GIMP - Linux

This is a discussion on GIMP - Linux ; why would a development group, make an interface, that every graphics user that will use linux, has to re-learn. that is totally nuts, frustrating, and will drive users away....

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 148

Thread: GIMP

  1. GIMP

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

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

  2. Re: GIMP

    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

  3. Re: GIMP

    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



  4. Re: GIMP

    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

  5. Re: GIMP

    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


  6. krita (was: GIMP)

    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

  7. Re: GIMP

    "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 |

  8. Re: GIMP

    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" |

  9. Re: GIMP

    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




  10. Re: GIMP

    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

  11. Re: GIMP

    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

  12. Re: krita

    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/

  13. Re: GIMP

    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



  14. Re: GIMP

    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

  15. Re: GIMP

    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.

    >
    >
    >> 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.


  16. Re: GIMP

    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)


    --
    Rick

  17. Re: GIMP

    "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.



  18. Re: GIMP

    On 2008-08-08, 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.


    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

  19. Re: GIMP

    "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 K÷hlmann
    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, │The Carm Group: Designing GUIs for
    Usability▓ 1996.
    R. Chimera and B. Shneiderman, │User Interface Consistency:
    An Evaluation of Original and Revised Versions for a
    Videodisk Library▓ 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


  20. Re: GIMP

    "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)


+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 ... LastLast