[Desktop_architects] Printing dialog and GNOME

[Miller, Marc]

One of the things we discussed at the Desktop Architects is an effort to "focus on our strengths!"  One of our strengths is that customizability and control.  So leave the option there to change your mouse button behavior or modify advanced printing preferences.  

Making the interface easy to manage does mean showing fewer customizable options... AT A TIME, not limiting customer choice.  Other operating systems put the more technical preferences under an "Advanced" button or tab.  If "MS-like" is truly the goal here, take that page out of their book.


-----Original Message-----
From: desktop_architects-bounces at lists.osdl.org
[mailto:desktop_architects-bounces at lists.osdl.org]On Behalf Of Timothy
D. Witham
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 9:13 AM
To: Jeff Waugh
Cc: desktop_architects at lists.osdl.org
Subject: Re: [Desktop_architects] Printing dialog and GNOME


On Wed, 2005-12-14 at 03:40 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> <quote who="Timothy D. Witham">
> 
> > Then you are missing the point.  One thing about enterprises is that they
> > really want to be able to configure systems the way that they want to use
> > them.
> 
> We provide for that through a centralised configuration system, which can
> impose defaults or mandatory settings as per the administrator's purpose.
> Despite the focus of the discussion on "removing preferences" (people keep
> saying "removing functionality", but that's not really what is going on),
> there are obviously still a huge number of things that may be configured by
> users and administrators, should they need to.
> 
    First I would like make sure that everybody understands I'm not against
simple, easy to use default configurations.  What I object to is the removal
of functionality for power users.   Hide the things used by the power users
until you are smart enough to find them.  That's a good thing.  But when
you take away the ability of a power/long term user to customize for
productivity then you are forcing users to remain at a low level of productivity.

> > It seems that the Gnome/Evolution path has become "We are just like the MS
> > interface."
> 
> This is incorrect. As mentioned at the DTL meeting, a Siemens study from a
> few years back demonstrated that duplicated interfaces result in decreased
> user acceptance and increased training costs; while your software may look
> the same, it won't behave or feel the same. You can see this more obviously
> in the rest of GNOME than Evolution, for historical reasons (which I hope
> will change soon).
> 
    I can't recall the exact wording but when I've complained about changes
and removal of functionality in the past I've been told that it was done to
make it more MS like.  OK, fine I understand that but give us an out.


> > I think that we had the discussion that a strategy of just following the
> > incumbent and doing what they do isn't compelling for anybody to move to
> > Linux but that seems to be the strategy here.
> 
> Note that it was the Fedora and Ubuntu representatives (obviously focusing
> on GNOME) who said exactly the same thing of OpenOffice.org. :-) We are not
> going to win by matching the competition, we're only going to win by beating
> them.
> 
    Yes and what applies to OpenOffice applies to all of the other applications.

> > > I wouldn't jump from "removing functionality" to "failure."  I think
> > > that it's safe to say that maybe we've not made it right for you, but
> > > that's a design decision, not a failure.
> >
> > Sorry but that is the definition of failure - making something less useful
> > is failure. I used to recommend Evolution to corporations looking for a
> > Linux mail client. I no longer do that.
> 
> In what way is Evolution "less useful"? I'm not sure how you made the leap
> from Havoc's point above to this, particularly as Havoc wasn't stating his
> support for "removing functionality", just his disagreement with its
> connection to "failure".
> 
> - Jeff

   OK, a few off the top of my head.

	1) Decision to make "Normal" the default for formatting of emal.
	    Great idea if you are HTML but if you are sending text this
	    put you in the situation where you have to go back through
	    every message and format the sections so you don't get
	    stupid run on lines for the people using text mailers.

	    OK, understood the AOL - MS mail client user is mainly HTML
	   and Normal instead of Preformat is the right decision.  But
	   for text mail Preformat is the right decision or if it isn't please
	   let me chose.  Right now other than going in and manually
	   editing a configuration file I have an email that forces me
	   to manually format each message I send.

	2) The navigation bars on the left side.
	    It used to be that these were a very different format but
	    I could set it up to have just all of the "file structure"  but
	    that changed and it is now fixed with the four buttons on
	    the bottom that move between mail, calendars, contacts
	    and tasks. 
	
	    I manage a lot of folders and that loss of column spacing
            now means that I have to scroll instead of just being able
	    to drop it into the folder.  And the scroll functionality isn't
	    that fast so what used to take less than a second can
	    now take up to 10 seconds.

	3) Removal of the open new window as different functionality.
	    There used to be in the file menu a way of opening in
	    a new window the above functionality.  That got removed
	    because of the addition of the buttons on the bottom left.
	
	    The problem is that for the different functionality the usage
	    models are different.  Most folks only use one calendar but
	    there is no way of turning off the calendar navigation on
	    the left side.   I used to be able to resize and configure
	    my calendar window so that when launched it was setup
	    for the way I used it.  Now I get the same window as I
	    launched it from.  

 	    OK, for a novice user having the windows appear as different
	    sizes might not be a good idea but why, why, why remove that
	    option from a power user.

   These are my top three.

	  Most MS applications have the ability to configure the menu, task
	  bars to add in functionality for the power users that is all that I'm
	  asking for.  That the application can be configured to the way
	  I work instead of me having to be configured to the way the application
	  works.

Tim
 
> 
-- 
Timothy D. Witham - Chief Technology Officer - wookie at osdl.org
Open Source Development Lab Inc - A non-profit corporation
12725 SW Millikan Way - Suite 400 - Beaverton OR, 97005
(503)-906-1911  (office)    (503)-702-2871   (cell)
(503)-626-2436  (fax)