| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Gnome cultureGnome culturePosted Aug 19, 2005 7:24 UTC (Fri) by Arker (guest, #14205)In reply to: Gnome culture by GreyWizard Parent article: GTK+ 2.8.0 released
The glaring problem with this assumption is that one set of key-bindings is just as good as another for your 'unsophisticated user' - which means that this rationale has no logical connection to the decisions we're discussing here!
A new user can learn *nix keybindings just as easily as Windows keybindings. Think about this.
So why does GNOME seek to indoctrinate new *nix users with Windows keybindings? What possible motivation is there?
The only real effect of this on the new user is that he'll find it easier to migrate to Windows after learning GNOME, instead of to another *nix based system.
Frankly I think that's doing your unsophisticated userbase a huge disservice, in addition to making the programs incredibly annoying to the more sophisticated user.
There's nothing at all wrong with aiming to make a system that is accessible to the unsophisticated, but there is something VERY wrong with making a system that is designed to keep the unsophisticated from becoming sophisticated. And I think that, in a nutshell, is the reason why GTK and GNOME are drawing so much ire on themselves from within the community. It's a betrayal of GNU, it's a betrayal of the poor souls forced to work with these programs, it's a betrayal of the people that supported and promoted GNOME from the beginning, it's a betrayal of the noble ideals that gave birth to the project.
(Log in to post comments)
Gnome culture Posted Aug 19, 2005 16:44 UTC (Fri) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link] A new user can learn *nix keybindings just as easily as Windows keybindings. Think about this. That's true only of people who have never used computers. Of those who have, around 98% are familiar with Windows or Macintosh. People who don't worship at the Temple of the One True Keybinding have no trouble making users who migrate from the remaining 2% who grew up with Unix tweak a configuration setting so that the rest can have what they're expecting by default. Think about this. There's nothing at all wrong with aiming to make a system that is accessible to the unsophisticated, but there is something VERY wrong with making a system that is designed to keep the unsophisticated from becoming sophisticated. Nonsense. Nothing about a default key binding choice prevents an unsophisticated user from learning about alternatives. In particular the configuration settings that enable Emacs key bindings are well documented. Since GNOME is free software nothing prevents distribution maintainers from changing the default either. It's a betrayal of GNU, it's a betrayal of the poor souls forced to work with these programs, it's a betrayal of the people that supported and promoted GNOME from the beginning, it's a betrayal of the noble ideals that gave birth to the project. Whoa! Dude, take a deep breath and come back to earth. GNOME was founded by Miguel de Icaza, a man known for saying things like "Unix sucks" and admiring Microsoft products. GNU is a project to create a free software complete operating system, not to preach keybindings to the heathen masses. Nobody is betrayed by trying to make the platform more inviting to people migrating from popular proprietary alternatives. Put down the holy water and get a sense of proporition.
Gnome culture Posted Aug 19, 2005 20:28 UTC (Fri) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link] The vast majority of people on this planet have yet to use a computer. The ones that migrate from Windows should have no more difficulty tweaking a configuration setting the other way than we would have tweaking it to support their mode of operation instead so why shouldn't the default be *nix again? - BUT the fact is, as you would know if you'd read through the comments, the problem is deeper than that. The alternate keybindings DON'T WORK properly, and bug reports filed on the subject are consistently marked 'notabug' and those filing them dismissed in an insulting manner and told they don't matter.
Keybindings are not something you can just change back and forth at will without problems, as you imply. These are matters of muscle-memory, for those of us that do serious work with our machines at any rate. It's not comparable to a 'theme' change, but more comparable to switching from QWERTY to Dvorak keymaps. Once one set of commands are mapped to muscle memory and efficient in use, it is definately non-trivial to adjust to an entirely different set of commands, which means that most people are going to want to stay with whatever they originally learned. So yes, providing alternate key-bindings (that work, unlike the situation with GTK) for different users is necessary. But that also means the choice of defaults is a very important one. That means that, above and beyond the problems that make it impossible to actually implement proper keybindings with recent versions of GTK, the choice of default is also an issue. Deliberately setting the defaults to a windows style, making it relatively easy for new computer users trained on default GNOME-GTK apps to transition to windows, and relatively difficult for them to transition to traditional *nix apps, is a big deal.
This is not a matter of 'holy water' or religious conviction, simply of paying attention and pointing out the effect of the decision.
Gnome culture Posted Aug 19, 2005 21:37 UTC (Fri) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link] The vast majority of people on this planet have yet to use a computer. Indeed. That is a point I made earlier. This is an important group, but since they can as easily adopt one keybinding as another they are unlikely to care which one is chosen. GNOME developers are right to choose with migrating users in mind. The ones that migrate from Windows should have no more difficulty tweaking a configuration setting the other way than we would have tweaking it to support their mode of operation instead so why shouldn't the default be *nix again? Wrong wrong wrong. People who use Windows are on average less computer savvy than people who use Unix, so they are likely to have more difficulty discovering how to alter their settings. They are also far more numerous so it would be reasonable to make their likely preference the default even if they were equally able to change. Finally, many are still using Windows so making it easier for them to migrate is more useful than genuflecting to cranky people who obsess about compatibility with ancient non-standards. BUT the fact is, as you would know if you'd read through the comments, the problem is deeper than that. The alternate keybindings DON'T WORK properly, and bug reports filed on the subject are consistently marked 'notabug' and those filing them dismissed in an insulting manner and told they don't matter. As a matter of fact, I did read the rest of the thread. No one is really saying the bindings don't work -- at least no one who isn't simply wrong. I happen to know they work because I use them. People are actually complainging about things like accidentally closing a window due to typing Ctrl-W when focus is outside a text box for applications like Firefox. The default GNOME key binding for closing a Window seems to be ALT-F4, but many individual applications seem to hard-code Ctrl-W. That's probably worth fixing, but the default should still be what Windows users expect. I also read the bug report Zarathustra mentioned. This was clearly closed because he didn't bother to explain why the Emacs keybindings didn't satisfy his needs. When the developers decide to make Windows keybindings the default that is not a bug by defenition. That doesn't change just because some surly user says otherwise. Considering the attitude I've seen from you and your fellow travelers on this thread, I'll give the GNOME developers the benefit of the doubt where courtesy is concerned. Deliberately setting the defaults to a windows style, making it relatively easy for new computer users trained on default GNOME-GTK apps to transition to windows, and relatively difficult for them to transition to traditional *nix apps, is a big deal. No, actually it's not. A mass exhodus from GNOME to Windows seems more than a little silly. The userbase of GNOME is small compared to that of Windows, which comes installed on almost all new computers. Anyway, deliberately making it more difficult for users who want to leave GNOME for Windows to switch is not exactly admirable. I'd rather focus on getting people to GNOME in the first place and apparently so would the GNOME developers. Nothing about this is likely to change until you convince people like me that what you have to say amounts to something more than an ignorant rant about a sacred nothing.
Gnome culture Posted Aug 20, 2005 1:08 UTC (Sat) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link] Indeed. That is a point I made earlier. Not at all. It's a point you're still not grokking, it seems. This is an important group, but since they can as easily adopt one keybinding as another they are unlikely to care which one is chosen. Exactly. GNOME developers are right to choose with migrating users in mind. And right there is where you are completely missing the point. Well, this particular subpoint. Listen carefully. Setting windows keybindings as the default gives absolutely no benefit to new users. Unless you consider making it easier for them to migrate to windows in the future a benefit. We've already agreed, the difficulty for them is the same regardless of which is chosen, so it makes no sense whatsoever for you to turn around, after agreeing on that, and claim that the choice of windows as the default benefits them! People who use Windows are on average less computer savvy than people who use Unix, so they are likely to have more difficulty discovering how to alter their settings. I think that's an insulting and not necessarily true assumption, but regardless, if it weren't for this recently developed fetish with the GNOME people for hiding configuration options, that wouldn't be an issue anyway. Last time I set up KDE, the first thing that came up was a dialogue asking if you wanted the look and feel set more like Windows, Mac, or Unix. Based on the answer to that, it configured a number of things, which you were then free to reconfigure to your hearts content through an easy little gui control panel. This is an approach that shows respect for the user. Gnome used to show that kind of respect. It was less polished then, for sure, but it was making an obvious and intentional effort to respect the users right to use their computers in the way that they chose - for instance it worked with any Gnome compliant window manager, there was a default but you could go to the control panel and change it at will. There was a real effort to expose as much control as possible to the user over their workspace, and to make those configurations easy to understand and easy to change. By comparison, KDE seemed to be taking the approach Gnome has now, of trying to force-feed the user a very particular setup that the developers had decided was what was best. That, along with the licensing issues, lead me to be a big fan and promoter of Gnome in the beginning. But now, they've switched places. KDE fixed their licensing problems, while GTK plays around with the LGPL far outside of its intended use. KDE gives the user a great deal of respect, while Gnome is busily doing the opposite, eliminating configuration options left and right, and hiding the ones they don't eliminate in the most obtuse place they can find. No one is really saying the bindings don't work -- at least no one who isn't simply wrong. What an incredibly arrogant reply! Are you a gnome dev? You certainly have the attitude down. If the toolkit doesn't have any provision for binding a key-press to delete from the cursor backwards to the beginning of the line, which it appears not to, that's a serious issue. I think anyone that does much text processing should realise that instantly. When this same toolkit did have such a command, bound to the standard keystroke, in an earlier version, but this was deliberately removed so that it is no longer possible to reconfigure the original functionality, and people that try resolve the issue are simply insulted and told to go away, it makes one wonder. And this does seem to be what's happened. Hardcoded applications are a different sort of problem with a different sort of solution, but deliberately removing functionality simply because it doesn't exist in windows, and then attacking users that need it for daring to complain, is an entirely different sort of problem.
Gnome culture Posted Aug 20, 2005 17:31 UTC (Sat) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link] Setting windows keybindings as the default gives absolutely no benefit to new users. I never claimed it did. However it does new users no harm (no, making it easier for them to transition to Windows does not count as harm) and it does have a benefit for users migrating from Windows. Go back and read what I actually wrote instead of pretending I wrote what you would prefer to attack. I think that's an insulting and not necessarily true assumption, [...] No, actually it's not insulting. You only think otherwise because you're a snob who regards less sophisticated computer users as somehow inferior people. Get over it. As for whether it's true, explain your evidence to the contrary if you have any and stop making spurious claims if you don't. Since you seem keen to twist things I'll remind you that I didn't say all Windows users were less sophisticated, only that the average Windows user is less sophisticated than the average Unix user. [...] if it weren't for this recently developed fetish with the GNOME people for hiding configuration options, that wouldn't be an issue anyway. Wrong twice over. Whether configuration options are "hidden" has no bearing on what the default should be. Even if there were a menu option in the control panel for changing the keybindings less sophisticated users will have a harder time finding it than sophisticated users. Furthermore, from the perspective of a sophisticated user the configuration options are not hidden. A moment with Google or the GNOME documentation is enough to find detailed information about how to change. As for why GNOME developers prefer to minimize the number of visible configuration options, go read a competent book on human computer interaction. People who take a rigorous approach to usability have proven that more options make it harder for unfamiliar users to discover the one they want. Reducing clutter is the kind of thing those who actually respect users do, even if it is sometimes painful. In comparison your ignorance and bellyaching is just not impressive. When this same toolkit did have such a command, bound to the standard keystroke, in an earlier version, but this was deliberately removed so that it is no longer possible to reconfigure the original functionality, and people that try resolve the issue are simply insulted and told to go away, it makes one wonder. And this does seem to be what's happened. That's your side of the story. What I see is a group of smart developers working to create software that satisfies the needs of as many users as possible and for the most part doing an excellent job. (An LWN editorial this week expresses that same sentiment.) When a minor feature a handful of arrogant people care about got lost in the shuffle those people started declaring GNOME developer decisions irrational and the project itself worthless and doomed. I see no reason why those developers shouldn't focus their efforts on the needs of larger and more appreciative groups. Maybe you can resolve your problem by learning some manners and patiently explaining your problem clearly and completely to the relevant maintainers. Until then you're just wasting your time.
Gnome culture Posted Aug 20, 2005 21:55 UTC (Sat) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link] Whatever else you may think you've accomplished here, you've certainly proven that you are not competent to be lecturing anyone else on manners. Your inability to address my concerns without resorting to repeated, gratuitous insults is duly noted.
I would bet heavily that I'm far more familiar with the field of human interface design than you are, just based on what you've said here. Configuration controls with large numbers of options arranged in no particular order are a bad thing, yes. The proper solution, however, is not removing all control from the user, but simply better designed mechanisms for accessing them. It's not at all an impossible task, it simply requires a bit of knowledge and thought. I'd be happy to teach you the basics of interface design, but clearly you're not willing to learn, and this is not the place.
One of the many troubles with GNOME appears to be that they've read a book on interface design, only half understood it, and then rushed out to redesign their entire system based on a bit of half-digested, half-understood knowledge. So instead of, for instance, engineering an interface that presents their options in a manner that is easy to understand and navigate, they simply start chopping off options until so little is left the poorly designed interface is nonetheless usable.
At any rate, there's no point in continuing this discussion, you are clearly only here to throw insults and try to provoke an angry response, one which I am not going to give you.
Gnome culture Posted Aug 21, 2005 2:58 UTC (Sun) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link] I would bet heavily that I'm far more familiar with the field of human interface design than you are, just based on what you've said here. You would lose. Read the online essays of Jakob Neilson or any other usability expert on this subject. More to the point, read what the team of professional usability experts Sun Microsystems hired to work specifically on GNOME had to say about the very decisions you lament. Proclaiming yourself a master of usability is not enough to dispell the work of people who actually study user behavior. Configuration controls with large numbers of options arranged in no particular order are a bad thing, yes. The proper solution, however, is not removing all control from the user, but simply better designed mechanisms for accessing them. Gconf is exactly such a mechanism. No control is removed from the user, but it is placed where experts can easily find it and not where it is likely to confuse those unfamiliar with the system. The problem here is your own ignorance, not GNOME. At any rate, there's no point in continuing this discussion, you are clearly only here to throw insults and try to provoke an angry response, one which I am not going to give you. Let's not forget that you and your band of merry men have been posting angry rants on this thread well before I arrived, which is why an innocuous release notice for GTK+ turned into a pointless flamewar in the first place. To quote the editorial in the most recent LWN edition: "[GNOME] has made major progress in the creation of a powerful Linux desktop, and the whole thing is free software. There are limits to how much one should complain about that." Who do you suppose that was addressed to? You are right about one thing though: there is no point in continuing this discussion. Clearly nothing resembling sense will penetrate your foggy thought process and you're not going to change my mind about software I use every day by whining that GNOME developers aren't bending over backwards to address your self-righteous complaints. Go fill every thread that mentions GTK+ or GNOME with bile if you must but don't be surprised when people with more sense tell you where that really belongs.
Gnome culture Posted Aug 21, 2005 4:09 UTC (Sun) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link] I've been reading usability studies and studying interface design principles for years. I've even done some minor work on the subject myself. I wonder if you can say the same? Or is your expertise limited to making unfounded assumptions and slinging insults? Of course, there is a fundamental philosophical difference between your SUN experts and myself, but to imply from the fact that I don't agree with them that I'm ignorant of their work isn't very smart, or logical. As to your characterisation of how the thread got so long, it doesn't seem horribly accurate to me. The posts of the fanboys intent on flaming anyone that dares to actually want their *nix machine to behave like a *nix machine, claiming that 'no one that is sane' would possibly want that, and therefore that those of us that do don't matter and should just go die (paraphrasing a bit, but it certainly seems accurate to the sentiments expressed) surely are at the least as much to blame as anything I have posted. And yours are some of the worst of the lot.
Gnome culture Posted Aug 22, 2005 19:18 UTC (Mon) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link] I wonder if you can say the same? As a matter of fact I can. But this is irrelevant because I supported my position with the work of experts who have studied the relevant problem rigorously. The best you can do for a response is to mutter that you still don't agree? Sorry, that doesn't cut it. This is a question of science, not philosophy. Support your dissent with evidence or pipe down. [...] fanboys [...] Here's a tip: when complaining about mean words that are hurting your widdew feewings, it's best to avoid casually peppering the very same sentence with insults. [...] anyone that dares to actually want their *nix machine to behave like a *nix machine [...] Exactly where in the Single Unix Specification are keyboard bindings for text entry fields in graphical widgets specified? Oh, wait, I remember: nowhere. Kindly cease trying to dress up your preferences with a veneer of standardization. [...] claiming that 'no one that is sane' would possibly want that, and therefore that those of us that do don't matter and should just go die (paraphrasing a bit, but it certainly seems accurate to the sentiments expressed) [...] What you've done is misrepresent, not paraphrase, those sentiments. No one has said or even implied that anyone should die. As I've noted before your sense of proprotion is sorely lacking. Some of the posts against your position have been inappropriate and the one that claimed "nobody that is sane gives a crap" is a good example. In fact, the person who posted that later appologized. (I'm trying to imagine you showing such civility... nope, can't picture it.) None of that excuses hijacking a simple informative article about a GTK+ release for the purpose of attacking the character of developers who are too busy doing useful work to defend their decisions on every existing internet forum. Nor does it excuse churlish and false statements such as "GNOME doesn't respect users!", "Making Windows keybindings the default keeps unsophisticated users from becoming sophisticated!" and "GNOME eliminates features just because Windows doesn't have them!" Clearly GNOME and GTK+ lack something you want. Clearly you are unable to engage the developers in a productive dialogue unlike innumerable people in a similar position who file bug reports that get fixed. Clearly you are determined to lay this at the feet of the GNOME and GTK+ developers. That's your problem. To me it's obvious that all those users who do get results know something about humility and interacting with others that you simply haven't grasped.
|
|
||||||||||||