Desktop" for example. It would make KDE stronger, and not weaker. For once I agree with you 100%... but I bet that we could argue for months without end on how to get there. That is the back side of OSS.... There are about as many oppionions as there are people. So most times it ends with either: A) A democratic solution (voting). B) A Meritic solution (the one who does the coding calls the shots). or C) The project forks, leading to month long flamewares, endless debates with people stating the same thing over and over again, mud-throwing at slashdot, attempts to neglify the counterparts skills, good developers leaving, experimental code/aproaches being implimented/tested, and finaly after a few years nightmare: they end up re-merging! Personally I prefere an "enlightened meritic solution", that is, that in the end the developer who writes it has the power, but [s]he listens carefully to the user-base while sorting out all the loud-shouters/flamers/morrons. So my bottom conclution to all your many posts is this: Get envolved in the http://usability.kde.org/ and the http://www.openusability.org/ projects, do tests, write docs and whatever else you have the skills for.. but *PLEASE* get over the notion that "one size fits all" and that good usability means trimming away all the stuff you personally dont use ;-) ~Macavity NB: Please also see: http://dot.kde.org/1107931942/ http://www.viralata.net/kde_usability/ http://www.userinstinct.com/viewpost.php?postid=kde33review&page=1
Re: Usability = Distributions Problem - David - 2005-03-30
It is not the right way to solve the problem. If you're a power user then you install the extra text editors and the umpteen bloody apps you want. That's what a power user does.
Re: Usability = Distributions Problem - Morty - 2005-03-30
>It is not the right way to solve the problem. Wrong, while you and Janne who are trying to invent a problem in which your "solution" fits, and that's not the way to solve anything.KDE and the distributions already does this in a problemfree way. >If you're a power user then you install the extra text editors As you do now, with a decent distribution you chose what you install. Like with the one I'm using, I have the option to install things like kdebase-kate, kdevelop and kdeutil-kedit (Hey, it's not even in the base packages, but in a collection of extra utilities). Or you compile from source, which is a option for power users btw. Then you also have an easy way too select what to install. So it's no reason to invent your problem as it's already solved.
Re: Usability = Distributions Problem - David - 2005-03-31
"Wrong, while you and Janne who are trying to invent a problem in which your "solution" fits" There is a problem - which is what this thread is actually about. This is a problem with 'KDE' itself, which you conveniently try and side-step by telling us all it is solved by distributors. It isn't. "As you do now, with a decent distribution you chose what you install." Nice chicanery. A default install of KDE should be built for most users, and if idiots like you want fifteen text editors then you go off and compile them yourself. We're talking about a default install of KDE here, not something a distributor puts together. Is KDE a usable desktop by itself as it stands without a distributor cutting out what shouldn't be there to start off with? No. Don't pass distributors off as the shield with which to deflect an obvious problem. It doesn't wash. It is KDE's problem. Ergo, 'KDE' is not a desktop for anyone who isn't a power user. What a distributor provides is not KDE if they have to change large parts of it, as they do now. "Like with the one I'm using, I have the option to install things like kdebase-kate, kdevelop and kdeutil-kedit (Hey, it's not even in the base packages, but in a collection of extra utilities)." KDE doesn't provide individual application packages, and as such, neither do many distributors. It's too much work. As such, when you install kdevelop, kdesdk etc. etc. you're left with as big a mess as a default KDE install. Because individual applications are part of these packages, and as some applications are necessary from each package to make things work, you can't just choose which one to install. And what happens if you do install them all? You're left with the very same mess of a standard KDE install with no consideration as to how it all fits together. "So it's no reason to invent your problem as it's already solved." I'm afraid if KDE itself is to progress as a desktop this is going to have to end, as painful as that might be for someone who likes a desktop that is an obvious mess to get around. To re-iterate - the usability of KDE is *not* a distributors problem, as bitter a pill as that might be for you to swallow. You might want to pass that off as an excuse to do the same crappy things you've always done, but unfortunately for you and fortunately for the rest of us, that isn't sustainable.
Re: Usability = Distributions Problem - ac - 2005-03-31
*yawns* So much ado about nothing. If you really think KDE itself is the problem then go and fork it and leave us alone here with our 'problem' we don't get. After all if you are actually right all changes you do will be merged back with no issue.
Re: Usability = Distributions Problem - David - 2005-03-31
"*yawns*" So it is a problem then? Thanks, we've established that. "If you really think KDE itself is the problem then go and fork it and leave us alone here with our 'problem' we don't get. After all if you are actually right all changes you do will be merged back with no issue." Somebody may fork it eventually, but fortunately many within KDE do actually understand this problem and there will eventually be some initiatives (and ultimately patches) to solve it it because many do think it's a problem. When that does happen, you can take your fork, compile your own stuff and have your own playground.
Re: Usability = Distributions Problem - tbscope - 2005-03-29
I have a different idea about the goal of KDE, Gentoo and "a distribution". In my opinion: * KDE provides a tool towards distribution builders to present their users with a desktop environment. It's the purpose of the distributor to addapt the desktop to their needs. This does not mean rewriting KDE from scratch. No, it means altering the background picture, adding/removing programs as they like, adjusting other userinterface settings. Some distributors even write their own control centers. * Gentoo is not meant to be used by normal desktop users. It's meant to be used by users who like to play around with their system. As such, Gentoo does not apply it's "own view" on you like other distributions do. You are required to apply your own views to the software you install. This means that you, the user of a Gentoo system, should do all the configuring yourself. That's what Gentoo is all about. And if you don't like that, maybe you should try another distribution. * A distribution itself should have a certain target audience. One distribution can target "power users" like Gentoo does, and only provide "vanilla" packages. Other distributions target the normal home users like Linspire for example, and heavily modify certain packages. KDE can not possibly create a default that is inline with the views of any single distribution now and in the future. It can only provide a desktop system that can be adjusted to the needs of a distribution. Of course, all of this is my view, don't take it too seriously.
Re: Usability = Distributions Problem - Janne - 2005-03-29
"* Gentoo is not meant to be used by normal desktop users." There are plenty of "normal desktop users" using Gentoo. Hell, couldn't you also say that Linux is not meant to be used for "normal desktop users"? Normal desktop users use Windows or Mac OS X. I use my Gentoo for normal desktop tasks, and most people I know use their Gentoo-installations for normal desktop tasks. I fail to see the difference. "KDE can not possibly create a default that is inline with the views of any single distribution now and in the future. It can only provide a desktop system that can be adjusted to the needs of a distribution." Maybe so, but IMO that doesn't mean that KDE should ship with cluttered UI and redundant apps by default. By your logic: KDE could ship with minimalist UI, and the distros could then clutter it up if they so desire. Yet when someone suggests that the UI could move towards minimalism, people oppose the idea. Why? I mean, if distros are the ones who decide what KDE looks like, what does it matter what KDE looks like by default? You can't have it both ways. If current system is OK because distros can clean it up (which apparently is their responsibility), then surely minimalist KDE would be just fine as well, since the distros would tweak it according to their needs. Yet minimalist default-KDE is a no-no. Why? Seriously, why do people spend time trying to make KDE more usable, if it's up to the distributions in the end what KDE looks like and how it behaves? Why waste time on KDE, should we be working on Mandrake, SUSE, Red Hat, Ubuntu, Gentoo, Debian etc. etc. instead? I for one don't want my desktop to be "adjusted by the distribution". I want my KDE as it is offered by the KDE-team. I do not want "SUSE-desktop" or "Mandrake-desktop". Such a move would even further splinter the Linux-universe. Instead of having KDE, we would have dozen similar yet different desktops all based on KDE.
skim them posts - thatguiser - 2005-03-29
oh please, brain spam makes my neurogan hurt. If you have nothing to say - keep it short. The argument is: full stock KDE comes with EVERTHING. Since it's the distro's responsibility to make it joeable, it's their job to throw things out and trim it down. KDE tarballs are not meant for joe, but for the r00tZ, which by definition, want it all. Distro's are for joes. And btw, ehhrm, Gentoo has split-ebuilds, as mentioned. Make the right choice: don't complain, or direct it to the ones responsible.
Re: skim them posts - Janne - 2005-03-29
Thank you for your content-free and pointless post. Seriously, I find it rather disturbing that so many here think that it's not KDE's responsibility to make KDE as kick-ass as possible. Rather, KDE just have to release something, and let the distros work it out. Usability? Not KDE's problem, it's distributors problem. Multitude of apps? Not KDE's problem, it's distributors problem. what next? Bugs? Not KDE's problem. Performance? Not KDE's problem. What I want is for KDE to kick ass by default, instead of trying to push the responsibility to the distros. And, like I already said: why are people opposed to cleaned up/minimalistic KDE? I mean, if it's distros responsibility to make KDE fit their end-users needs, what does it matter what KDE looks like by default? Yet, when I suggest that what if KDE did this and that, people oppose it. Why do they oppose changing the default KDE, if end-users are not even supposed to see the default KDE (like they claim)? What's the problem here? NOTE: I REALLY appreciate KDE and it's developers. And I think that people on this thread are not KDE-developers, but users (like me). "Gentoo has split-ebuilds, as mentioned." So? Split ebuild don't fix the problem, they merely try to go around it.
Re: skim them posts - thatguiser - 2005-03-29
> Thank you for your content-free and pointless post. You're welcome. > Seriously Yeah, you're seriously welcome. > I find it rather disturbing that so many here think that it's > not KDE's responsibility to make KDE as kick-ass as possible. Oh wait, who told you that. > Rather, KDE just have to release something, and let the distros work it out. tradition. > Usability? Not KDE's problem, it's distributors problem. Nope. KDE usability project's problem. heh ;) > Multitude of apps? Not KDE's problem, it's distributors problem. Problem is, as Aaron said before on his blog, people get 'feature addicted'. You take something out, someone IS going to complain about it. There supposedly IS someone somewhere who actually likes noatun. I'm all for packing in only Kaffeine and Amarok, but what about KMplayer and JUK? They're good, too. And Noatun does it's job aswell. So who decides what goes in, what stays, what is taken out? > what next? World domination, of course. > Bugs? Not KDE's problem. Performance? Not KDE's problem. Uha. Now I most certainly can assure you that very probably every single KDE developer feels quite opposed to /that/ statement... No point there. You're not trying to make one, are you? > What I want is for KDE to kick ass by default, instead of > trying to push the responsibility to the distros. You're not alone there, but it's not easy. No fuehrer, too many opinions, too many emotions involved. Anarchy is hard to adminster. > And, like I already said: why are people opposed to > cleaned up/minimalistic KDE? Someone is going to whine about this or that missing. But anyways, it's about the software. Imho, the KDE project is still mostly about code. Promoting, or 'gaining market share' comes second I believe. There's no money to make anyways ;) It surely is going to happen, with all the discussion and stuff. But hey, who cares. Not me that's for sure: I care about features, eye candy, stability, quality. KDE provides that. > I mean, if it's distros responsibility to make KDE fit their > end-users needs, what does it matter what KDE looks like by default? A lot. A user installing it will not be annoyed by too many apps installed at the very first moment: he can just ignore them. But an ugly interface hurts the eye right away. Many users wont give a fsck they can set it to beautiful, they'll just feel pissed and go back to Teletubby OS. > Yet, when I suggest that what if KDE did this and that, people oppose it. > Why do they oppose changing the default KDE, if end-users are not even > supposed to see the default KDE (like they claim)? What's the problem here? I think I already mentioned: emotions is the problem here, and the priorities are elsewhere. It's the distributions who target joe the user, so they should tailor it for his needs. If they fail, shame on them. It surely is not too difficult taking stuff out and lightening the desktop (Kiosk etc.) > NOTE: I REALLY appreciate KDE and it's developers. They deserve it ;) > And I think that people on this thread are not KDE-developers, but > users (like me). .. and me. But still, most are power users rather then computer illitarate. >Split ebuild don't fix the problem, they merely try to go around it. And by that, fix the problem for Gentooers ;) Anyways, you have a valid point, but the distro shouldn't ship vanilla KDE if they aim for joe. And the rest of the problem has just been acknowledged by the community and is in the progress of being prepared for the final solution: 4.0!
Re: skim them posts - Janne - 2005-03-29
"Oh wait, who told you that." The very first post on this thread was about how usability is distributors problem, and not KDE's. And when I gave my suggestions on how some things could be done in KDE, reception in general was "KDE doesn't have to do that, it's distributors problem". "Nope. KDE usability project's problem. heh ;)" the person who started this thread seems to disagree with you. And it seems that you agree with me. "Problem is, as Aaron said before on his blog, people get 'feature addicted'." And I'm not talking about removing features. I'm talking about making KDE more usable, so those features are more easily accessible. And there are redundant apps, and apps that could be merged with other apps or dropped altogether. "Uha. Now I most certainly can assure you that very probably every single KDE developer feels quite opposed to /that/ statement... No point there. You're not trying to make one, are you?" No I'm not, quite the opposite! But quite many here seem to think that problems in KDE are not KDE's problems, but distributors problem! I merely expanded on their line of thinking and asked where does it end. "A lot. A user installing it will not be annoyed by too many apps installed at the very first moment: he can just ignore them." No he can't. My wife was at a loss with KDE when he started using it. He couldn't make heads or tails out of it. Kmenu was filled with apps, it was difficult for her to find what she was looking for, Konqueror was filled with buttons and menu-entries, and configuration-options were downright scary. It was all very confusing for her. Only after I talked her through it and spent time clening the UI up, she was able to effectively use it. Without me, she would have been overwhelmed by it all. As one usability-review said: having multitude of options actually limit the number of options. Had I not been there guiding her through, she would not have used it, period. One user less, due to multitude of apps, buttons, options and the like. If you have multitude of UI-element (buttons, menuentries etc.) you can try to ignore them. But in the end, they will get in your way. And they make the UI look intimidating and unattractive. As one great thinker said: "Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you have nothing more to remove". And here you are defenidng the way KDE looks by default. And in the same time you say that it doesn't really matter what KDE looks by default, since it's the distros job to tweak it's look. Again: what does it matter what the default KDE looks like, since you are not supposed to even see it? Why not have minimalistic KDE and let the distro tweak it? If you oppose that suggestion (as you do), then the default look DOES matter and it's apparently NOT distros job to tweak the UI. So, which way is it? You can't have it both ways. "And by that, fix the problem for Gentooers" Nope, it goes around it. It doesn't fix it. "Anyways, you have a valid point, but the distro shouldn't ship vanilla KDE if they aim for joe." Now here's the thing: KDE (the vanilla-KDE as offered by the KDE-team) SHOULD IMO be the sexiest-looking easiest to use desktop on the planet! It certainly has the potential! And I think that should be done right at KDE, instead of pushing that task to the distributors. That way we would get more consistent desktop and we would get more users accustomed to the advanced features of KDE: If we leave it to the distributors, then we will have several desktops with different look 'n feel and features. Of course it's completely OK for distros to tweak KDE. they have that right. But I wouldn't like to see vanilla-KDE be a "basic desktop that works so and so". I want vanilla desktop to be a kick-ass desktop that mops the floor with everything else. And right now it is the best thing out there. But if we push more responsibility to distros, I can't really see how it would benefit KDE as such. It would cause more fragmentation and different implementations. It would increase the learning-efforts, since all distros would have their own version of KDE. Having a kick-ass vanilla-desktop benefits ALL KDE-users. Having a mediocre vanilla-KDE but kick-ass Mandrake-desktop (for example) which is built on KDE benetifts Mandrake, and _maybe_ KDE. I want to remove that "maybe". P.S. My apologies for my harsh words in my earlier post.
Re: skim them posts - Henrique Marks - 2005-03-29
>>>"There are many other complains that must be answered by the KDE community. >>>But the distributions can work to deliver a better product to their >>>costumers." This is written in the end of the original post. So the complains must be answered by the KDE community. And also by the distributions. So your post >>>"The very first post on this thread was about how usability is distributors >>>problem, and not KDE's" Is incorrect. I think it is clear for many that a better usability can be achieved by the distributors, that are going to deliver KDE with the needs and tastes of their customers. BUT i think KDE must try perfection, or the closest to this, always. The strong point is that the distributions can EASILY change KDE, to suit their needs. I read so many complains about "too many configuration options". I cannot undestand this, but i think nowadays kiosk can be used to lock down what users can see or do. Joe user will be the root of joe user machine, and so he will scramble all this, but if he can make it, he is no joe user anymore.
Re: skim them posts - Janne - 2005-03-30
"So your post >>>"The very first post on this thread was about how usability is distributors >>>problem, and not KDE's" Is incorrect." No it isn't. The post was titled "Usability = Distributions Problem". It said things like "Another problem: the toolbars. Again the distribution can deliver the KDE products with any buttons they want. The same applies to kicker." So apparently just about all usability-problems in KDE are not KDE's problems, they are distributors problems. Toolbars? Distros can edit them if they like, so it's distros problem, not KDE's. Kicker? Distros problem. Kmenu? Distros problem. Number of apps? Distros problem. These are all straight from the original post! I for one find that kind of thinking scary. It tells me of attempts to pass the blame to others. It tells me of "Hey, it's not KDE's fault if KDE sucks* since the distros didn't spend any time fixing KDE!". Instead of expecting distros to fix KDE, maybe we should fix KDE at the source? In KDE itself? By that thinking: since everything in Linux is open source, is it my fault some thing in Linux sicks, since I didn't fix it myself? I mean, I COULD do it, right? * = I don't think KDE sucks, I use it every day and love it. However, I do think that alot could be done to make it even better.
Re: skim them posts - ac - 2005-03-29
> why are people opposed to cleaned up/minimalistic KDE? I mean, if it's distros responsibility to make KDE fit their end-users needs, what does it matter what KDE looks like by default? That's easy to answer. The ones that use vanilla KDE: a) aren't the typical end-users b) like it the way it is now c) don't want a minimalistic KDE
Re: skim them posts - Janne - 2005-03-29
"a) aren't the typical end-users" And who are "typical end-users"? Besides, KDE in SUSE or Mandrake is not THAT different from vanilla-KDE, and I fail to see any macigal properties in them that vanilla-KDE does not have. "b) like it the way it is now" Considering how many people have complained about KDE's abundance of options, buttons and the like, I fail to see how this claim could be true. "c) don't want a minimalistic KDE" I would like to have one, and I use vanilla-KDE, so this argument is wrong ;).
Re: skim them posts - ac - 2005-03-29
> "a) aren't the typical end-users" > > And who are "typical end-users"? People who get confused because they see three text editors in KMenu > Besides, KDE in SUSE or Mandrake is not THAT different from vanilla-KDE, and > I fail to see any macigal properties in them that vanilla-KDE does not have. Well then the vanilla KDE can't be as bad as you try to make it. > "b) like it the way it is now" > > Considering how many people have complained about KDE's abundance of options, > buttons and the like, I fail to see how this claim could be true. Well where is your prove that many people complain about KDE's abundane of options? Where is your prove that the amount of those people are bigger than the often less noisy content people? Especially seeing the amount of people here that try to argue against your points. > "c) don't want a minimalistic KDE" > > I would like to have one, and I use vanilla-KDE, so this argument is wrong ;). So you want a minimalistic KDE and I don't. So how should vanilla KDE solve this "conflict"? Maybe by passing the responsibility to customize KDE for the target audience to the distributions?
Re: skim them posts - David - 2005-03-29
"Well then the vanilla KDE can't be as bad as you try to make it." No, it's just the distributors don't have the time or resources to go trimming KDE every ten seconds. "So you want a minimalistic KDE and I don't. So how should vanilla KDE solve this "conflict"? Maybe by passing the responsibility to customize KDE for the target audience to the distributions?" He doesn't want a minimalist KDE. He wants a KDE that actually makes sense by default, as do the vast majority who take an interest in it. Having something produced by distributors that doesn't look like KDE at all only hurts KDE. Who on Earth do you think KDE's target audience is supposed to be?! "Maybe by passing the responsibility to customize KDE for the target audience to the distributions?" That's passing the buck, as he says. "Oh, let's leave that to the distros so we can lump all the pointless shit we want into it". If people really expect KDE to be used by companies and individuals this has to change. After all, many like to complain that Xandros etc. use their own file managers and control panels. That should tell you something. I've been using the NLD for a while, and it's obvious that Suse heavily modifies KDE to take out an awful lot of crap out. The Gnome people hardly have to do any customisation in that regard. That reflects badly on KDE, and means that when the distributors actually release something it doesn't look much like KDE at all.
Re: skim them posts - ac - 2005-03-29
> "So you want a minimalistic KDE and I don't. So how should vanilla KDE solve > this "conflict"? Maybe by passing the responsibility to customize KDE for the > target audience to the distributions?" > > He doesn't want a minimalist KDE. He wants a KDE that actually makes sense by > default, as do the vast majority who take an interest in it. Having something > produced by distributors that doesn't look like KDE at all only hurts KDE. So you're saying there is a default configuration that fits the needs of the power users and the beginners alike? Then please try the following experiment: Create a default KDE configuration that looks like you want it, package it and post it on the web. I will bet that you get a lot of comments that your configuration sucks. Please see several threads on the usability mailing list as reference. > I've been using the NLD for a while, and it's obvious that Suse heavily modifies KDE to take out an awful lot of crap out. And that is great because it then fits their target audience. Other distributions ship KDE as is and their users like it.
Re: skim them posts - David - 2005-03-29
"So you're saying there is a default configuration that fits the needs of the power users and the beginners alike?" Certainly could be, but it depends on who your target is. You, and a lot of KDE developers, have never really thought about it at all. That's why KDE was started - to be a user friendly desktop for Unix. You and a lot of other people have taken leave of that. "Create a default KDE configuration that looks like you want it, package it and post it on the web. I will bet that you get a lot of comments that your configuration sucks. Please see several threads on the usability mailing list as reference." No, you work out who KDE targets and then you work towards having a desktop that reflects that. If you want a KDE desktop for power users then it's time to stop talking about business, companies and governments using KDE at conferences like aKademy. "And that is great because it then fits their target audience. Other distributions ship KDE as is and their users like it." Considering that their target and KDE's target are one and the same, allegedly, the default KDE desktop sucks in comparison to it. Distributors just shouldn't need to do that level of customisation. Sorry, but you are arguing for a KDE desktop for silly power users and Unix users who like incomprehensible and unusable set ups. That's not why KDE was started.
Re: skim them posts - ac - 2005-03-29
> Sorry, but you are arguing for a KDE desktop for silly power users and Unix users who like incomprehensible and unusable set ups. No, I don't. I'm arguing that KDE can appeal to very different types of users but that the corresponding configuration must come from the distributions that target a specific type of user and not from vanilla KDE.
Re: skim them posts - Janne - 2005-03-30
"I'm arguing that KDE can appeal to very different types of users but that the corresponding configuration must come from the distributions that target a specific type of user and not from vanilla KDE." Why not? Why can't vanilla-KDE kick ass as well? And it has already been shown that distros are not interested in cleaning up KDE that much. And what if distro X does clean up KDE. But what if user prefer distro Y for other reasons besides cleaned up KDE? Sure, you could say "if you want cleaned up KDE; use Lindows or Xandros!". Sorry, but I want my KDE to be cleaned up, but I also want the power and configurability of Gentoo. I don't consider myself to be a newbie. Yet I want my KDE to be streamlined and easy to use. I fail to see how "powerusers" would NOT support those things! What is this mentality of "if you support sensible defaults, and sane number of options, you are not real poweruser!". Is this way of thinking passed on from old UNIX-tradition, where things were handled by esoteric text-files and arcane commands? Why do people think that having a system that is easy to use, streamlined and uncluttered somehow makes it less usable for "powerusers"? If we target KDE towards powerusers, we will take things away from newbies. If we target KDE towards newbies, we are not taking anything away from the powerusers! GNOME seems to handle things just fine, even though they have limited set of default-options to tweak. Still they have lots of powerusers using the system. OS X has limited set of tweakables, yet more and more powerusers are using it. And I'm not even advocationg removeal of options! I'm advocating that _by default_ KDE would offer limited number of options, with the more advanced options being available elsewhere. The powerusers could still tweak the system as much as they want, but we would enable the newbies to do so as well! But we wouldn't thrown those multitude of options at them, we would ease them in to it. They would start with the basic options. Once their confidence is up, they could try out the more advanced options. Note: I'm not saying that KDE should follow GNOME. I do not advocate removing functionality. I advocate cleaning up the UI and the default configuration-options.
Re: skim them posts - ac - 2005-03-30
> Why not? Why can't vanilla-KDE kick ass as well? May I ask what your definition of "vanilla-KDE" is at all? Just kdelibs and kdebase (which is the bare minimum) modules? All of the "official" modules including declared-to-contain-nonsense-stuff like the kdetoys module? All modules of the "official" KDE project which would include the modules for kdevelopand koffic which are independently scheduled? Or even all of the modules KDE provides a place for development in its CVS server including the extragear modules (which include K3B for example)? Where do you draw the line, and who is supposed to draw the line and what should be the result of drawing that line? Maybe you just don't want to understand that all KDE can do is offering good default *settings*, default *installations* are out of reach for KDE. If installations are that much your concern you need to join a distribution effort like Kubuntu and make your voice heard there. Here you are just wasting time and space.
Re: skim them posts - Janne - 2005-03-31
"May I ask what your definition of "vanilla-KDE" is at all?" Vanilla-KDE = KDE as offered by the KDE-team. kdelibs and kdebase are part of vanilla-KDE. But when I talk about "minimalistic" KDE, I'm not talking about kdebase and kdelibs. Those two provide the foundation of KDE with very few apps. But I'm not talking about KDE with no apps. I'm talking about KDE that ships with apps that make sense. Minimalistic KDE can include a PIM-suite (found in kdepim), it can include an IM-client (found in kdenetwork). It can include games, it can include different styles and icons etc. etc. "Maybe you just don't want to understand that all KDE can do is offering good default *settings*, default *installations* are out of reach for KDE." No they are not, and I think it's sad that some people think that it is. KDE does ship with lots of kick-ass apps, and I think people are quick to point out that "those apps are part of the KDE-project". But when there are less optimal apps, people try to pass the buck to distros by saying "well, it's up to distros to include those or not, don't blame KDE". KDE already has a "default installation", the installation as offered by the KDE-team. When you install the KDE the Team offers, you will end up with certain applications set up in certain way. That is the default installation and KDE CAN change that! I think it's rather weird that you are claiming that KDE cannot change what apps ship with KDE and what apps do not. "If installations are that much your concern you need to join a distribution effort like Kubuntu and make your voice heard there." I don't care about Kubuntu. I don't use Kubuntu. But I do use KDE. Should I march around telling each and every distro what they should do? Wouldn't it be alot more effective talk about it here? I'm not interested in helping some specific distro, I'm interested in helping KDE. And besides: you are telling me that it doesn't matter what vanilla-KDE ships with, since it's up to the distros to tweak it to their liking, right? Then: WHY DO YOU CARE WHAT SHIPS WITH VANILLA-KDE? You (and others) tell me that it's not up to KDE what's installed, since distros decide that. 5 seconds later you are telling me that what ships with KDE must not be changed. I thought that it doesn't matter what ships with KDE, since distros decide what gets installed? You can't have it both ways! If you REALLY think that it's distros that decide what get installed, the surely you shouldn't care one bit if KDE decides to drop some apps, since it wouldn't affect the distros?? But since you do seem to care about it, then I guess you DO think that it does matter what ships with KDE?
Re: skim them posts - Dolio - 2005-03-31
Your definition of "vanilla KDE" appears to coincide with "KDE as it's put forth to distribution package managers, to be split up at their discretion." Suppose we make a new kde package and call it kdeextrastuff. Now we take kedit and noatun and all the apps you feel are redundant, and put them in that package. They're still part of KDE, though. They're in a KDE module, just a different one, and the distribution package managers are presented with it to split up and make packages as they see fit. What exactly have we gained other than moving several programs to a package that's less descriptive of what they do? You say you're not interested in helping a specific distribution, but KDE as a whole. How are you doing so? What you're proposing is just adding more work for the KDE developers by making them worry about packaging concerns, when that job is _supposed_ to be done by distributions. That's what the purpose of Kubuntu is. They take the monolithic packages and split them and choose defaults and make sure the trimmed down system they put together works well. It's exactly what you want, it's just called Kubuntu instead of 'Vanilla KDE Default Installation' or whatever other name someone might come up with. I don't know what you're talking about KDE 'dropping' applications. Each application has a set of people who work on it. Whether or not it gets classified in the KDE tarballs as 'graphics' or 'extrashit' won't make a difference; people will still work on whatever they want to. The bottom line is that KDE doesn't really "ship" to anyone but the distribution packagers and hardcore users who want to compile it by hand themselves. If your distribution doesn't allow you to install a sane KDE system (by whatever definition you choose), then move to one that does. There is certainly one out there.
Re: skim them posts - ac - 2005-03-31
> Suppose we make a new kde package and call it kdeextrastuff. Now we take kedit and noatun and all the apps you feel are redundant, and put them in that package. Impossible, the module structure is setup in a way to support developers (so they can quickly find related code) and selfmade users/packagers (so they don't have dependency issues if they don't care and want to compile everything anyway). Sorting the apps into modules following arbitrary personal use cases is just bound to confused both selfmade users and packagers, which would be a state far worse than what KDE is offering now. Looks like Janne and David should work on making kde-cvsbuild idiot proof instead ranting here.
Re: skim them posts - Janne - 2005-03-31
"What you're proposing is just adding more work for the KDE developers by making them worry about packaging concerns, when that job is _supposed_ to be done by distributions" no, no and no. The way KDE is packaged by the KDE-team would not have to change one bit from the way it is packaged today! As I have said already: The way KDE is packaged is NOT the problem here! I'm not suggesting that it's changed one bit! What the problem is, is what "A KDE release" consists of! And what is in the "KDE release" is precisily a concern of the KDE-team! And it consists of (among other things) lots of needless stuff. Anyone who claims that there is a real need for several almost identical text-editors is WAY off his rocker! And I find it rather surprising that the people who feel that there absolutely must be several text-editors in KDE are not also advocating inclusion of several filemanagers, several CD-burners, several web-browsers, several mail-clients etc. etc. Why not? Why are text-editors so important that we must have several of them whereas the other stuff is not as important? No, let me guess: "Because we have had several editors for a long time already!". So it's not a guestion as to what is really NEEDED, it's a question of conservatism. Things must not change. We must do things like we did them before. Change is bad. That sort of thinking leads to stagnation. And fact is that KDE does not really NEED several text-editors. If that is not the reason, then what is? "Different usage-patterns"? Then surely KDE should include Krusader as well, since it's targetted at "different usage-pattern" than Konqueror is? No? Why not? Also, we should include at least 3 additional CD-burners besides k3b. No? Why not? Sorry, "different usage-patterns" does not fly. I think that people are just afraid of change. No, I'm not telling that we should force developers to stop working on certain apps. Developers can work on any app they see fit. What I'm suggesting is that powers-at-be simply decide that "that certain app wont be part of next release of KDE".
Re: skim them posts - ac - 2005-03-31
So all you ask for is some GNOME style 'release member' application selection bureaucracy in KDE? This whole thread is really becoming hilarious...
Re: skim them posts - David - 2005-03-31
"So all you ask for is some GNOME style 'release member' application selection bureaucracy in KDE?" Nope, but the default install needs to be severely trimmed and some thought put into its set up. as it stands, it isn't usable. I'm afraid you're not thinking enough or reading what has been written and everything is passed off as 'whatever Gnome is doing'. "This whole thread is really becoming hilarious..." What's more hilarious is this flies 30,000 feet over your head.
Re: skim them posts - Dolio - 2005-03-31
"The way KDE is packaged is NOT the problem here! I'm not suggesting that it's changed one bit!" No, that's _all_ you're complaining about here. You're complaining about the fact that "the menu has too many applications in it." That is because---for reasons that escape many people here---you feel compelled to install _every_ application in an arbitrary set of monolithic tarballs, when in fact the developers don't require or expect you to install all of them. kedit and kate/kwrite aren't even in the same monolithic package! Kate/kwrite is in kdebase, and kedit is in kdeutils. Why is kedit in kdeutils? Because it's an extra utility that sticks to the major KDE release schedule. It's an extra utility that some people need. It's not even in the core desktop packages! Why are you installing every single little utility that sticks to the KDE release schedule? The monolithic tarballs are not intended to be installed completely, as-is. They're intended to be broken up and installed as necessary. Even if all redundant apps were moved to a package called kderedundant, by your logic, you would still have to install every redundant application in that package if you wanted even one! There is no logical reason for you to believe that, other than the fact that you believe that the tarballs that distro packagers get from KDE are mandated by some higher authority as "The One True Way to Install KDE." But, please, pick out one sentence in my entire argument, and use it to claim that you're not talking about what you actually are talking about. And then complain that no one listens to you, while you aren't listening to anyone but yourself.
Re: skim them posts - Janne - 2005-03-30
"So you're saying there is a default configuration that fits the needs of the power users and the beginners alike?" There is a difference between power-users and beginners: power-users are not afraid to change things. They want to take a look at under the hood and tweak things. Newbies do not want to do that. Or if they do, they don't want to make huge changes. Throwing them in the middle of "let's configure KDE"-maze would scare them. Do you agree with that? Following that logic, the default look 'n feel of KDE should be targetted towards new users. The options that are visible should be thought with new users in mind. Why? Because if the powerusers really want to change some advanced options, they can do so, even if they are hidden in some other tool. They are not afraid to make those changes. They can do it right now using Control Center, and they can do it if Control Center was stripped down, with more advanced settings moved elsewhere. Newbies are a different matter. Current Control Center intimidates them. All those options scare them. If there were less options to choose from, they would feel that they are really in control of things. They wouldn't be afraid in changing things, and they would know where to find everything. As their skills advance and they find themself in the situation where they need to change some advanced setting, they oould still do it. But at that time they would be more acquinted with the system, and they would have built up their confidence in using the system. But if we throw gazillion options at them right from the start, they will feel scared, and that does little in building up their confidence. Summary: powerusers can change even the more advanced settings if they want to. Newbies cannot. In fact, multitude of options will scare them away. Therefore the number of options (and buttons and apps and the like) should be targetted towards newbies. If powerusers find the default number of option lacking (although I dispute the claim that powerusers have a need to tweak everything all the time. They can also manage with less options/apps, if those options/apps are well though out in the first place), they can change them using the more advanced tools. Having smaller number of options (or apps) would NOT scare powerusers away, since they would still be available elsewhere. But having multitude of options thrown at the user could scare newbies away (like my wife. She uses KDE because I have been holding her hand, because I wrote detailed instructions on how to do various things, and because I haven't installed any other DE on the system. But if she had followed her initial reactions, she would have stopped using KDE long ago. And she still find it utterly confusing). Seriously: we expect newbies to master Control Center and the multitude of apps that ship with KDE. What I suggest is that we tailor the environment towards those newbies. Doing so even the powerusers would find the everyday tasks to be smoother since the environment wouldn't be so cluttered or confusing. And if they have a need for more advanced settings or some extra tools, they are NOT denied them. Why is it OK to demand that newbies master the compexity of the KDE, but it's not OK to expect powerusers to slightly change their habits of using the system (in changing some of the more advanced settings, or getting additional tools elsewhere)? Why are newbies (who cannot handle such things) thrown in the middle of multitude of options, whereas powerusers (who could master the system with their eyes closed, even if the configuration-options were changed) are handled with kid-gloves? the system is tailored towards powerusers who want to tweak things, but the newbies are left in the dust.
Re: skim them posts - David - 2005-03-29
"People who get confused because they see three text editors in KMenu" It may be a good idea for you to read why Matthias Ettrich actually started KDE in the first place. KDE was never intended for power users, or developers who persist in defending pointless and incomprehensible options so they can be "different to Windows) and get off on it.
Re: skim them posts - ac - 2005-03-29
> KDE was never intended for power users "[..] deliver high quality work that is suitable for use by beginners *and* computer experts alike[..]" (http://www.kde.org/whatiskde/kdemanifesto.php)
Re: skim them posts - David - 2005-03-29
""[..] deliver high quality work that is suitable for use by beginners *and* computer experts alike[..]" (http://www.kde.org/whatiskde/kdemanifesto.php)" Which it doesn't do, because it's not suitable for beginners only power users. If it was suitable for beginners, it would be suitable for power users as well. However, you'll then have people bitching that they want fifteen different text editors or umpteen different ways of configuring the same thing that creates a huge control centre. That's what we've got now. You may want to actually try reading an understanding the above statement in that manifesto.
Re: skim them posts - Janne - 2005-03-30
"People who get confused because they see three text editors in KMenu" So, that is your definition of "typical end-user"? If that is the case, then shouldn'tt there only be one editor? I mean, the term "typical end-user" points to majority of users (since they are "typical" users"), then it means that most users find KDE to be confusing in that regard. Solution: remove reduntant editors. Or are you saying that KDE is not aimed at "typical end-users"? Vanilla-KDE is meant for ALL users. you seem to think that vanilla-KDE is meant for some uber-leet powerusers, whereas "lusers" can use the distributors dumbed-down version. I don't want that. I want vanilla-KDE to be kick-ass on all levels. I want KDE (as shipped by the KDE-team) to be the shining beacon of kick-assness, I don't want to see distros holding KDE's hand so they could "get it right". "Well then the vanilla KDE can't be as bad as you try to make it." By default, there are flaws in KDE. And the distribution-versions are 98% identical. They might have different windecs, different styles and different icons and the like, but mostly they are the same. They haven't really tweaked KDE that much. So expecting distros to fix KDE simply does not work, since most of them don't do anything major to it! And when they do, people complain (Red Hat & Bluecurve, Xandros and their filemanager, Lindows with just about everything etc. etc.). So, instead of expecting distros to fix the problem (which they aren't going to do), why not fix the problem right at the source? that way ALL users would benefits, instead of just users of some particular distro. "Well where is your prove that many people complain about KDE's abundane of options?" That seems to be the nr.1 complaint KDE seems to receive (together with general clutterness, but they both tell about the same problem), from KDE-users and non-users alike. I'm sorry, but I haven't documented, counted and graphed them all, so I don't have any studies or diagrams to show you. "So you want a minimalistic KDE and I don't. So how should vanilla KDE solve this "conflict"?" "minimalistic" might be a wrong word, but I didn't have better one at hand. What would I like my KDE to be like? Like this: 1. A set of core utilities that get the job done, and tyey get the job done well. Yes, that means only one text-editor, and not full-featured editor and criplled editor. Instead of thinking "someone somewhere MIGHT use this particular app once or twice, so we better ship it alongside KDE", we should think "do we REALLY need this app? Is it really essential? Couldn't the same thing be done with this other app here? Or maybe we could merge this app with this other app?". This change would mean that KDE would be smaller, it would take less time to download/compile/install and it wouldn't be as cluttered with apps as it is. 2. Configuration-options that don't scare users away. I have seen new users try to configure KDE. I show them where they do it (Control Center), they open it... And their jaws drop. They are overwhelmed. They click around, look around... And close Control Center. There is simply too much stuff there! they don't know what to do with all of it! It scares them. Before you say "but those options empower the user to tweak the desktop to his exact liking!"... No. those options bury the relevant options under hundreds of other options. It doesn't empower the user, it drowns them. As folks at OpenUsability.org said about Kmail: "The first step is to reduce the amount of settings that a normal user is confronted with in the properties dialog. Issues that either require deep technical insight or that is relevant only in 1% of cases should be kept out of sight, but still accessible, or put to another place. Reducing (required) information to the relevant makes the user feel safer that he can control his Actions (because he only must set what he understands)." That could be applied elsewhere as well, besides Kmail. And that is what I have been advocating. Having multitude of options thrown at the user does not "empower" him, it confuses him and drowns him in clutter. No, I do not suggest that we remove features from KDE, if that's what you are thinking. When the user tweaks his desktop (or some app for that matter), he should feel that he's in command. But if there are loads of options, the user will feel that he not in command. That he can only scratch the surface. If he changes one setting, there are still 347 settings waiting for him, each with several different choices. With smaller set of default options, that would not happen. But if the user REALLY feels the need to change some exotic setting, he could still do it. I think GNOME-folks were on the right track when they introduced Gconf, but I think their implementation sucks. What would this KDE be in reality? It would be welcoming towards new users. It would look smooth and uncluttered. User would feel that they REALLY are in charge of their desktop (right now they aren't, due to multitude of options). The desktop would grow with the user. If he wants to change some less-used option, he would still have the tools to do so. But they wouldn't be thrown at him the moment he decides to change something. If the user thinks "I think I would like to change my icons...", KDE replies to him "Good idea! You can also add menubar on top, change launch-feedback, edit keyboard-shortcuts, configure file-sharing, tweak your taskbar, change your splashscreen, configure login-manager, change the spacing between icons in Konqueror...". At that point the user would say "enough!". that should not happen. The configuration-tools (Control Center) would contain only about 10-20% of what they contain today. They would be easily accessible and the user would know just about all of them. He wouldn't have to look around for the thing he wants to change. He would be in control. The other options would be available through different set of tools (no, not necessarily through Windows Registry-clone like in GNOME). In short: nothing would be taken away from the user, quite the contrary. By limiting the number of options that the user sees by default, we would empower the user to tweak the UI. If we drown him with options, we do not empower him, we drown him. We confuse him, and we will scare him away. Sorry for lengthy post.
Re: skim them posts - cm - 2005-03-30
> > "Well where is your prove that many people complain about KDE's > > abundane of options?" > That seems to be the nr.1 complaint KDE seems to receive (together with > general clutterness, but they both tell about the same problem), from > KDE-users and non-users alike. I'm sorry, but I haven't documented, counted > and graphed them all, so I don't have any studies or diagrams to show you. I got the impression that a *lot* of those complaints are from trolls (not the Norwegian tribe) and GNOME zealots trying to bash KDE. But I agree, simple and smart defaults and easier config dialogs would be nice. But at the same time the features should stay. The challenging question would then be how to make those apps and options accessible to the user, and how to introduce the cool apps and features to him (how can he learn about them if they're hidden or not installed). Could this be solved by - Starting off with a bare-bone KDE that contains --- apps only for the most common tasks (e.g. web browsing, mail) --- only one app per task --- as few apps as possible per mime type --- toolbars with sparse defaults --- easy config dialogs with advanced options removed or hidden behind "advanced" buttons - Offering an app that lets you configure the hidden settings (if any). Good descriptions of the options and a good search facility would be essential. - Offering a (better) toolbar and context menu configurator with a search facility and good description of the actions (currently I have a hard time guessing what many of the actions do when all the info I have is their label (the one they also appear in the menus with)) - Offering an app in a prominent spot that lets the user discover available apps that solve a certain problem (task-oriented) --- So you want to write a letter to Mom? -> koffice --- Need a more powerful text editor? -> kate --- Want to do web development? -> quanta --- Want to view binary data? -> khexedit --- Want to listen to mp3? -> noatun, kaboodle or amarok (with description and maybe a screenshot) - With that app, letting the user add the apps to the KDE menu (or replace them(!), in case there's already one configured for the task or mime type at hand) either by installing it from some package or just by adding a pre-built .desktop file into the menu structure (if the app is already on disk but not in the menu) ? This functionality would border on the one that has traditionally been provided by the distributors. The app would have to play nicely with the platform's package management. Another question would be how the user can be introduced to new or hidden KDE features like IOSlaves, web shortcuts, desktop-wide mouse gestures (KHotKeys), app plugins...
Re: skim them posts - Janne - 2005-03-30
"I got the impression that a *lot* of those complaints are from trolls (not the Norwegian tribe) and GNOME zealots trying to bash KDE." I think that most of them are not some zealots that are out to bash KDE. Besides, openusability have also made similar comments, and I don't think they are trolls or zealots. "But at the same time the features should stay." Absolutely! I do not advocate removal of features! But they shouldn't be thrown at the user either (same as with options). The app should have a defined purpose, and it fulfills that purpose perfectly by default. But it could also have more advanced features, that could be enabled if the user so desires. But by default, it should be a straighforward app intented for some well-defined purpose. But if the user is overwhelmed by in-your-face features, even the more simple tasks could e more awkward that they should be. Allow me to present an example from my KDE-installation: Konqueror. Konqueror is a multipurpose-app that has two functions at it's core: filemanagement and web-browsing. I defined those two as it's main uses. Then I started to think what is the common thing with those two: browsing. Konqueror is not a spatial filemanager (thank god!), it's a "filebrowser". And you browse the net as well. So I proceeded by removing all buttons from the toolbar that does not relate to that task. So I have only buttons that enable browsing on the toolbar (Back, Forward, Up, Reload, Home and Stop, not necessarily in that order). I also have the location-textbox so I can type in urls/filepaths. Sure, some of those buttons have limited use when doing filemanagement (like "stop"), but I dislike toolbars that change, so it was an acceptable compromise. Almost all of those buttons are needed in both of those tasks, whereas by default Konqueror has buttons that are not needed in all it's inteded tasks. I did that as an experiment in order to see would it limit my usage of Konqueror. It did not. In fact, it made it more pleasant to use, because the UI was so clean! You might think that that is an overly simplified approach to the issue, but it worked for me, and it worked very well! "Could this be solved by...." You are definitely on the right track there :). "Another question would be how the user can be introduced to new or hidden KDE features like IOSlaves, web shortcuts, desktop-wide mouse gestures (KHotKeys), app plugins..." We have that problem even today. Many times users are astonished when they find out some cool feature KDE has to offer. Hell, just few weeks ago I told few users about the audiocd-kioslave and how you can encode oggs/mp3's with it. They weren't exactly newbies and that feature has been in KDE since 2.0 (IIRC)! yet they didn't know about it! I think the key here is user-guides and documentation. And we need a way to actually make the users read them! Unfortunately I have no silver-bullet for this. Interactive guides? Or guides with demo's? Or maybe a comprehensive "Introduction to the K Desktop Environment"-section in kde.org/KDE? That way non-users could check what KDE actually can do. And when the user logs in to KDE for the first time, that presentation would automatically launch. It would contain "What's new"-section, explanation of the basic-concepts, introduction to the features and the like.
Well - Corbin - 2005-03-29
I just finished taking both surveys and for most questions related to GNOME I answered 'N/A', since I hadn't used that function in GNOME enough (most likely I've never done it once, or only a couple times) to be confident in answering the questions. I never do any searching in KDE so I answered N/A for all those questions (if I ever search for ANYTHING, I'm normally already in Konsole so I just use locate because I know where all _my_ stuff is). I probably need to try out GNOME, but funny timing since when I upgraded to FC3 most of the GNOME packages were uninstalled :-| (I had been trying to remove them a while ago to save disk space but had no clue what was required to keep GTK apps working). I don't really feel like installing GNOME in either Fedora or Gentoo... I'm probably going to install a GNOME based distro into VMware (or wait till Xen is supported better than just use that), except the last 2 distros I tried to install into VMware failed to install (SuSE and Ubuntu, my god theres so much spam for 'OMFG USE UBUNTU!!!!111!11oneoneoneone' on so many sites). Wow, a post about a survey ended up talking about ubuntu... I'm scared now... :-(
Re: Well - Rob - 2005-03-29
I wish someone would do something about the usability of the survey first.
Their site is not usable - Flavio - 2005-03-29
1. when starting the survey it opens a popup window! 2. the form is full of randomly positioned radio buttons. Looks more like a Seurat painting than a web form.
Re: Their site is not usable - KDE user tasklist - 2005-03-29
Their survey is not "readable" in 1152x864, since we cannot see B.23 and the "submit" button without putting the desktop in 1600x1200. The window is NOT resizable on my machine. While some people complain about the black on blue. Blue is not a bad choice since it's a 'calm' color, but the contrast could be 'enhanced'. White on black would be fine too, easier to print out. The survey only covers some of the common task, but does not cover performing 'actual work'. For instance, some of the following task needs LOTS of improvement too: - Modify regional settings - Modify network settings - Modify keyboard settings or layout or switch mode - Modify background - Modify desktop theme - Modify font settings - Search for files and folders (including file content) - Search for programs and Update KMenu with new entries - Adjust display properties (move from 1024x768 to 1600x1200 from kicker) - Adjust volume properties (Wave, CD, mixer) - Adjust time/date - Adjust firewall port settings (Deerfield) - Adjust per application firewall settings (Zone Alarm) - View recent programs - View recent documents - Clear recent programs/documents entry - Clear browser history - Clear offline content - Automatically wipe out after logoff (recent programs, history, cookies, offline content) - Create a shortcut - Modify a shortcut - Manage shortcuts - Modify/Organize the KMenu - Drag'n'drop KMenu items - Automatic layout of desktop icons - Organize desktop icons - Browsing files/web pages (Konqui, Firefox, Mozilla), - Email (KMail), - Creating/manipulating pictures (KolourPaint, Krita, Gimp, Photoshop), - Transferring files around (KIOslave nice, but not really usable/intuitive for newbies), - Taking screenshots, - Recording videos of running application (Flash/SVG?), - Text editing (Word/Programming), - Punching numbers (Excel/Calc), - Making text document/presentations (PowerPoint), - Playing music/videos (WinAmp, XMMS), - Manipulating sound configuration (Volume control), - Installing/upgrading software (Add/remove software), - Installing/upgrading device drivers (Add new hardware), - Burning a CD (K3B, Easy CD Creator) - Compressing a document (with or without specific settings), - Compiling a project (without typing ./configure && make && make install), - Recording speaker sounds into a MP3/OGG format (Advance MP3 Sound Recorder), - Creating a partition (Partition Magic), - Instant messaging (MSN Messanger/Trillian/Gaim), - Integrated webcam support, - Playing simple desktop games (cards), - Synchronizing with a repository (KPackage?, TortoiseCVS), - Configuring hardware configuration (Device Manager), - IRC clients (mIRC clone?), - Debugging a project (in trace mode like Visual Studio - DDD/gdb sux), - Sending a fax (BitWare, WinFAX), - HTML/XML editor (CuteHTML), - Database editors (phpMyAdmin, SQL explorer, MySQLGUI), - Charmap, - Creating schematics (PCB/Eagle), - Simulating electronic circuits, - Hexadecimal editor (HexEdit), - Publishing/maintaining a website (FrontPage), - Running an anti-virus (F-prot), - Updating KDE (AutoPackage?), - KDE apps automatically when updates are available, - Configuring a FAX/Modem/DSL connection, - Automatic Wireless network detection/connection, - Creating CD labels, - Creating sticky labels using the printer, - Integrated PDF/PS viewer (KPDF?), - Easy-to-use advanced configuration utilities, - Authentication tools. - GIF animation creator - GIF/JPEG/PNG optimizer - Creating 'installation wizard' (AutoPackage? Zero-Install?) - Easy drag'n'drop GUI form creator (VB6 or C++ Builder like) - Defragment the hard disk - Scandisk - FreeMem - Clean wizard for /tmp and temporary files - Clean wizard for removing unused apps. - Money management (MS Money, Quicken) - Map service (Mapquest, Google maps) - Income tax software Finally, playing Windows or 3D games (Wine/CrossOver, TransGaming), accessing Windows resources (see Xandros, Novell/Suse, Samba). That's mostly what Windows user do with their computers. Other task could be run via QEMU like games or income tax software. For instance, currently, we would need some custom apps from Novell, mixed with some apps from Xandros (Xandros File Manager, Xandros Networks Application, http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8161) and some stuff from Mandrake or Linspire or other distro to make a "possibly usable" desktop. That makes no sense at all. Anyway.
Re: Their site is not usable - Billy J. West Jr. - 2005-03-30
Most of what you listed has nothing to do with KDE, but rather Linux, or a specific distribution. I hope you don't expect every application available to be ported over to KDE style.
If you REALLY care about usability in KDE - annma - 2005-03-29
1) please subscribe to the KDE Usability mailing list https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-usability/ 2) choose a KDE application, back up your local settings and run it, write down all aspects you find unfriendly (even the smallest report is useful) 3) send that report to the usability mailing list That's an easy start for all users. If you know more about usability, you can help improve the KDE HIG and be more deeply involved. This is real contribution to the KDE project! This is real USABILITY work!
Re: If you REALLY care about usability in KDE - David - 2005-03-29
"1) please subscribe to the KDE Usability mailing list https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-usability/ 2) choose a KDE application, back up your local settings and run it, write down all aspects you find unfriendly (even the smallest report is useful) 3) send that report to the usability mailing list That's an easy start for all users. If you know more about usability, you can help improve the KDE HIG and be more deeply involved." Thanks annma. After a long and fruitless discussion on that very same KDE usability mailing list, getting my head down, learning about KDE and coding is exactly what I'm going to do over the next three or four weeks. Trying to argue your case can often be totally fruitless. If nobody wants usability thinking (as I'm getting the general impression of that - not from everyone mind you), everybody wants incomprehensible settings that non-programmers cannot use and nobody wants a default desktop that you can put infront of an ordinary non-programmer non-KDE experienced person (why KDE was started in the first place) then I'm just going to start small and do it myself. With the right technology, which KDE has, and the right default presentation to an end user it could blow anything else out there away. We can also get distributors doing less customisation and using more default KDE technology, which is something I think should be aimed for. As for the KDE HIG, I'm sceptical about most developers wanting anything to do with it but I'm willing to be hopeful.
Thanks to the KDE Community - HASE - 2005-03-29
We would like to thank everybody who took the survey and especially to the KDE project for posting a link to it in the Latest News section. We noted that, immediately after that, some individuals tried to mislead the others about the motives and the scientific basis of the survey. We prefer not to answer them because such discussions are not productive. The survey is being conducted by a research group at UMBC, HASE, and as noted before HASE has no vested interest in its research and findings. We think that any contribution is valuable. The survey is still open. We would like to encourage you to take it if you haven't done so. Thanks
Re: Thanks to the KDE Community - Aaron J. Seigo - 2005-03-29
while i respect your research efforts, i must say that i'm completely unclear as to your goals with this survey. it certainly isn't the sort of study that can lead to _any_ useful usability related conclusions whatsoever. it will be able to tell us what a self-selected audience thinks about their satisfactions levels with KDE, but from a usability perspective that's not particularly useful data. so assuming you haven't simply bungled this survey, i'd be interested in knowing what you really are trying to measure here or how you see it fitting into efforts to improve usability on the Open Source desktop.
Finding Files in KDE - Fast_Rizwaan - 2005-03-29
It is really very unsatisfactory to find my files, which are scattered at many places. If I want to find my file which has a substring "ate" 1. I have to add 2 extra characters '*' before and after ate to get that thing done. KFind must by default consider the search string to be substring with '*' before and after the string. 2. The Interface of Kfind is somewhat not useful. like the Results are displayed in 'list' format only, which is not a good integration with Konqueror which has multicolumn, icon, detailed view. 3. The KFind window in Konqueror simply takes too much window space. A KFind Sidbar Search panel would be great like in Windows. 4. And there is no Default key assigned in Konqueror to find files (like CTRL+F) as in Windows. Yes, a user can assign a shortcut to that action but that's too much of a work for thousands of users. Plz assign default 'Ctrl+F' to find files in konqueror.
Re: Finding Files in KDE - aleXXX - 2005-03-29
Known problem, it is being worked on. Alex
Re: Thanks to the KDE Community - Leo Spalteholz - 2005-03-29
I'm all for taking surveys, and I would have completed this one, had it been even reasonably easy to complete. The format is hard on the eyes and the colours are bad, but what got me to quit, was that you either did not proofread your own survey, or have a poor understanding of how to conduct one. Question 3 is the exact same as Question 6 in the tasks survey. I understand that you might want to check consistancy, but having identical questions half a page apart is just going to confuse people, and make them copy down their previous answers. If you can't be bothered to properly design a useful survey, I (and many others) can't be bothered to take it.
Re: Thanks to the KDE Community - annma - 2005-03-30
I expect the DOT to publish the results from these 'surveys' within 6 months. Surely a high quality and detailed report will be freely available for KDE to make use of your findings based on scientific expertise. Thanks in advance!
Re: Thanks to the KDE Community - Richard Dale - 2005-03-30
"..your findings based on scientific expertise" Reducing everything to numbers is not scientific. A scientific theory must be testable. In what way will the results from this survey be testable? I filled in the forms, but I haven't the faintest idea about the difference between 'I agree' and 'I strongly agree' over the issue of whether I use the right mouse button a lot. Usability is more like art, someone with a good sense of aesthetics must make judgements on what is best.
Re: Thanks to the KDE Community - Aaron J. Seigo - 2005-03-30
> Usability is more like art so was science when it was just "natural philosophy". and then some people Got It(tm) and start up this whole "scientific principle" thing. most usability is testable and it is verifiable. usability is not "art" (as opposed to "science"). esthetics can help create interfaces that are more approachable and enjoyable, but that's not what "usability" is about.
Re: Thanks to the KDE Community - Richard Dale - 2005-03-30
I'm thinking of Karl Popper's definition of science. If a theory isn't testable, then it isn't a theory and it isn't scientific. That's roughly what Isaac Newton invented - ie the scientific method. In what way is usability a testable scientific theory? Some users might hate the right mouse button, and want to remove all the options from it. Other users, such as myself like using the right mouse button. How do you make the compromise between users with different requirements? How could you ever have a 'theory of right mouse buttons'? The important thing is to have peer reviews about the options, so that the opinions of people who have been shown to have good judgement in the past will be given more say in any current discussions. For instance, people like annma and yourself. I don't think the results of this sort of survey should be given much weight. On the other hand, I believe (unscientifically) that peer review is much more scientific than this sort of survey by numbers, even if there is no underlying testable theory.
Re: Thanks to the KDE Community - Aaron J. Seigo - 2005-03-30
yes, from a usability perspective this survey is thoroughly useless and unscientific. that much we certainly agree on =) but you most certainly can measure usability related issues, such as "how do people tend to group these specific options?" and "how many levels of depth can an individual manage to deal with?" and "what sort of context menus are easy for people to use and which aren't?" there is no single answer to many of these questions that cover every user perfectly, but there are statistically significant answers especially when you target particular audiences. i personally consider usability to be like architecture: there are certainly esthetic principles involved, but there is also a lot of hard science in it too. these scientific principle range from studies of human psychology ("how do people prefer to or naturally occupy a space?") to physics ("how strong do these beams need to be?" or "what are the aerodynamics of a building 80 stories high?") to matters of practicality ("how many bathrooms are necessary on each floor to ensure they are convenient enough that people aren't inconvenienced beyond a certain point?") ...
Re: Thanks to the KDE Community - Richard Dale - 2005-03-30
Yes, I agree with you here, and think this survey is useless. I did a degree in 'Philosophy with Cognitive Studies' 30 years ago, and have been fascinated with this sort of thing ever since.
Re: Thanks to the KDE Community - Richard Dale - 2005-03-31
Thinking about this more, I think your comparison with usability and architecture is spot on. The trouble is that we make artificial distictions between art, science and technology/engineering. I'm not a painter, but from what I've read about how painters go about painting it does involve significant amounts of science/technology. For instance, Carravagio did very clever things with mirrors to implement his very realistic style of painting. Without state of the art technology for the time, he couldn't have done that. When a 'non-painter' just looks at a picture, they assume 'it just happened'. But a painter has to work hard thinking about the techniques needed to implement the painting to achieve that 'suspension of belief', and that mechanism must be carefully hidden, in order to communicate their message. A good user interface is one you don't actually notice. When I'm editing in vi, I'm aware of it the whole time, and I hate the thing. On the other hand with an editor like Kate, all I'm thinking of is the program code I'm working on. I don't care if I need a few more keystrokes to do something, as long as I can be thinking about my program at the same time, instead of whether mistyping 'J' instead of 'j' is suddenly going to ruin my edit.
Re: Thanks to the KDE Community - annma - 2005-03-30
hmm, are you challenging what I say or going in the same way? I don't follow you. For me a survey should be conducted with a scientific base, for example the fact that I can take it twice from the same machine is, hmm, non scientific. The fact that the user is not asked how many desktops he use/used is also non-scientific considering the first survey questions. The scientific expertise someone would expect is facts about people who took the survey. When you are polled in real life, you have to agree to be asked lately to certify you indeed were polled and in what conditions. Scientific did not apply to usability in general in my sentence but how from the questions usability facts are extracted. And your usability view, well, implies that we can have different usability behaviors just as we have different forms of art. Not quite what we want to achieve in KDE. Anyway, as I stressed, real usability work is done in KDE and that is what matters.