On 2008-08-07, Psyc Geek (TAB) wrote:
> why would a development group, make an interface,
> that every graphics user that will use linux, has to
> re-learn.

Mebbe they don't think artists are total morons...

....or they just had their own requirements.

>
> that is totally nuts, frustrating, and will drive
> users away.


--


The average IT manager is a less effective mentor than a
Spongebob Squarepants cartoon.


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

On Aug 7, 7:05*pm, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> On 2008-08-07, Psyc Geek (TAB) wrote:
>
> > why would a development group, make an interface,
> > that every graphics user that will use linux, has to
> > re-learn.
>
> Mebbe they don't think artists are total morons...

Artists aren't total morons. But the people who came up with this
idiot UI are.


> ...or they just had their own requirements.

Good for them. Just because some idiot wants to "do it their way"
doesn't mean that it's a good idea. There's something to be said for
adhering to norms and defacto standards. If someone wants to throw
everything away and design a entirely new UI from scratch then it
better be damn good in order to pull it off. The UI for GIMP sucks and
while nobody knows what the hell they were thinking.




>
>
>
> > that is totally nuts, frustrating, and will drive
> > users away.
>
> --
>
> * * * * The average IT manager is a less effective mentor than a
> Spongebob Squarepants cartoon.
>
> *Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
> ---------------------------------------------------------- * * *
> * * * * * * * *http://www.usenet.com

On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 16:55:07 -0700, Psyc Geek (TAB) wrote:

> why would a development group, make an interface, that every graphics
> user that will use linux, has to re-learn.

What development group did that?

>
> that is totally nuts, frustrating, and will drive users away.





--
Rick

JEDIDIAH wrote:
> Psyc Geek (TAB) wrote:
>
>> why would a development group, make an interface, that every graphics
>> user that will use linux, has to re-learn.
>
> Mebbe they don't think artists are total morons .... or they just had
> their own requirements.
>
>> that is totally nuts, frustrating, and will drive users away.

Herein is the "herd mentally", that all interfaces must be equal to
Brand Name interfaces (Microsoft, Adobe, Ulead, Corel, etc.) or they are
invalid.

Each designer of an application chooses how he or she organises the menus.
It does not make any difference whether it is Microsoft Windows, Sun
Solaris Unix, Linux/Unix Gnome, KDE, XFC, etc.

There are key reasons for the layouts and certain personalities will tend
to prefer one over the other.

Oops! There is the problem! Choice! Why we can't have that! It is too
democratic! Too free! Moo! Moo! Moo! Baah! Baah! Baah!

--
HPT

High Plains Thumper wrote:
>
> Herein is the "herd mentally", that all interfaces must be equal
> to Brand Name interfaces (Microsoft, Adobe, Ulead, Corel, etc.)
> or they are invalid.

Brand Name interfaces are Expensive.

> Each designer of an application chooses how he or she organises
> the menus. It does not make any difference whether it is
> Microsoft Windows, Sun Solaris Unix, Linux/Unix Gnome, KDE, XFC,
> etc.
>
> There are key reasons for the layouts and certain personalities
> will tend to prefer one over the other.
>
> Oops! There is the problem! Choice! Why we can't have that!
> It is too democratic! Too free! Moo! Moo! Moo! Baah! Baah!
> Baah!

Choice. Speaking of which...

http://www.koffice.org/krita/

What do you think of Krita? I like KDE. I've been thinking about
giving Kubuntu PPC a try on an external hard disk.

--
"Don't forget to register to vote" - Frank Zappa
http://sillyblog.net/wp

"Psyc Geek (TAB)" wrote:
> why would a development group, make an interface,
> that every graphics user that will use linux, has to
> re-learn.

Why don't you ask microsoft?
That's exactly what they did with office 2007.

> that is totally nuts, frustrating, and will drive
> users away.

That's office 2007 alright.
--
| spike1@freenet.co.uk | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste! |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and |
| in | get out the puncture repair kit!" |
| Computer Science | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf |

High Plains Thumper wrote:
> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> Psyc Geek (TAB) wrote:
>>
>>> why would a development group, make an interface, that every graphics
>>> user that will use linux, has to re-learn.
>>
>> Mebbe they don't think artists are total morons .... or they just had
>> their own requirements.
>>
>>> that is totally nuts, frustrating, and will drive users away.
>
> Herein is the "herd mentally", that all interfaces must be equal to
> Brand Name interfaces (Microsoft, Adobe, Ulead, Corel, etc.) or they are
> invalid.

Don't forget that when some developers DO attempt to adopt a similar
interface to a commercial product, linux STOLE it.

That's their other tune, They flipflop (in their words) between the two
whenever the opportunity arises. "That interface is crap! It should be more
like photoshop" "That interface is a ripoff of Microsoft Office!"

--
| spike1@freenet.co.uk | |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | "ARSE! GERLS!! DRINK! DRINK! DRINK!!!" |
| in | "THAT WOULD BE AN ECUMENICAL MATTER!...FECK!!!! |
| Computer Science | - Father Jack in "Father Ted" |

Andrew Halliwell wrote:

>> that is totally nuts, frustrating, and will drive
>> users away.
>
> That's office 2007 alright.


Poor ignoramus spike. Supposedly has a college degree but can't read.

"Spurred by sales of Microsoft's Office 2007, the software market hit its
highest level since 1999, according to a report released Wednesday by the
NPD Group."
http://www.news.com/8301-13860_3-9861625-56.html


Office 2007: responsible for 2/3 of the growth in 2007 PC software sales:
http://www.microsoft-watch.com/conte...fice_2007.html

Andrew Halliwell writes:

> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>> Psyc Geek (TAB) wrote:
>>>
>>>> why would a development group, make an interface, that every graphics
>>>> user that will use linux, has to re-learn.
>>>
>>> Mebbe they don't think artists are total morons .... or they just had
>>> their own requirements.
>>>
>>>> that is totally nuts, frustrating, and will drive users away.
>>
>> Herein is the "herd mentally", that all interfaces must be equal to
>> Brand Name interfaces (Microsoft, Adobe, Ulead, Corel, etc.) or they are
>> invalid.
>
> Don't forget that when some developers DO attempt to adopt a similar
> interface to a commercial product, linux STOLE it.
>
> That's their other tune, They flipflop (in their words) between the two
> whenever the opportunity arises. "That interface is crap! It should be more
> like photoshop" "That interface is a ripoff of Microsoft Office!"

Actually the later is generally more of the kind "they copied that and
that" in response to "Linux and OSS innovate". I cant think of any OSS
GUI app that has shown any real innovation with the possible exception
of Amarok whose interface is FUBAR as a result of their Krazee playlist
handling. Dont get me wrong the underlying display architecture is great
(when it works with new video cards that is) but most of the OSS apps
are poor compared to rigorously controlled commercial offerings which
must shine or their developers go bust.

--
"Hey, who needs mp3, wma, acc when we can have ogg?"
-- "Moshe Goldfarb." in comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 09:40:34 -0400, DFS wrote:

> Andrew Halliwell wrote:
>
>>> that is totally nuts, frustrating, and will drive users away.
>>
>> That's office 2007 alright.
>
>
> Poor ignoramus spike. Supposedly has a college degree but can't read.
>
> "Spurred by sales of Microsoft's Office 2007, the software market hit
> its highest level since 1999, according to a report released Wednesday
> by the NPD Group."
> http://www.news.com/8301-13860_3-9861625-56.html
>
>
> Office 2007: responsible for 2/3 of the growth in 2007 PC software
> sales:
> http://www.microsoft-watch.com/conte..._applications/
the_year_of_office_2007.html

You might want to tell that to all the people who refuse to move "up" to
Office 2007.



--
Rick

On 08 Aug 2008 05:00:30 GMT, Thomas Armagost wrote:


> What do you think of Krita? I like KDE. I've been thinking about
> giving Kubuntu PPC a try on an external hard disk.

Krita?
Isn't that what they call roaches in the ghetto?


--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

On Aug 7, 8:24*pm, High Plains Thumper
wrote:
> JEDIDIAH wrote:
> > Psyc Geek (TAB) wrote:
>
> >> why would a development group, make an interface, that every graphics
> >> user that will use linux, has to re-learn.
>
> > Mebbe they don't think artists are total morons .... or they just had
> > their own requirements.
>
> >> that is totally nuts, frustrating, and will drive users away.
>
> Herein is the "herd mentally", that all interfaces must be equal to
> Brand Name interfaces (Microsoft, Adobe, Ulead, Corel, etc.) or they are
> invalid.

No Rafael. It's called "consistency" which is not mutually exclusive
from choice. Using linux mentalitiy... every city and town in the
world would have traffic lights with it's own "choice" of colors. In
one town "green" means stop and somewhere else "blue" means go and in
another town "purple" means caution. You idiots call it choice -
normal people call it confusion.


> Each designer of an application chooses how he or she organises the menus..
> It does not make any difference whether it is Microsoft Windows, Sun
> Solaris Unix, Linux/Unix Gnome, KDE, XFC, etc.

Again Wendy... idiots like you justify this mess by calling it choice.
Like it or not each app designer does not get to choose how menus are
orgainzed. The "File" menu contains options like Open, Save and Print.
Just because some moronic idiot wants to put these choices under
"Tools" or "Help" or the "Edit" menu doesn't justify that it's a good
idea because somehow it's choice. A poorly designed menu isn't
"choice" - it's stupidity.


> There are key reasons for the layouts and certain personalities will tend
> to prefer one over the other.

The primary key reason for standard meny layouts and keyboard
shortcuts is consistency. Something that linux lacks badly.


> Oops! *There is the problem! *Choice! *Why we can't have that! *It is too
> democratic! *Too free! *Moo! *Moo! *Moo! *Baah! *Baah! *Baah!

It's not choice if it's utter stupidity. Piss-poor menu and UI design
is not the result of choice. It's the result of non-standard UI design
which makes the application unorganized mess.


> --
> HPT

On 2008-08-08, Greenhorn wrote:
> On Aug 7, 8:24*pm, High Plains Thumper
> wrote:
>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> > Psyc Geek (TAB) wrote:
>>
>> >> why would a development group, make an interface, that every graphics
>> >> user that will use linux, has to re-learn.
>>
>> > Mebbe they don't think artists are total morons .... or they just had
>> > their own requirements.
>>
>> >> that is totally nuts, frustrating, and will drive users away.
>>
>> Herein is the "herd mentally", that all interfaces must be equal to
>> Brand Name interfaces (Microsoft, Adobe, Ulead, Corel, etc.) or they are
>> invalid.
>
> No Rafael. It's called "consistency" which is not mutually exclusive

Sure it is.

If you enforce "consistency" then you end up eliminating WinAmp.

You end up eliminating Office2007 too oddly enough.

> from choice. Using linux mentalitiy... every city and town in the
> world would have traffic lights with it's own "choice" of colors. In

....which would be like the "OK" button meaning cancel in some programs.

Changing the meaning of the native written language isn't going on here.

This is a false strawman of Titanic proportions.

[deletia]

Time to whine about specific examples rather than trying to make
vague claims about undefined principles...

--

Metallica is not worth the ruination of someone |||
who has pirated their music / | \


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Greenhorn writes:

> On Aug 7, 8:24Â*pm, High Plains Thumper
> wrote:
>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> > Psyc Geek (TAB) wrote:
>>
>> >> why would a development group, make an interface, that every graphics
>> >> user that will use linux, has to re-learn.
>>
>> > Mebbe they don't think artists are total morons .... or they just had
>> > their own requirements.
>>
>> >> that is totally nuts, frustrating, and will drive users away.
>>
>> Herein is the "herd mentally", that all interfaces must be equal to
>> Brand Name interfaces (Microsoft, Adobe, Ulead, Corel, etc.) or they are
>> invalid.
>
> No Rafael. It's called "consistency" which is not mutually exclusive
> from choice. Using linux mentalitiy... every city and town in the
> world would have traffic lights with it's own "choice" of colors. In
> one town "green" means stop and somewhere else "blue" means go and in
> another town "purple" means caution. You idiots call it choice -
> normal people call it confusion.
>
>
>> Each designer of an application chooses how he or she organises the menus.
>> It does not make any difference whether it is Microsoft Windows, Sun
>> Solaris Unix, Linux/Unix Gnome, KDE, XFC, etc.
>
> Again Wendy... idiots like you justify this mess by calling it choice.
> Like it or not each app designer does not get to choose how menus are
> orgainzed. The "File" menu contains options like Open, Save and Print.
> Just because some moronic idiot wants to put these choices under
> "Tools" or "Help" or the "Edit" menu doesn't justify that it's a good
> idea because somehow it's choice. A poorly designed menu isn't
> "choice" - it's stupidity.

And therein lies the problem with talking to idiots like High Plains
Hypocrite and Rick here in COLA. They simply *ARE* that stupid. They
really think that moving such stuff is really about "choice". It make me
cringe to think either of them have anything whatsoever to do with SW
design, implementation and maintenance.

>
>
>> There are key reasons for the layouts and certain personalities will tend
>> to prefer one over the other.
>
> The primary key reason for standard meny layouts and keyboard
> shortcuts is consistency. Something that linux lacks badly.

Even Rick agrees with that. See Snit's posts for verbatim quotes from
Rick backing up the point that a fragmented UI really is not good from
the user's perspective.

>
>
>> Oops! Â*There is the problem! Â*Choice! Â*Why we can't have that! Â*It is too
>> democratic! Â*Too free! Â*Moo! Â*Moo! Â*Moo! Â*Baah! Â*Baah! Â*Baah!
>
> It's not choice if it's utter stupidity. Piss-poor menu and UI design
> is not the result of choice. It's the result of non-standard UI design
> which makes the application unorganized mess.

High Plains Hypocrite really is too dumb to see it.

On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 18:18:23 +0200, Hadron wrote:

> Greenhorn writes:
>
>> On Aug 7, 8:24Â*pm, High Plains Thumper
>> wrote:
>>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>> > Psyc Geek (TAB) wrote:
>>>
>>> >> why would a development group, make an interface, that every
>>> >> graphics user that will use linux, has to re-learn.
>>>
>>> > Mebbe they don't think artists are total morons .... or they just
>>> > had their own requirements.
>>>
>>> >> that is totally nuts, frustrating, and will drive users away.
>>>
>>> Herein is the "herd mentally", that all interfaces must be equal to
>>> Brand Name interfaces (Microsoft, Adobe, Ulead, Corel, etc.) or they
>>> are invalid.
>>
>> No Rafael. It's called "consistency" which is not mutually exclusive
>> from choice. Using linux mentalitiy... every city and town in the world
>> would have traffic lights with it's own "choice" of colors. In one town
>> "green" means stop and somewhere else "blue" means go and in another
>> town "purple" means caution. You idiots call it choice - normal people
>> call it confusion.
>>
>>
>>> Each designer of an application chooses how he or she organises the
>>> menus. It does not make any difference whether it is Microsoft
>>> Windows, Sun Solaris Unix, Linux/Unix Gnome, KDE, XFC, etc.
>>
>> Again Wendy... idiots like you justify this mess by calling it choice.
>> Like it or not each app designer does not get to choose how menus are
>> orgainzed. The "File" menu contains options like Open, Save and Print.
>> Just because some moronic idiot wants to put these choices under
>> "Tools" or "Help" or the "Edit" menu doesn't justify that it's a good
>> idea because somehow it's choice. A poorly designed menu isn't "choice"
>> - it's stupidity.
>
> And therein lies the problem with talking to idiots like High Plains
> Hypocrite and Rick here in COLA. They simply *ARE* that stupid. They
> really think that moving such stuff is really about "choice". It make me
> cringe to think either of them have anything whatsoever to do with SW
> design, implementation and maintenance.
>
>
>>
>>> There are key reasons for the layouts and certain personalities will
>>> tend to prefer one over the other.
>>
>> The primary key reason for standard meny layouts and keyboard shortcuts
>> is consistency. Something that linux lacks badly.
>
> Even Rick agrees with that. See Snit's posts for verbatim quotes from
> Rick backing up the point that a fragmented UI really is not good from
> the user's perspective.

... so be sure to use only one if you can't handle the inconsistencies.

(snip)


--
Rick

"Rick" wrote in message
news:x5CdnR1z07oy7gHVnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@supernews.co m
> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 18:18:23 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>
>> Greenhorn writes:
>>
>>> On Aug 7, 8:24 pm, High Plains Thumper
>>> wrote:
>>>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>>> Psyc Geek (TAB) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> why would a development group, make an interface, that every
>>>>>> graphics user that will use linux, has to re-learn.
>>>>
>>>>> Mebbe they don't think artists are total morons .... or they just
>>>>> had their own requirements.
>>>>
>>>>>> that is totally nuts, frustrating, and will drive users away.
>>>>
>>>> Herein is the "herd mentally", that all interfaces must be equal to
>>>> Brand Name interfaces (Microsoft, Adobe, Ulead, Corel, etc.) or
>>>> they are invalid.
>>>
>>> No Rafael. It's called "consistency" which is not mutually exclusive
>>> from choice. Using linux mentalitiy... every city and town in the
>>> world would have traffic lights with it's own "choice" of colors.
>>> In one town "green" means stop and somewhere else "blue" means go
>>> and in another town "purple" means caution. You idiots call it
>>> choice - normal people call it confusion.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Each designer of an application chooses how he or she organises the
>>>> menus. It does not make any difference whether it is Microsoft
>>>> Windows, Sun Solaris Unix, Linux/Unix Gnome, KDE, XFC, etc.
>>>
>>> Again Wendy... idiots like you justify this mess by calling it
>>> choice. Like it or not each app designer does not get to choose how
>>> menus are orgainzed. The "File" menu contains options like Open,
>>> Save and Print. Just because some moronic idiot wants to put these
>>> choices under "Tools" or "Help" or the "Edit" menu doesn't justify
>>> that it's a good idea because somehow it's choice. A poorly
>>> designed menu isn't "choice" - it's stupidity.
>>
>> And therein lies the problem with talking to idiots like High Plains
>> Hypocrite and Rick here in COLA. They simply *ARE* that stupid. They
>> really think that moving such stuff is really about "choice". It
>> make me cringe to think either of them have anything whatsoever to
>> do with SW design, implementation and maintenance.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> There are key reasons for the layouts and certain personalities
>>>> will tend to prefer one over the other.
>>>
>>> The primary key reason for standard meny layouts and keyboard
>>> shortcuts is consistency. Something that linux lacks badly.
>>
>> Even Rick agrees with that. See Snit's posts for verbatim quotes from
>> Rick backing up the point that a fragmented UI really is not good
>> from the user's perspective.
>
> .. so be sure to use only one if you can't handle the inconsistencies.
>
> (snip)

But which one? PCLOS? Ubuntu? You lie about them all asshole so why
should I trust you that any are good.

On 2008-08-08, Hadron wrote:
> Greenhorn writes:
>
>> On Aug 7, 8:24Â*pm, High Plains Thumper
>> wrote:
>>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>> > Psyc Geek (TAB) wrote:
>>>
>>> >> why would a development group, make an interface, that every graphics
>>> >> user that will use linux, has to re-learn.
>>>
>>> > Mebbe they don't think artists are total morons .... or they just had
>>> > their own requirements.
>>>
>>> >> that is totally nuts, frustrating, and will drive users away.
>>>
>>> Herein is the "herd mentally", that all interfaces must be equal to
>>> Brand Name interfaces (Microsoft, Adobe, Ulead, Corel, etc.) or they are
>>> invalid.
>>>> No Rafael. It's called "consistency" which is not mutually exclusive
>> from choice. Using linux mentalitiy... every city and town in the
>> world would have traffic lights with it's own "choice" of colors. In
>> one town "green" means stop and somewhere else "blue" means go and in
>> another town "purple" means caution. You idiots call it choice -
>> normal people call it confusion.
>>
>>
>>> Each designer of an application chooses how he or she organises the menus.
>>> It does not make any difference whether it is Microsoft Windows, Sun
>>> Solaris Unix, Linux/Unix Gnome, KDE, XFC, etc.
>>
>> Again Wendy... idiots like you justify this mess by calling it choice.
>> Like it or not each app designer does not get to choose how menus are
>> orgainzed. The "File" menu contains options like Open, Save and Print.
>> Just because some moronic idiot wants to put these choices under
>> "Tools" or "Help" or the "Edit" menu doesn't justify that it's a good
>> idea because somehow it's choice. A poorly designed menu isn't
>> "choice" - it's stupidity.
>
> And therein lies the problem with talking to idiots like High Plains
> Hypocrite and Rick here in COLA. They simply *ARE* that stupid. They
> really think that moving such stuff is really about "choice". It make me
> cringe to think either of them have anything whatsoever to do with SW
> design, implementation and maintenance.

If you had any talent in "design, implementation or maintenance of SW"
then it wouldn't be a problem. It's easy enough to abstract things away
from the nitty gritty details of the implementation that the end user sees.
This is pretty much the first thing you get taught in University.

Now, something like this that is worth being treated like some form
of heresy if you violate it is clearly something worth enforcing at the
OS/API level rather than depending on every random developer on the planet
to 'get it right' every time they fire up Visual Studio.

Has anyone... any of these worshipers of "consistency" ever bothered
to do that?

This is like how Windows expects every app to do it's own proper desktop
multitrheading rather than having the window manager do it. The end result
is that every windows app infact will tend to freeze and make a nuissance
of itself as it tries to take over part of your screen real estate.

If you really truely care about it then you don't leave it to chance.

>
>>
>>
>>> There are key reasons for the layouts and certain personalities will tend
>>> to prefer one over the other.
>>
>> The primary key reason for standard meny layouts and keyboard
>> shortcuts is consistency. Something that linux lacks badly.
>
> Even Rick agrees with that. See Snit's posts for verbatim quotes from
> Rick backing up the point that a fragmented UI really is not good from
> the user's perspective.

That is a really very vague idea that doesn't acknowledge the fact
that different tools could be different for a reason. Although I'm not
sure anyone has come up with any meaningful metric for "fragmented"
anyways.

[deletia]

A Mac app that comes over from that platform unaltered (because
they actually have decent designers over there and the design might
actually serve some productive purpose) to Windows is automatically
going to create "fracturing". Based on all of your Lemming rhetoric
this would be a "bad thing". It doesn't matter what the merit of
the particular application is.

--

Metallica is not worth the ruination of someone |||
who has pirated their music / | \


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

"Hadron" stated in post
g7hrki$pnd$1@registered.motzarella.org on 8/8/08 9:18 AM:

....
>> Again Wendy... idiots like you justify this mess by calling it choice.
>> Like it or not each app designer does not get to choose how menus are
>> orgainzed. The "File" menu contains options like Open, Save and Print.
>> Just because some moronic idiot wants to put these choices under
>> "Tools" or "Help" or the "Edit" menu doesn't justify that it's a good
>> idea because somehow it's choice. A poorly designed menu isn't
>> "choice" - it's stupidity.
>
> And therein lies the problem with talking to idiots like High Plains
> Hypocrite and Rick here in COLA. They simply *ARE* that stupid. They
> really think that moving such stuff is really about "choice". It make me
> cringe to think either of them have anything whatsoever to do with SW
> design, implementation and maintenance.

If someone wants the choice of an inconsistent and fractured user experience
then I am all for them having the ability to screw themselves over that way.
Rick has stated very well why doing so is a bad idea (not best for the user,
leads to more errors, etc.).

What I do not get is why Rick and others in COLA are *against* the clearly
better choice to have a unified and consistent user experience *on a
distro*. They read that and start spewing BS about "one true UI" as though
having it where distros *could* do things better would make it impossible
for them to have their poorly designed interfaces if they wanted one.

For people who claim to be so pro-choice they surely are against any choice
that is clearly "better for the user" than the ones they advocate for.

>>> There are key reasons for the layouts and certain personalities will tend
>>> to prefer one over the other.
>>
>> The primary key reason for standard meny layouts and keyboard
>> shortcuts is consistency. Something that linux lacks badly.
>
> Even Rick agrees with that. See Snit's posts for verbatim quotes from
> Rick backing up the point that a fragmented UI really is not good from
> the user's perspective.

Rick:
I never said a consistent interface wasn't important.

Rick:
And yes, I do know that it is better for the user if the button
are all in the same places in comparable dialog boxes, and that
common menu items are the same.

Rick:
Actually my view is not so different from usability experts.
It does enhance usability to have menus and controls in the
same places across applications. The more uniform or
consistent that is, the better for the user. I have said this
many times before. I am not coming around to your point of
view.

Rick:
I have repeatedly said I agree that that consistency across
an interface lowers errors and increases efficiency of use.

Rick says quoting him on those things is not a lie... but to agree with him
is.

>>> Oops! *There is the problem! *Choice! *Why we can't have that! *It is too
>>> democratic! *Too free! *Moo! *Moo! *Moo! *Baah! *Baah! *Baah!
>>
>> It's not choice if it's utter stupidity. Piss-poor menu and UI design
>> is not the result of choice. It's the result of non-standard UI design
>> which makes the application unorganized mess.
>
> High Plains Hypocrite really is too dumb to see it.
>
Anyone with a inkling of computer experience understands why a fractured
user experience is a bad thing. There is a lot of agreement on this in the
real world:

Snit RonB
Hadron Rick
Tim Smith Gregory Shearman
KDE docs Peter Köhlmann
Gnome docs JEDIDIAH
OpenOffice docs El Tux
Firefox docs vs. chrisv
Screen shots 7
Videos
Tim Berners-Lee
Peer Reviewed Studies [1]
Shuttleworth, Mark
UI Experts [2]
Common sense
Bloggers

[1] Including, but not limited to the ones referenced here:
Carole A George, "Usability testing and design of a
library website: an iterative approach" 2005
Cheul Rhee,* et. al.,*"Web interface consistency in
e-learning.*Online Information Review" Social
Science Module*database" 2006
John W Satzinger,* Lorne Olfman "User Interface Consistency
Across End-User Applications: The Effects on Mental
Models" 1998
R. Chimera, ³The Carm Group: Designing GUIs for
Usability² 1996.
R. Chimera and B. Shneiderman, ³User Interface Consistency:
An Evaluation of Original and Revised Versions for a
Videodisk Library² 1993

[2] Including, but not limited to:
Richard Chimera of the Human-Computer Interaction
Laboratory at the University of Maryland and ASU, etc.


Jakob Nielsen:

Rick Oppedisano, published in Usabilities Professionals Association
http://snipurl.com/oppedisano

Henry P. Ledgard in The Case Against User Interface Consistency

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_User_Access


--
"In order to discover who you are, first learn who everybody else is. You're
what's left." - Skip Hansen

"JEDIDIAH" stated in post
slrng9p1m2.5cf.jedi@nomad.mishnet on 8/8/08 10:47 AM:

>> Even Rick agrees with that. See Snit's posts for verbatim quotes from
>> Rick backing up the point that a fragmented UI really is not good from
>> the user's perspective.
>
> That is a really very vague idea that doesn't acknowledge the fact
> that different tools could be different for a reason. Although I'm not
> sure anyone has come up with any meaningful metric for "fragmented"
> anyways.

I am not against tools having different UIs for a *user* based reason. As
far as what I mean by "fragmented" it is an inconsistent user experience
based on non-user based reasons... such as the examples I have shown about
PCLOS:

Poorly done menus


Poorly done dialogs:


Poorly done and Inconsistent dialogs:


Mouse pointers that do not do as they say:


Even Ubuntu has its share of quirks - though it is clearly done much better:



And the more recent one showing copy and paste oddities and weird text
behavior on selection:



It is not like such examples are hard to find - or are not obvious. How
could anyone who has used Linux and either Windows or OS X not have such
things be apparent to them - especially someone who considers themselves
knowledgeable about computers?


--
I think we [the folks who make Linux desktops] don't yet deliver a good
enough user experience.
- Mark Shuttleworth (founded Canonical Ltd. / Ubuntu Linux)