The debate about user interfaces (PCLinuxOnline) [LWN.net]

PCLinuxOnline looks at the debate about how configurable a user interface should be. "A big debate these days seems to be focused on how configurable the Linux desktop should be. KDE has always taken the approach that users will have different preferences on how they like to work so the UI should be as flexible and configurable as possible. Gnome 2 has taken the direction that "less-is-more" and that the configurability in Linux desktops, including Gnome 1.x, was clutter and confusing to the end-user. This has resulted in some pundits calling for KDE to remove some of it's configurability." Thanks to Ashwin

(Log in to post comments)

Configurability and less-is-more

Posted Feb 22, 2003 19:27 UTC (Sat) by arcticwolf (guest, #8341) [Link]

First of all, "less-is-more" in the sense of having a lean, fast and efficient desktop that doesn't needlessly gobble up cpu time / memory / storage space is a good idea, but I really don't think that removing configurability is the right way to go here. It's a bad idea in general really to not allow the user to configure his desktop according to his tastes and need, and certainly configurability is not the primary source of bloat either. This particularly holds true for Gnome IMO - "Nautilus" and "Evolution" have become synonyms for "bloat" for me personally and others I know ever since just we watched Nautilus consome 2.4G of memory (yes, 2400 megabytes) without even actually doing anything, and, in the process, bringing the machine this was on (a Sun E250 with 2 gigs of main memory running Solaris 8) down to its knees swapping, rendering it completely unusable for several minutes. Certainly this was not caused by too many configuration options being available.

This aside, however, the claim that configurability is "confusing to the end-user" is wrong - it may be true that Gnome 1.x's configuration was confusing, but the proper way to fix that is not to remove this configurability altogether.

Quite the opposite is true, in fact. Configurability definitely is a *good* thing, but like just about anything else about project as large as Gnome or KDE, it requires some skill to do right. I can only hope that KDE and the other alternatives to Gnome (it's not as if these were the only desktop environments, after all) will not follow this.

Configurability and less-is-more

Posted Feb 22, 2003 21:35 UTC (Sat) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link]

Configurability definitely is a *good* thing, but like just about anything else about project as large as Gnome or KDE, it requires some skill to do right.

This is still open for debate IMO. Two examples are the Gnome 2 panel and the Metacity window manager. I happen to rather like the Gnome 2 panel, much better than the Gnome 1 version, and much of this has to do with the reduced number of configuration options. On the other hand I find Metacity frustrating to use because it lacks some features that I have grown accustomed to, despite the fact that overall it's a better window manager than Sawfish.

A third example is FVWM, which takes configurability to an extreme, and is still being actively maintained. It's main problem is that it's cursed with a bizarre default configuration, both in appearance and function, and most people don't have the patience to straighten it out. The FVWM project could probably double the use of FVWM in just a few months by doing something about this.

I have read Havoc's paper a couple of times and Mosfet's once, and overall I think Mosfet does not make a compelling case for his position. I don't agree with some of the choices that Havoc made with Metacity, but I think overall he has done a better of job of articulating his position. I get the impression that Mosfet does not really understand, or has at least not carefully considered, some of the issues that Havoc raises.

Configurability and less-is-more

Posted Feb 23, 2003 20:44 UTC (Sun) by csawtell (guest, #986) [Link]

I have just set up a computer with Linux and KDE for a friend who is
quite severely visually disabled -- he has macular degeneration.
The fact that we can set the fonts and icon sizes, to 20 and large respectively, so that he can see
and read them is the reason that we installed Linux with KDE.
Please don't listen to the pundits because they are spouting mindless stupidity.

Configurability and less-is-more

Posted Feb 23, 2003 22:48 UTC (Sun) by hp (subscriber, #5220) [Link]

GNOME also supports large text and icons as it should. (And it supports low-contrast and high-contrast icons, screen readers, magnifiers, and many other accessibility features.)

One thing my year-old essay says if you read it is:

An argument that "preferences are good" or "preferences are bad" is clearly unproductive. Only an argument that draws a line between when a preference should exist, and when it should not, is a meaningful argument that impacts real-world developer decisions.

Reducing the discussion to "preferences categorically good" vs. "preferences always bad" is pretty silly.

Now I know why I chose KDE.. Customization

Posted Feb 24, 2003 1:10 UTC (Mon) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link]

Reading the article and the comments (both here and there), I finally was able to put
a finger on why I originally chose KDE over Gnome when I switched from
proprietary-ware: For the life of me, altho Gnome does have a color chooser, I
couldn't figure out how to invoke it to change a single color on the UI widgets.
Themes, yes, but individual color, no. That was with Gnome 1 vs KDE 2. I'd hoped
Gnome/GTK2 would have addressed it, and individual color picks would now be
available, but I never found them, and with this article, it doesn't look like I ever will,
by deliberate policy.

Then there's keybinding/accels. At least Gnome one allowed changing them fairly
easily, but while KDE 3.x advanced the cause there, Gnome (or GTK) 2 reversed it,
and now requires adding a line to the gtkrc-2.0 file to allow keybinding (accels)
changes. While gnome/gtk one apps could depend on the system framework to save
those changes once made, gtk2 apparently leaves it up to the developer to save any
keyboard accels user preferences. Compare that to KDE, which with 3.x, not only
has both per app (with it's own first level settings menu entry) and global keybinding
available, but now new customizable app launch keybindings as well, and it's obvious
KDE is headed in one direction, mine, while Gnome/gtk is headed elsewhere.

Those are just the two biggest examples.

NOW I understand why I like KDE more than Gnome! KDE is simply more functional,
for the way I work, and it looks to stay that way, as long as Gnome is running away
from customization, while KDE embraces it. If I wanted lack of customizibility, I
would have stayed with proprietary-ware. Rather, I moved to software libre, in part,
because the user DOES have the ultimate power, if not thru simple dialogs or
(hopefully documented) config files (as compared to undocumented for the most part
obscure registry settings, for instance), then thru (ideally documented) source code.

Now I know why I chose KDE.. Customization

Posted Feb 24, 2003 1:17 UTC (Mon) by hp (subscriber, #5220) [Link]

A color chooser control panel is definitely on the GNOME feature plan,
just hasn't been done. There's nothing here to imply that it would
not be done. It's a misunderstanding of the issues to think that
all missing options are missing by policy.

The debate about user interfaces (PCLinuxOnline)

Posted Feb 24, 2003 9:33 UTC (Mon) by beejaybee (guest, #1581) [Link]

Nothing wrong with customization, or having a choice; surely this is linux's raison d'etre.

Surely the point here is that if you want a low-profile windows manager, there are choices other than KDE & Gnome. If you want an all-singing, all-dancing windows manager with loads of bells & whistles, you're going to need system resources to support it.

I happen to think that the Gnome project is wrong to try to remove configuration options. This is one of the reasons I prefer the less pure KDE environment - the other being that KDE seems more mature & more stable.
I'd certainly be opposed to the KDE project yielding to pressure to remove configuration options - though I'd certainly accept that there is scope to simplify the _management_ of configuration options.

One thing we do need, in order to make progress in a corporate environment, is a universally-available "one touch button" to bring the desktop to a standard configuration which the user _can't_ easily alter. Not because choice is a Bad Thing, but because systems used by many people (e.g. hot-desking) really do need a "standard" look and feel.

The debate about user interfaces (PCLinuxOnline)

Posted Feb 24, 2003 16:18 UTC (Mon) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link]

Surely the point here is that if you want a low-profile windows manager, there are choices other than KDE & Gnome.

There are, but all the alternatives that I've tried have usability problems to some degree.

If you want an all-singing, all-dancing windows manager with loads of bells & whistles, you're going to need system resources to support it.

If you want an all-singing, all-dancing wm or wm + desktop environment that loads and dynamically links huge libraries at runtime you will need a lot of CPU and memory, but it is possible possible to write a fast, configurable window manager that runs on modest hardware if you don't link to 50 external packages! This problem has a known solution: static linking.

People have really gone overboard on dynamic linking and reusable libraries. In some cases this makes a lot of sense, such as writing "business apps" where the business rules change constantly. There's not much point in polishing code that's going to be around for all of 6 weeks. But it's really easy to adopt a "reuse everything" position in cases where it doesn't make much sense, such as apps that seldom change and are potentially used by thousands of users. In this case productivty is lost 10 ms at a time by thousands of people around the world as they watch their apps redraw..

The debate about user interfaces (PCLinuxOnline)

Posted Feb 25, 2003 0:55 UTC (Tue) by ninjalj (guest, #9807) [Link]

> One thing we do need, in order to make progress in a corporate environment,
> is a universally-available "one touch button" to bring the desktop to a
> standard configuration which the user _can't_ easily alter. Not because
> choice is a Bad Thing, but because systems used by many people (e.g.
> hot-desking) really do need a "standard" look and feel.

You should take a look at kiosk mode in KDE. KDE 3.1 supports kiosk mode
configurable through files, a configuration tool is on the todo list.