Open-Source Software and "The Luxury of Ignorance" 1471
Bootsy Collins writes "Using the recent experience of trying to configure
CUPS
on his home network, Eric Raymond has
written an interesting new screed on poor design of user interfaces in general, and configuration interfaces in particular, in open source software, entitled
The Luxury of Ignorance.
A sample quote: 'This kind of fecklessness is endemic in open-source land. And it's what's keeping Microsoft in business -- because by Goddess, they may write crappy insecure overpriced shoddy software, but on this one issue their half-assed semi-competent best is an order of magnitude better than we usually manage.'"
In related news (Score:5, Informative)
Re:In related news (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:In related news (Score:5, Informative)
I routinely bittorent avi's and recode them as mpegs and use dvdauthor and dvdrecord to carry neat videos back to my parent's DVD player to show them. It bridges a generational gap.
Re:In related news (Score:5, Informative)
That isn't a 'good guide' at all! It's barely more than a rant if you can manage to read between the lines.
Here's some useful links to UI design concepts.
I got these from the default installation of Mozilla.
Bookmarks > Mozilla Project > Developer Information > User Interface Design:
Macintosh Human Interface Guidelines [apple.com]
IBM/Ease of Use/Design [ibm.com]
Microsoft User Experience and Interface Design Resources [microsoft.com]
KDE User Interface Guidelines [kde.org]
Since these links come from an older install of Mozilla, some may have changed.
Re:In related news (Score:5, Informative)
It would seem JWZ would agree with you:
Then in January, the jackasses over at Slashdot posted a link to it, calling it a "review" of Linux video software. I guess you could consider it a review, if you were to squint at it just right. But really what it is is a rant about how I had an evening stolen from me by crap software design.
It's a rant, pure and simple.
--Dan
Re:In related news (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:In related news (Score:5, Informative)
Gnome Hig [gnome.org]
Re:In related news (Score:5, Funny)
Not to say that he doesn't make good points, but... well... just look at the screenshots.
-Mark
Re:In related news (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:In related news (Score:5, Informative)
Here's where I cave a little... On the last screen shot, it did take me a little too long to figure out that the password being asked for is listed in the topmost sub-section. However, I'm confident that the help button would have told me what I'm looking for.
If anything, mrroach's post does point out smartly that the article is a plug to "do things more like I do". Yeah, not so "pretty", but sure as feces, it won't get Aunt Tilly too flustered.
Re:In related news (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.linuxjournal.com/modules/NS-arti
"Configurator novice Controls" with a "Save" "Help" "Quit" button underneath? What the HELL does that mean? Why isn't novice capitalized? What am I saving by clicking the Save button? A configurator novice controls? Why arent the buttons at the bottom like every other dialog box in the planet?
I won't even comment on this one:
http://www.linuxjournal.com/modules/NS-arti
Re:In related news (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In related new (Score:5, Insightful)
Some of the most usable UIs don't conform to an established standard. For example, there are shopping cart apps that can be used by people who've never used a computer before, yet they don't get in the way of the expert user much either. Some custom-designed kiosk systems serve their purposes very well without following any standard other than "touch me".
Apple and Microsoft seem to throw out their own guidelines whenever they feel the need to "innovate". There's no hope of improving usability if no one's allowed to experiment.
Check out Alan Cooper's books [cooper.com] if you want some solid reasoning behind this (better than I could give you). Edward Tufte [edwardtufte.com] is also a classic.
Re:In related news (Score:5, Funny)
That being said, I wonder why he doesn't port xemacs himself.
He surely has the ability, if anyone does.
Unfortunately, I suppose he doesn't have the free time, considering his dedication to his nightclub -- but maybe if he took the time he was spending trying to get Linux to work and put it into the port, we'd all be a lot better off.
I know I would. I use MacOS X and sure would love an xemacs port. Sadly I simply don't have the knowledge or ability needed to do it, but I sure would love to have it
D
Re:JWZ and usability (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's all he actually says (Score:5, Informative)
So, if you are out there writing GUI apps for Linux or BSD or whatever, here are some questions you need to be asking yourself:
Re:Here's all he actually says (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Here's all he actually says (Score:5, Insightful)
The demotivator I have in my office (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Here's all he actually says (Score:5, Funny)
Ah, I see you have discovered KDE's design guidelines.
Re:Here's all he actually says (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm hoping this will let me chop at the features and preferences and get away from "I'M A LOUD USER AND WHILE I'M THE ONLY ONE WHO TWIDDLES MY BAZZLES I'LL CRY IF IT'S REMOVED" by virtue of having hard numbers. (I made a Fruedian slip and typed "lout user", which works too.)
(You shouldn't have bad spoofing problems until the project is much larger, by then I'm hoping to have a better gestalt understanding.)
Feel free to snarf this idea, I'd love to see it more often.
Re:Here's all he actually says (Score:5, Funny)
"maybe a dictatorship in terms of final word or a democratic vote will work."
Linus.
Kernel.
The defense rests, your honour
Re:Here's all he actually says (Score:5, Interesting)
Hence why a gaggle of volunteers can put together and enterprise-worth OS in their spare time.
Unfortunately, pure R&D is never that clean. You often don't know in what direction a new technology is going to take you. In WWII, the answer both the Axis and the Allies had was to simply fund everything that had a glimmer of a chance, and research everything in parallel. Sure there were a lot of failures, but you also got a lot of radically different and paradigm changing designs. It is the era the brought us Jet powered aircraft, RADAR, cruise missiles, liquid fueled rockets, nuclear weapons, SONAR, and electronic computers. And that's ignoring massive new understanding in industrial production, chemistry, and materials.
When designing something new and unprecidented, you have to play the field and try alternatives. More productive than a complete fork would be to simply try an idea at a time, and fold the best of breed back into a common reference build.
Oh wait, the Linux kernel guys already do that. The wiley hackers!
Re:Here's all he actually says (Score:5, Insightful)
Have any of you actually used Windows lately? I don't see any of this. I've had more RH9 and FBSD 4 & 5 boxes lock up on me lately than I've had XP or 2000 boxes lock up. Xzzy, can you provide an example of something that an end user would use (not any of their server offerings) that has more than 15 controls on the form? Why do you think they pioneered the use of WIZARDS! It's to provide a logical progression to a final software configuration state, rather than most OSS software which most of the time requires you to edit a config file (the equivalent of an essay question on an exam). Sorry, I don't feel like being tested on my reading comprehension today. I just want to get my box playing DVD's.
Really, it's the interface stupid.
Re:Here's all he actually says (Score:5, Interesting)
I too have struggled through a configuration of CUPS, coupled with samba printer sharing for windows users no less. A couple weeks later, when OS X 10.3 came out, I was amazed at what Apple had done for a front end to CUPS. It's extremely intuitive, and a vast improvement to previous OS X printer configuration schemes.
It would be really nice if Apple's config utilities were released back to the open source community.
Re:Here's all he actually says (Score:5, Insightful)
There's plenty of graphic designers and UI experts in the employ of Apple and Microsoft who probably couldn't code their way out of an infinite loop. I don't know that the same can be said of most open source projects.
yours
Re:Here's all he actually says (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know the answer. The only reason I give into UI requirements at work is because I have to to get paid. That incentive isn't there for open source projects, so there is the danger projects will fork off. I know some comments above don't see that as a danger at all, but it is a waste of resources if two teams are building the exact same things instead of moving forward on other pieces.
Re:Here's all he actually says (Score:5, Insightful)
mistake one in interface design is thinking its graphic design! Better looking buttons lead to user interface improvement with about the same frequencey that a new paintjob fixes your car's transmission.
Re:Here's all he actually says (Score:5, Insightful)
mistake one in interface design is thinking its graphic design! Better looking buttons lead to user interface improvement with about the same frequencey that a new paintjob fixes your car's transmission.
You are correct, pretty buttons does not a good UI make, however, UI design -- user-centered UI design (layout, workflow, etc., etc.) is VERY important. To continue with your analogy, your car has power-steering. But, human-interface designers made it so you get some tactile feedback from your car's steering wheel at speed (as opposed to the 60's Caddies which you could steer at 65 with your pinkie).
It's the "design" process that's important. 1. What is this "thing" supposed to do. 2. What does the user(s) expect/know. 3. How's the user(s) going to act/react based on #2. 4. What's the simplest, most effecient and effective way to get to the desired end result given #1 #2 and #3 for as many cases as possible.
Photoshop doesn't make you a graphic designer; programming skills don't make you a UI deisigner.
Do what you do. Engineers engineer, programmers program, and designers design, but just like you wouldn't have a electical engineer engineer a bridge, or a web developer programming embedded system, you shouldn't have a graphic designer designing a UI... IMO.
Re:Here's all he actually says (Score:5, Interesting)
The point is that a better UI isn't something that should be frowned on. Christ, I feel stupid for even having to say that.
Re:Here's all he actually says (Score:5, Interesting)
well, if you LATFA, you see as the second sentence...
It has proved a textbook lesson in why nontechnical people run screaming from Unix.
IOW, if you want to even think of competing with the windows world at the desktop level, you actually have to reduce to the brain-dead level of explanation, support or general UI practice.
Even technical non-unix people struggle (a manager at work, skilled with Novell (stop laughing) is struggling a bit to learn linux.. and deadrat at that). if semi-competent people have some semi-major with what we, the unix-versed, understand (but may still be tasked by on occasion) how can we ever seriously expect Linux to prove its superiority at the joe-schmoe level?
-'fester (aix/tru64/hpux/linux geek.. that's in paying order, mind you
Re:Here's all he actually says (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing to notice here is how far behind we have left Aunt Tillie. Rule 1 of writing software for nontechnical users is this: if they have to read documentation to use it you designed it wrong. The interface of the software should be all the documentation the user needs. You'd have lost the non-techie before the point in this troubleshooting sequence where a hacker like me even got fully engaged.
It's embarassing, even to me personally, but he's dead right. Not just for Aunt Tillie, but for you and me (can I get a humming of the Star Spangled Banner in the background now please, thanks) -- no one should have to stop to read man pages or html docs unless they are doing the most esoteric things with an app. Obviousness for everyone! We all know the basics -f -r, blah blah "standard" command line interface, and it works because (1) things act like they should and (2) we are experienced enough to know that "should" in the software/tool world expects a little more from us intellectually-wise than "should" in the normal day-to-day buy some bread rent a movie world.
The valid, relevant, even poignant point of this article, as I see it, is that it's not much work to go from where we are (which is comfy for us; a reasonable tradeoff 50/50 hassle for user/hassle for developer) to where we need to be to eat Microsoft's lunch (most hassle for developer, albeit 1-time hassle, and near-zero user hassle in most cases.)
We blow this stuff off because we want to make it workable for those smart enough to deserve to enjoy it then quickly move on to the Next Great Thing that Needs to be Made Now. We Peter principle ourselves out of making a real headache for MS, which is something we (ostensibly?) want.
Hmph. He said it well, and I for one am taking it to heart and thinking about how to make it better (with minimal effort, of course
Now there's a good point: (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you've hit the nail sharply on the head there... the problem with far, far too many nerds is that they are entirely utalitarian... if it works, well, dang it, that's good enough. I've proved I can get that to work, so I'm bored with it now.
There kind of needs to be a whole set of other 'design nerds' who come along after the 'worker nerds' have done their bit, and make it all pretty and sensible to use... these 'design nerds' would have a good understanding of what the 'average Joe' is comfortable with in an interface.
Re:Here's all he actually says (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Here's all he actually says (Score:5, Insightful)
For the last couple years, I've been citing that attitude as the #1 reason linux isn't growing like it should as a desktop. Coming from an OS/2 culture in the last half of the '90s where people were supportive and at least one survey found a decidely middle-aged demographic, the "only newbies need documentation" attitude strikes me as juvenile, unproductive, and, unfortunately, really common in linux culture. Look:
Is price the problem? Duh
Hardware compatibility? Naw
Installation difficulty? The major distros are as easy as Windows now.
No, it's use and maintenance. Where does a person learn how to use and maintain something if not from the documentation? Believe it or not, some people don't enjoy doing a half-hour Google search among various sites each time they need to have this-or-that setup explained competently and professionally.
Those are my thoughts.
Re:Here's all he actually says (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the underlying problem with the interface issue discussed in this thread and it is why M$ continues to prevail in spite of a generally inferior core product.
When *X finally evolves from an exclusive clique into a user-focused OS for the people (not merely the nerds) it will truly prevail. Currently, IMO, its the percieved pricing ("free" as in beer) and general non-Microsoftness of Linux that drives it at all. The user experience and level of effort required to achieve proficiency is generally thought to be a big negative at ground level.
Re:Here's all he actually says (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe Microsoft's usability design benefits from the fact that they have a bunch of pointy haired guys around, while the open-source projects exclusively consist of collections of Dilberts?
Scary, but it would justify the pointy-haired bosses existence. At absolute minimum all open-source projects should have (pet) lamas assigned to them, and a continuously rotating basis (to prevent tainting them with knowledge) and their whining should be taken as the word of authority...
Re:Here's all he actually says (Score:5, Interesting)
Saved pulling the computer out from under desk as I accidently used the wrong hole (found it by feel) then I knew what I'd done wrong.
Not neccessarily true (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not neccessarily true (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that he mentions using Fedora core kind of discredits his whole argument against the "open source community" and the "CUPS Team" when what he is really denouncing is his linux vendor. It's been kind of an understanding for a long time that it was for the OSS community to build, and for the Commercial distro vendors to "clean up" for Joe and Jane End-User. It's a shame that he never makes that clear, and I'm sure if I were on the CUPS team I would be a little offended at the way ESR is explaining away his^H^H^H aunt tillie's failure to read the dox, search the list, and otherwise be completely "luxuriously" ignorant. Go buy windows. OSS isn't really a fair proposition if you don't have something to contribute.... or at least meet the developer half-way.
Re:Not neccessarily true (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, for Mandrake, did the CUPS installation mention that you have to set up xinetd by hand to run the cups-lpd daemon to even *run* the admin interface, or did Mandrake add it to the RPMS by hand themselves? It's most certainly a stage never mentioned in the source tarball nor is it included in the RPM spec file that comes with the tarball.
I built and tested it last week to try new printer drivers, and no, it's not there. And the addition of new printer drivers is pretty damned secret, too....
-1 Troll (Score:5, Funny)
Igorance and the double edged sword (Score:5, Insightful)
In the end, a computer is more like a car than an oven, capable of great power but requiring a good deal of knowledge to use (and not run over people in the process).
Re:Igorance and the double edged sword (Score:5, Insightful)
Hell, I'm a half decent tech geek, and I struggle to do many config tasks even on user-friendly distros like Fedora.
Should it require significant skill to update the kernel (and know what you're doing?) ? Sure. But to install simple hardware? Hell no.
Its really interesting ..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Linus has been talking about this recently, are we going to start seeing things like Linusorganizer, Linword??, hehe, that would be nice.
Fecklessness?!? (Score:5, Funny)
Thats fedora, not CUPS (Score:5, Informative)
The problem is in Fedora, not Cups. Cups works just fine, and more or less like he wants it to, if that is all you ever use. Fedora, using whatever configuration system it uses placed some unuseable stuff there.
Granted Cups could use a lot of help, but he wasn't using a Cups configurator, he was using some other configurator that can work with not only Cups, but also SMB, LPR, and a bunch of other stuff. I don't know the solution, but bashing the Cups guys won't get you any closer to it.
Doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
PC here. Printer there. Make it so.
In clear, precise, EASY directions.
the user is the bridesmaid, the admin gets laid (Score:5, Insightful)
The user is the loser. There's a clubby, exclusive, snotty attitude among user's groups. The online resources are hopelessly disorganized or relentlessly dinged with ads. The vision that Stallman has of software as knowledge, rather than product, is lost among the throng of sociopaths that spout RTFM at users that ask the same questions over and over.
Well, you know why people have the same questions over and over? Because the software is obscure and the documentation is unhelpful. GNU is based on people solving their own problems and then giving other people an opportunity to use thier solutions. Documentation, at best, is an afterthought. Once you have solved a problem, there's no need to go back and explain it to yourself, any documentation that does exist arises purely from the virture of developers, not because they need it themselves.
The fact that the most useful thing you can have with this enormously powerful gem of human progress (the computer) when trying to use Linux is a printed-out HOW-TO, probably downloaded and printed from a Windows box, is more than ironic, it is shameful. The tools for providing context-sensitive help are there, they just are unused. The developers don't care about the user, they've solved thier problem by this time.
If OSS developers needed robust documentation in order to distribute their product, they would either develop it or not distribute their code. But they don't. There's no reward for the developer.
This brings me around again to the notion of licensing software developers and then making them accountable for the usability of the product. Not as an avenue for exclusion, but to build a community of developers devoted to the user, a Mr. Goodwrench sort of certification standards, that tests it's releases against naive and novice users. How you make this work I have no idea.
Red Hat should be doing this already, but they've clearly left the home user at the altar.
He's right (Score:5, Insightful)
Interface design is an incredibly important part of any software project - it's like the clothes you wear to a job interview. Sure, you *might* get the job if you wear your regular jeans and t-shirt, but if you take the time to dress up, you will create a much more favourable impression on the potential employer you are meeting.
Similarly, taking the time to make your user interface polished and intuitive is one of the best ways to end up with happy end users who tell other people how great your software is. It lets them know that you care enough about the software you create to spend a few extra hours making it look nice instead of shoving it out the door as fast as possible.
but he's right (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:but he's right (Score:5, Funny)
(+1, Spelling/Grammar)
Yep (Score:5, Insightful)
- [no response. evar]
- This is different from Windoze - I know that! I don't want "Windoze" (how cute, BTW) I want to tell you that your fucking design sucks rocks!
- If you want stupid, use Windoze instead - Again, very cute. Also arrogant and stupid.
- This is how it's done in Linux - Well shiieet, of course it is. That doesn't mean it's correct.
- Did you RTFM|Google? - Well of course, for the last fucking 4 hours, just.
- The next version will have... - That's great except that if I Google for what you said about this version I see the same thing. Wow, Usenet is great, eh?
- We're not going to add that, that's stupid - Of course!
- Use [x] instead - Yeah, except that [x] has been in alpha for the past nine years.
- Check out [this page] - Fantastic. If that's not a 404 I guess I'll have to learn Japanese! Weee!
- You're welcome to ask for a refund - Wahahaha!!!
It takes a rant from ESR (who despite his pretensions doesn't know much about human interaction) to get people to do things right? Wow.I always get a chuckle when people compare Linux to OS X or Windows in usability terms. KDE looks absolutely fantastic after I log in, but the fun stops there. If I actually want to do anything else I have to fire up vi and edit 1,000 conf files. Give me a break.
And yes, ESR is right. This is one of the things that keep Windows users in Windows and perpetuate what you folks call "monoculture". Whining about it and blaming everything on "M$" won't fix anything. Great software ultimately sucks if I can't use it.
Insightful article, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
CUPS and Turboprint works well, as it turns out, the problem is that printing from OOo (Linux), printing from OOo (Win) using CUPS' postscript driver, and printing from OOo (Win) to a Windows printer results in different page margins being used. Bummer. At least the fonts look identical if the same fonts are used on both ends.
And for those people with new Winprinters wondering why raw printing from Samba does not work anymore, you need to add the Windows user as a printer admin. Not documented *anywhere*.
Good Article but... (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with many of his points, if there is one thing I dislike in the *nix culture it is the elitism, and holier than thou attitude that many people in said culture have towards users. This is just one more sign of that elitism, we spend hours and hours making very good stable, well designed software, and then we demand that you read a 1500 page book to be able to use it... That's stupid, now you can say "if they don't want to learn they shouldn't be using this software" but that's dumb too... my dad is an attorney, he wants to work on cases, and do legal research and the like, thats what he's interested in, he doesn't want to spend an hour a day figuring out how to share printers/files and send emails, and he doesn't want to have to pay someone $150/hr every time he needs to add a printer to his network. My wife is a psychologist, she wants to care for her patients, and work on her book, she doesn't want to be bothered with figuring out how to configure her computer, and she shouldn't have to be... That said, the author shouldn't have been bashing the CUPS guys, the configurator in question is an inhouse product by redhat/fedora, no other distribution uses it, and the default setting of having the broadcast turned off was also a decision by redhat/fedora not the CUPS programmers (well it might have been made by the CUPS devs, but redhat/fedora had every opportunity to change that default behavior). I appreciate the article though because he is right on in critisizing the community for their lack of vision in this regard. (btw, I admin a 7000 node network, and the entire thing is controlled by linux and unix servers, there are windows nodes, but I would never run windows on the server side, and I rarely use it on the desktop either so don't count me as some MS apologist)
OSS Fanboys Can't Take Criticism (Score:5, Insightful)
Look -- if it's just a hobby OS, fine, this criticism is totally baseless and cruel. But, if you all want to see your labor of love have a real shot at the desktop market, you're going to have to take criticism like that and work with it -- if it seems angry, it's because end-users get frustrated when they're promised an easy-to-use system, and they have to spend more time wrestling with configuration than actually doing what they need the OS to do.
Either take the criticism as advice and use it to add value to your software so it can be accessible to a larger audience, or accept that your OSS project is just a hobby.
MS network printer setup worse (Score:5, Insightful)
You have the choice between "Local printer" and "Network printer". If you do have a network printer like an HP with a JetDirect card, the correct choice is NOT "Network printer". It is "Local printer", and later you have to add a "Standard TCP/IP port". ("Network printer" is only to add a printer shared over SMB by another computer)
So while he has a good point on a bad interface, and while it is true that for some things Windows may have a better interface, it certainly doesn't for networked printers.
So true (Score:5, Funny)
OSS developers often miss the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of us don't have the time
I work from 9am to 3am every day, including weekends. I would love to run Linux, purely because Microsoft's pricing and attitudes bother me, but the last time I tried to set up Red Hat, it took me 4 days to get the system to even recognise my video card.
We're not just talking about Aunt Tillie, we're talking about Joe B. Power User, who may have the skills to work it out eventually but simply does not have the time.
Wheras, I plug my Windows XP machine (and yes, I know this is only a recent thing) into the network and Universal Plug and Play makes network printers accessible without my having to so much as touch the PC. Now that's what we want from a Linux distro, and it's not even hard to implement. Why should I have to wade through a dozen
Interface Design 101 (Score:5, Insightful)
I notice that most of the comments thus far seem to be along the lines of "We don't need to improve the interface, the users need to get better because they're too dumb to use it right, and they should just learn cause then they'll realize how much better it is!"
This is a common mistake made by programmers. The problem is that not that users are actually all that stupid. The problem is that we tend to think of things in terms of how they're doing something, whereas users want to think of them in terms of what they're doing. For example, I want to set up DHCP to distribute IPs to my OSX box so I can use SMB to pull MP3s off my XP box. This is not the way a user thinks; the average user wants to hook his Compaq to his Mac so he can move around his music. He doesn't want to know what any of those acronyms stand for. He just wants to accomplish a simple task.
Bottom line: the best way to write a good interface is not to think in terms of "what is my software doing" but rather in terms of "what is my user doing." Like my human interface design professor used to say, if people can't use your software, it's not because they're stupid, it's because you designed it poorly. Users prefer usable software to powerful software, when given the choice.
Another point to consider is that, in the eyes of the Managers of potential corporate users of your system, any time employees spent learning all the details of your software is time taken away from getting actual work done. Not to mention that sloppy interfaces that haven't been properly checked often actually COST most companies money, since their employees actually often take longer than it would have otherwise. Good interface design is not a luxury, it is a mandate.
For Once ESR is Dead On The Money (Score:5, Insightful)
I am a geek. Not only do I know a shitload about computers I actually work in the industry as a field troubleshooter technician. I have to say though, that although I use Linux on a daily basis on my work PC as my main OS, it still throws me for a loop sometimes when I go through what ESR went through with whatever piece of technologically advanced, functional but ultimately borked UI software I happen to be trying to set up at the time.
He is right - this IS keeping Microsoft in business. Case in point - I get customers constantly asking me if there is a better alternative to Windows. There is of course, but I would NEVER recommend Linux to an end user who just needs to get on with the business of running a business simply because of the lack of intuitive UI's for Linux apps.
There are great, shining examples - K3B, Firefox, Thunderbird, Mozilla, Openoffice, Evolution, KDE control centre etc. Let these apps serve as an example to UI designers for other projects.
It's one thing to have all the functionality in the world, but that amounts to sweet FA in the eyes of a gumby user that would rather give money to Microsoft than learn what
Something about printing (Score:5, Interesting)
My recent experience was trying to print to an inkjet connected to a windows machine. Since it was remote, I decided I didn't need a spooler, so I didn't install cups. Instead, I found foomatic, which is supposed to cut through the many layers of drivers in one slice. Through no efforts (reading several confusing and inconsistent tutorials) could I get foomatic to produce a file in my printer's format. Nor did it give me intelligible error messages. I finally posted to the main list at linuxprinting.org (lp.general); but in the weeks I've been subscribed, I've not seen a single useful reply to anyone's question!
Oh, I finally got the printer working. I just have to run gs -DSAFER -sDEVICE=ijs -sIjsServer=ijsgimpprint -sDeviceManufacturer=EPSON -sDeviceModel='escp2-c82' -sOutputFile=out -DNOPAUSE -- file.ps , and send the result with smbclient.
CUPS is only decent... (Score:5, Interesting)
But that doesn't mean that CUPS is all peaches and roses. I had to discover what `foomatic' was in order to figure out how to extract a driver for my Epson Stylus C42UX from a large xml file. Its wizard to create the printers was rather friendly, although a belaguering dropdown box full of stuff I didn't have asked me where my printer was. Luckily it identified itself as USB PRINTER #1 (EPSON C42) so I could choose that - but most wouldn't have the slightest idea of what to choose and just stare at the screen glaze-eyed...
Really, all I wanted to do was print a school assignment. I fully agree with esr on this issue. This whole CUPS ordeal should have taken me 10 minutes, not 10 hours (on and off) to get working. And it still doesn't fully work, for example with printing to a SAMBA host.
But CUPS is the best we've got for Unix now. Isn't that sad?
I Applaud Raymond's Admission of Difficulty (Score:5, Interesting)
However, I found myself nodding in affirmative at EVERY single step he took during his trouble shooting. I made a lot of the same assumptions (wrongly). The funniest was when he finally figured out he had to configure the server machine to broadcast, and then he couldn't connect to it. HAHA, it took at least 15 minutes of loud swearing for me to figure out how to configure the &*#&#((#&$&^
You know you're in trouble when the first like in the man page is RTFM.
I swear, if I have to configure another CUPS network, I'll go postal. It works... ssssh, don't touch it, and speak in hushed tones when in the vicinity.
Raymond said it himself (Score:5, Insightful)
The developers of CUPS have scratched their itch. I personally have no desire to scratch Aunt Tillie's itch. She isn't paying me. Neither is Raymond.
My printer works. If Aunt Tillie wants hers to work, she can pay me to set it up for her, or she can pay me to write software that makes it easier.
Why the hell is it CUPS's (or anyone else's) responsiblity to do this? If IBM and Red Hat are going to profit from easy printer sharing, let them write good config utilities. The CUPS team got the reward they were after. Their printers work.
When someone gives you a gift, try not to kick them in the nuts and ask for more. They have every right to stop giving.
Look at Apple (Score:5, Funny)
I plugged one end of there ethernet cable into the printer and the other into my laptop. So far so good.
Being a highly competent user, I then went straight to the Printer Setup Menu and click add printer. I chose IPP printing. Then I turned to the sales guy and asked for the default IP address of the printer. He didn't know. I didn't know. It wasn't in the manual either.
I cursed. I yelled. I was annoyed. I sent two people off the go and find out the default IP of the network card.
While sitting there quietly spouting profanity I looked in my list of currently configured printers. Well buff my nuts and serve me a milkshake! There, in the list was the Brother printer all configured and ready to go. I didn't have to do anything.
I selected it and pressed the "Configure" button. It launched a web browser and brought up the configuration page.
I fell off my chair.
I later learned that the printer supports ZeroConf [zeroconf.org] network discovery. Apple takes that further by selecting the correct driver automatically. It work just as well via USB, only if I think want to share it to other Macs I then have to follow the very complex task of clicking the "Share Printer" box in the System Prefs.
He's exactly right. Here's how to fix it. (Score:5, Insightful)
First, if you have't read the original Macintosh user interface guide, do so. There are some strict rules, which today even Apple forgets, but which all competent programmers must know.
One of the basic rules in that manual is this:
-
You should never have to tell the computer something it already knows.
What this means, in terms a programmer can understand, is this:From a design perspective, it's useful to divide information the system knows into "definitions", "references", and "caches". "This printer is called FOO" is a definition. "BAR normally prints on FOO" is a reference. "FOO is a PostScript printer" on BAR is a cache item. Caches must be regeneratable. References must be checkable. Definitions should be protected against inadvertent change.
One of the big problems of the Windows registry is that it mixes all three types of information. This is also true of the contents of "/etc" in the UNIX world.
Once you start thinking of the problem in these terms, it's much clearer what to do. For the printer case, it's obvious that the system should find the printers in the neighborhood by itself, and should probe them to find out what they are and whether they will let you use them. It's also clear that if something changes (a printer is replaced, for example), the system must notice this and do something reasonable.
Once all the heavy machinery for that is in place, the user interface for "configuring a printer" should go away entirely. The ordinary print dialog can do the work. It might need a "search for more printers" button. But there's no real reason from a user perspective to have to configure printers at all.
We will now hear from the "just edit the /etc/xxx file with 'vi' and send a SIGHUP signal to the daemon" people. You guys are dinosaurs. Give it up.
ESR is Right (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's a list of my recent hardware config experiences on my home machine, which dual-boots Gentoo and Windows XP:
1. Canon Powershot A40 digital camera. WinXP detected and configured it in about 25 seconds. On Linux, it required two kernel recompiles, and searches through several sources of information (gphoto2 manual, message boards, Google) before I finally got the command-line interface to gphoto2 to work. Never got any GUI front-end working.
2. Creative Webcam Pro NX. WinXP detected and configured it in about 25 seconds. Despite hours spent banging my head on the problem, it has yet to function under Linux.
3. Nvidia GeForce4 Ti4200. WinXP detected and configured it in about 25 seconds. Linux: kernel recompile, install additional Xfree86 module, tweak, retweak, and re-retweak
I love Linux like my brother, but seriously, hardware config on it is a huge PITFA, and provides the single largest contrast to the Windows world.
I long for the day when I get a new gizmo, plug it into my box, and it "just works". Man, that would be so cool.
Re:ESR is Right (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone had to say it.
My take on the "click OK to click OK" disease. (Score:5, Insightful)
"To accept this choice, click OK. To cancel, click CANCEL".
Well fucking duh. You know what I'm talking about: For an example, enter your computer BIOS (press 'Del' on most PCs during boot), and read the "help" for any of the entries. Do you know what every single setting there means? Quickly, what's Spread Spectrum Modulation? What are its effects and side-effects? What are the potential dangers? When would you want to use it? Can you answer any of these questions by looking at a UI that is packed with acronym laden yes/no choices? Probably not. I doubt most people outside of a motherboard design company could explain in detail what every single option does.
Users aren't all stupid, even the non-computer literate ones. It's the user interface that is at fault, for not providing all of the information required to make a decision. Given sufficient information, most people can make the right decision. Given a yes/no question full of acronyms with no other information, even programmers and computer scientists can be stumped.
A great example of how effective providing information can be, think back to the original Norton Disk Doctor for DOS. The dialog boxes in that program usually had several paragraphs of text, and asked one question. The text usually explained:
Now, I clearly remember relatively computer illiterate people running that program, and making highly technical decisions without even realizing it. My father could easily decide whether he wanted to mark a sector bad, what kind of surface scan he wanted, and how he wanted to treat corrupted files.
While Windows is in general mediocre (not great, just mediocre) in its UI design, at times it has glaring flaws. My favourite examples are applications that ask for a DSN connection string. Do you know how to construct a DSN connection string by hand? I don't, and I've been programming with databases for years. However, the doubly stupid thing is that the ODBC control panel already includes a dialog box that automates the process! So why do some applications, including some written by Microsoft, still ask for a DSN string?
Command-line software (open source, or otherwise) is particularly prone to exhibit this problem, often to the same extent as the BIOS example. When executed with a "-?" option (or whatever), most programs will give a list of options, but rarely tell the user anything other than the existence of the option. This is no better than a dialog box asking a yes/no question with no further explanation.
Grandmother sucking eggs (Score:5, Insightful)
RMS says that coders should give code away. You work as a waiter, or do something else for a living. I don't want to be a waiter. I want to write code. So, "something else" has become service and support.
Here's the rub -- when you make your pennies on service and support, you have no economic motivation to make it easy and self explanitory! You make MONEY when it's hard to use.
This I think is the downfall of the current OSS business models, and I haven't found a way out of it. OSS projects are destined to remain difficult as long as there is no economic motivation (and we've already established that there's no artistic/ego motivation) to make it beautiful and easy.
I'm not saying that Windows is right or that Mac drool-proof design is right, or that OSS is fundamentally wrong. But I'd like people to understand the motivations that their choices steer them to. I feel bad when I get harangued by OSS types for making non-OSS products. Just understand that not everything is as cut and dried, and that most OSS business models have yet to be proven successful.
Let the GNU/GPL/RMS/OSS/ESR flaming begin. I'm ready for it. I've thought this out for a long time, and I make a living writing software. And no, my software is not a paradigm of simplicity, but I'm not having delusions of taking the desktop away from Bill G by conquest.
In case you missed it... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm busy. I have things to do. I don't have time to fiddle with someone else's idea of cleverness, or a badly designed interface that can't decide on how to assign command key functions consistently, or which lacks any useful help (the CUPS example is just a case in point). Nor am I interested in solving puzzles or pondering the greater mysteries of my Inner Tux. I just want to get the damn thing up and running so I can get on with what I wanted to do in the first place.
Perhaps it's a matter of perspective: If the computer is an end unto itself, then things like usability for a wider audience aren't really relevant. But for a lot of folks, myself included, the computer is nothing more than a tool with which I hope to get some useful work accomplished. I'll use whatever works, even if it is Windows. Occasional crashes and lock-ups aside, Windows does help me get the job done and I don't have to spend half a day reading man pages and badly written "manuals" trying to figure out how to install and configure something, and that's what really counts for me.
The bottom line is that I'll rm -rf a badly written tool's source tree just as fast as I'll pitch a cheap pair of pliers into the trashcan. They're both useless to me if they waste my time and impede my progress.
Eric Raymond sums it up nicely with the statement that "the problem is that these simple things never occurred to developers who bring huge amounts of already-acquired knowledge to bear every time they look at their user interfaces."
So the next time you look down your nose at some poor slob who just can't figure out how to install and configure something that you could do in your sleep, just keep in mind that there's a reason MS still rules the desktop, and it has a lot to do with millions of those poor clueless slobs.
Re:Luxury of Punditry (Score:5, Insightful)
Really. There is a ton of OSS software with really shitty user interfaces, but anything involving fonts or printing seems to be crappy beyond belief.
opensource fonts and printing successes (Score:5, Informative)
pdfTeX, Latin Modern, and FontInst to name three opensource projects involving fonts and printing which are absolutely fabulous.
pdfTeX in particular is so robust it's used to do things like provide railroad timetables on-demand and to run commercial printing imposition systems. Take a look at http://custompub.aimsapp.com to see an interactive example.
Latin Modern is an excellent example of taking an opensource thing (the venerable Computer Modern), applying a new opensource application (MetaType1) and getting a new result (an up-dated and corrected and Type 1 font which is Unicode encoded so as to be suitable for use w/ a wide variety of the world's languages)
FontInst (a font installation utility for TeX written in TeX) is in a class by itself, and anyone who wants to be humbled should read _The TeXbook_, then look at its source code. Amazing. The only thing in the same class is the BASIC interpreter BASIX which was written in TeX (find both on http://www.ctan.org)
Other new and up-and-coming projects include: Scribus (page layout) and Cenon (drawing) and pfaedit (interactive font editing). If there were only alternatives to / equivalents of Adobe's TouchType.app, Fauve Matisse / Corel Painter / Alias Sketchbook (natural media painting) and Creaturehouse Expression (and a handwriting recognition program), TeXView.app (IPC
The want of something like to Creaturehouse Expression is especially painful since Microsoft bought out Creaturehouse last year, and despite a promise, purchasing of the program did _not_ come back on-line in November of 2003.
William
(PS - and Latex3 should be in the works soon now that _The LateX Companion, 2nd Edition_ is soon to hit the presses)
Re:Luxury of Punditry (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you looked for the code?
Your post tells of smacks of an attitude all too typical in open source... You believe only code gurus should criticize software. Eric may or may not be a code guru, but that argument is flat wrong. Bad interface is why Linux is taking so long to make inroads on the desktop. It's a legitimate problem that needs to be addressed and maybe *JUST MAYBE* people who write code are not the best user interface designers. Maybe users are simply not as deterministic as software.
Re:ad-hominem IS the argument (Score:5, Insightful)
The point is that people know his name, they use the software he wrote, they read the crap that he spews, and he's more often right than wrong.
Front page because we'll read it, we'll coment on it, and we'll debate whether or not he has sufficient celebrity status (which brings us right back to your point).
It's not that he's profound, and it's not that he's well spoken (he's definately not). It's not that he's a well known blogger, as most probably don't consider his claim to be due to his blog. He's been around since before you could reach the keyboard, and he's written utilities that were once among the most widely installed on unix boxes. Even those of us who may think he's somewhat of an ass still like being notified when he's got something poignant to say.
He might be considered front page material because he's not really known as a blogger, but because even those of us who think he's an ass probably are using or have used software that he wrote or maintained, or because we begrudgingly acknowledge that he often has something worthwhile to say.
Re:Why aren't macs more popular? (Score:5, Interesting)
I entered the lab. To my right, a bank of smaller, friendly-looking Mac Classics (but I didn't know what they were). Menus, icons, mice. To my left, a bank of foreboding but somehow more powerful looking IBM ATs. Green screens with text-mode commands, one of which would launch WordPerfect 5.0. I had to make a choice, and a completely uninformed choice, mind. In really had no idea what was what there.
I picked an IBM. Someone instructed me to press F3 for help and F7 to exit. I took it from there, and loved it. By the time I left, I must have known much of WordPerfect's help system by heart. I did try the Macs once or twice while there, but I went back to the IBMs every time. I wish I knew why, but I don't. Maybe theys looked more serious, more powerful. Maybe they adhered better to my uninformed mental image of what a computer was supposed to be like. Today I can list all sorts of reasons why I prefer one to the other, but it's mere rationalizing after the choice was made. I guess Macs looked too much like toys to me, while those text-mode DOS screens looked inscrutable, and hence they looked fascinating.
Re:Why aren't macs more popular? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why aren't macs more popular? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Your ignorance answers the question (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bah (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone who can't use an interface you understand isn't as smart as you and therefore is not worthy of consideration. Is that it? You can see where this leads when a developer hears criticism of the UI - they designed it, so of course they understand it. Stupid users! Of course it's their fault.
And then they go and blame the same users for choosing windows...
Re:Bah (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Open Letter to ESR (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you kidding me? This is precisely the thing that we need to concentrate on. If we can't be critical of ourselves - MS sure can.
Re:Open Letter to ESR (Score:5, Insightful)
I know writing GUIs is a pain (I'm not a professional programmer, but I've had to do nothing but coding for 2 years), but programmers have to stop blaming the users and other people who point out things like this. It's just a denial that 95% of all people using a computer need something simple because, to them, IT IS JUST A TOOL, and they need to use it to produce a product, not to hack on and explore.
ESR has a good point -- if FOSS is going to replace closed source, or hold its own, or even continue to grow, FOSS programmers will have to get realistic in understanding how users think instead of blaming users because the programmers don't want to make the effort to understand the other side of the issue.
For the good of the FOSS community, ESR needs to speak out more, and people like the above poster need to "please shut up" and listen to other points of view, instead of hiding their head in the sand in denial.
Re:Open Letter to ESR (Score:5, Insightful)
It's attitudes exactly as yours that will relegate Linux to a niche. You are not helping Linux and OSS, you are hurting it.
Re:My experience (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:who's we? (Score:5, Insightful)
ESR is part of the community. He's not some teenager whining that the software doesn't work - he's a respected figure pointing out a problem in hopes that it will be recognized and fixed.
Typical (Score:5, Insightful)
With open souce, problems are just an excuse to try to force people who find problems to "join the cause" or you can just ignore any problems they find.
Here's a crazy idea members of the Open Source community such as yourself need to get through your thick skull: take responsibility for the crap you write. If you write the code, it's YOUR responsibility to fix the problems. No one else is obligated to fix a line of code and is more than free to point out the flaws.
He didn't write CUPS so why should he feel obligated to fix it? He's a USER. He didn't write the code. He didn't design the interface. As a USER he's in a position to criticize. It's what users do.
Whinning he doesn't treat you like a king and kiss your feet for blessing him with what he sees as crap, is not going to do anything to win support for the project.
This is why I choose what Open Source projects I use very carefully and rarely recommend them and never because they are Open Source.
Ben
indeed (Score:5, Interesting)
This is especially true if its a non-trivial piece of software. Several times new programmers have come into software packages I've been working on, don't bother to read the structural documentation or even the useful other code that serves as examples for how to improve and extend upon the existing structure.
Instead they try and do things their own way, often end up doing things redundantly or breaking something else and just otherwise fouling more than they contribute.
The best person to improve upon software is the person who designed in the first place! Or someone who's worked on it extensively enough to know the quirks, the reasoning behind non-obvious parts and knows the rest of package throughout.
Telling a user to fix a poor piece of software is incredibly frustrating and lame to those of us who, god forbid, have other things to do in our lives.
Re:Eric, we love you but... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's all well and good to put out an excellent piece of software like CUPS, but it's also important to communicate its workings (and CUPS is just an example; we could go down a list if we wanted to). Even though I have extensive coding experience, I think the best way I could contribute to Open Source is on the documentation side... if I can just figure out what I'm doing first
Beyond that, open source developers need to develop the mindset (pun semi-intended) that their user knows either little-to-nothing for desktop applications, or basic server administration for daemons. Each piece of documentation should begin with something like "In order to comprehend this documentation, we suggest you be knowledgeable about: (shell scripting, OpenSSL CA management, installing CPAN modules, etc)." Pointing to some good references would be a bonus. Listing knowledge dependencies is every bit as important as listing library/package dependencies.
Once that's out of the way, you have to communicate everything necessary to configure and run the software. Writing documentation from a naive (in terms of program functionality) perspective is difficult and tedious, but it is doable. You just have to ask yourself "If I didn't write this, would I know what the hell I'm talking about?" after eveyr paragraph.
And that's just to be "reasonably" useable. If we really want to "take over the desktop," then we need perfectly polished wizards and other GUI tools to help those users that are are not inclined to RTFM, spend a few hours with Google, or (shudder) RTFS. The bottom line: it's wonderful to put out a really cool and useful piece of software, but the job isn't done until it's documented (daemons) and / or idiot-proof (end-user software).
I hate this answer (Score:5, Insightful)
Because he's a USER (Score:5, Interesting)
Why? Because he's a USER. Not a programmer. Developers have a responsibility to listen to their userbase. If you want market-share, then when your users say "I don't understand X", you DO NOT say "well, FINE, fix it yourself!" That is ENTIRELY the wrong attitude. ESR may be confrontational, but you're even more so.
Why doesn't your approach work? Because they're simply going to walk away. Software is so complex these days that many people, even programmers, couldn't possibly contribute without investing a serious amount of time. Hmm, which is a better use of resources- 12 hours of a user messing around learning your functions, conventions, library calls etc(and probably introducing more bugs than features)- or 15 minutes for you to add the button yourself?
I know -exactly- how he feels. Countless times I've found software that has a super-spiffy web page, touts how damn good it is to anyone who's reading- but you unpack the source and Jeeeeesuschriiiiiist you can't figure out which way is up- and I've been building and compiling unix packages for almost 10 years(when i was yer age, we had to edit makefile library paths ourselves! None of this automake...) Then, if you get it built, you run it and menus have confusing names, there's no help file, there are secret options nobody mentions that are in the ~/.myprogram directory, and so on.
The mldonkey p2p client was an excellent example. The developers continuously worked on all sorts of weird theoretical schemes for this and that, while the userbase clamored for a manual(there was none), a description of what each setting did(ditto- the developers would cheerfully add some oddly-named option and not explain to ANYONE what it did), or for features that were common in other clients. Such as the ability to share a file without having to restart the client(shocking!) But hey, you got three different algorithms to pick from for how it managed sources for files. Yaaaay!
no no no no no! (Score:5, Funny)
Then 4,000 penguin-fanboys will come out of the wood work, each with a distinct solution to your problem!
Now had you asked for help, they would have said "Read the man page! n00b!"
As for me, I can't really help you. I run AIX. And some other window'd operating system that allows to to remotely access my AIX boxes.
Re:no no no no no! (Score:5, Funny)
I would say you're beyond assistance there.
Re:In other news.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yeah, a real surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
And who are the (l)users? The persons who use a computer as a tool to get their job done? The persons who don't think of their OS as a religion? The persons who given in and try Open Source software only to find that a good deal of software isn't as usable as it could be? When they ask or comment they are thrown to the wolves.
OMG..imagine a guy who has done a good deal of visible work for the Open Source cause, points out a weakness or simply an area that needs some improvement, and the most visible and shocking comments on /. are the ones knocking the guy. Very little in the way of, "yeah things could be better...How do we fix this? How do we help?"
Re:Yeah, a real surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yeah, a real surprise (Score:5, Informative)
I write code for a living. I can code in Perl, C++, C, VB6,
Guess what? I don't run linux. There are two reasons:
1. I write code generally for windows and occasionally I take work home.
2. I don't have hours on end to spare learning how to use Linux effectively.
I love the idea of Linux and at times have made the attempt to migrate my desktop to Linux, with the plan of starting by dual booting, and migrating my environment across bit by bit. Well guess what: each time the GUIs didn't work and I spent half my time hacking around in RC files. You get *awfully* tired of that after a while (or I did).
I might think about running Linux for servers, but I want to see a lot more work of the quality of knoppix done before I consider it with making the effort. Unless of course I get fired and have a lot of spare time on my hands.
If you want linux to achieve market acceptance it must be written to work for the dumb home users and it has a hell of a long way to come.
PS I'm not interested in being told that Ruby, D, ALGOL, Brainf**k or $favorite_language are commonly used languages.
Re:Network Printing != Aunt Tillie (Score:5, Insightful)
ESR never claimed to be an ignorant newbie. In fact, he's pretty computer literate, and this was the only thing that allowed him to beat it into submission. His point is correct: if Linux is going to make inroads on the desktop, the learning curve has to be flattened enormously.
Re:foomatic (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's use a HP Photosmartt 7350 (semi-random printer make and model I happen to be familiar with, since I just set one up for my mother. It's also USB, which is getting more and more common nowadays)
I'll go first:
1) Plug in printer power
2) Connect printer to computer
3) Turn printer on
4) Wait about 30 seconds for Windows to detect the printer
5) Click "Okay" a few times (about 4 times I think...)
Sure, you won't have the super-duper software (which you'ld have to install seperately), but you can hit "print" and it'll print. For fairness I'll exclude the software because there's no Linux version anyway.
Okay, your turn!
=Smidge=