[Desktop_architects] Printing dialog and GNOME

[Celeste (seele) Paul]

Christopher Blizzard wrote:
> First, I want to throw out the word "Usability."  I hate it.  Hate hate
> hate.  Because it describes something that doesn't exist in the real
> world.  Why?  Because as you have discovered it's entirely subjective.

youre right.  usability is not a science, it (along with experience
design, interaction design, information architecture, etc..) is a craft of
other sciences psychology (with a splash of sociology), library and
information science, and comptuer science (hey, that sounds like HCI!).

> That is, it means different things to different people.  For me it means
> something that doesn't get in my way, is visually elegant and easy to
> teach others to use.  For you it means something that you can configure
> to your specific needs, probably based on how you've done things in the
> past and makes you the most productive.  Two different people, two
> different targets and for one it's "usable" and for the other one it's a
> shitpile.  That's why I think that we need to chuck that word right out
> the window.

uh.. thats an awful reason why to throw out a recognizable word out the
window.  you seem to be mixing usability up with other elements in
designing for humans including interaction design, visual design, and
experience design.  all of these things are intertwined and effect each
other, and all of these things touch on spots others touch on.  a lot of
usability engineers are also interaction designers and so on, but one
doesnt necessarily have to do with the other.  'usability' has been known
to be notoriously 'ugly', and its with workign with the other UI designers
of the system to make something visually pleasing and improve the overall
user experience.

> Instead, let's use the word "design" because it describes not the end
> result - what you and I feel about the experience - but instead it

sure, but now were talking about experience design which includes
usability, interaction, etc.. but its semantics. just dont get mad when
someone uses all these buzz words to describe the same thing.

> process a lot of things happen.  These include choosing which users we
> want to target, how an interface should be presented to a user based on
> who they are, what their experience should be, what a system is capable
> of doing and other things.  Each of that adds up to software that's a

these are usability engineering requirements..

> And this brings us to one of the fundamental tenants of design: that you
> have to make tradeoffs based on the users who you are targeting.  Havoc

this is experience design..

> eluded in other email to this, but largely in the context of a strategy
> for the desktop.  For people like you this means that sometimes stuff
> gets removed that you care about.  But for someone like me, who cares
> about getting the default experience right for a large base of users,
> this is a tradeoff that I'm willing to make because it increases the

aye, i agree.

> pool of available users.  Even if it means that someone like yourself
> can't stand to use it without making changes to the way you work.

this is the most difficult part of integrating this user experience design
in to OSS software.  if a developer doesnt agree with the changes, there
is no higher power to say 'just do it, damnit'.  part of the problem is
with where the advice is coming from, a lot of developers still dont trust
usability engineers (or experience/interaction designers.. whoever),
partly because of conflicting advice and partly because they dont
understand the 'why'.

> Which is the lead up to the next statement logical question: if not you,
> then who are we targeting?  I think the answer there is reasonably well

ive asked this question multiple times, we just dont know. for a few lucky
applications they had some nice user research done for them and are better
off for it. if anyone has some market user research, please send it my
way.

> 1. Shit should just work.

yes, but a lot of this is more technical than design.  eg: plug n play and
drivers. (although a working system *is* part of the experience..)

> 2. Shit should be easy to figure the fuck out.

this is subjective.  if youre trying to admin DB server, shit can be a
little more complicated because the task is a little more complicated than
managing folder permissions or users.

> This is the hardest one to solve because "easy to figure out" means
> different things to different people.  Hence, death to usability, hello
> design!  This means finding that delicate balance between how people

again, i disagree.. youre cruicifying the word because its largely misused.

> expect things to work (why doesn't middle click maximize my window?) and

user expectations are part of user research and creating usability and
interaction design goals

> how they might learn something new (hence the "Computer" icon on my

usability

> the hardest part of design, really, requiring some kind of balancing act
> between good guesses, solid research and an eye to history.

experience design with a combination of good interaction, usability,
functionality and graphical appearance.

but yes.  its all about zen.

> 3. This club is not all-inclusive.
>
> Yep, someone is going to get pissed off if you design something and make
> a decision about how something is going to work.  This isn't easy and is
> the cause for email like this, but if we're not pissing someone off
> we're not making someone else happy.

you have to target a specific user or else no one will be happy.  if you
do it right, the people who are complaining wont be the majority who use
your product (although the minority always seem to be the loudest
complainers..)

---
Celeste Lyn Paul
www.obso1337.org
seele at obso1337.org