User Friendliness

[MyWorld]

I have seen allot of talk about "user friendliness" the past few weeks, and this has had me thinking a bit, what exactly is user friendliness?

Is it the absence of any form of CLi? That has already been achieved (Mandriva, Fedora, PCLinuxOS, etc.)
Is it the ease of integration? Plug-and-playability? That has been achieved by the same distros mentioned above.
Is it cross platform compatibility? That is only as possible as MS and Mac allowing one. Here nobody can do anything since you need the source to better the relationship between say Windows and Linux.

So what exactly is "user friendly"? And what still needs to be done to make it even more so?

Idiot proof? I'll dump Linux the day it achieves this, that is what a Mac is for.

Game proof? That will probably never happen (propriety games) since again, directX is closed source and I do not see developers switching over to openGL on mass just yet. We are thankful for the developers that do use openGL however.

And if these are the only two driving forces behind the "user friendly" argument, then the people need to re-evaluate why exactly they use PC's IMHO.

I do not want to start a flame war between 733t and n00b, just a healthy debate on what do you see as user friendliness.

 

[PsyWulf]

Average computer user can fix average windows problems.

Average linux user can fix average linux problems.

Average linux user can fix average windows problems.

Average windows user can't fix average linux problems.

Dunno how that sums it up?

 

[Kloofvreter]

Average computer user can fix average windows problems.

Average linux user can fix average linux problems.

Average linux user can fix average windows problems.

Average windows user can't fix average linux problems.

Dunno how that sums it up?

I thought Linux was perfect? So what Linux problems are you talking about

 

[icyrus]

User interface consistency and intuitiveness are the basis of this. Linux has come a long way, but there is still quite some way to go.

 

[MyWorld]

Average computer user can fix average windows problems.

Average linux user can fix average linux problems.

Average linux user can fix average windows problems.

Average windows user can't fix average linux problems.

Dunno how that sums it up?

True, but this is not only Linux - windows specific, but also Mac.

Average windows users can't fix anything (Linux or Mac) outside of windows.

 

[MyWorld]

User interface consistency

You are being a bit vague here, are you talking about the different way distros handle GUI configuration, the Desktop interface or app interfaces?

 

[icyrus]

You are being a bit vague here, are you talking about the different way distros handle GUI configuration, the Desktop interface or app interfaces?

A simple explanation is that all graphical applications on the system follow the same human interface guidelines, use the same graphical widgets and conform the the same best practices. Hence if you know how to use one of the programs the rest all follow intuitively.

 

[slayerza]

The term user friendliness has the inherent volatility that it is user based. As such what is friendly for one user might not be the case for another <insert KDE/Gnome war>. In general ergonomics is used to determine the general feel that most <normal distribution> users would find appealing

 

[Deenem]

So what exactly is "user friendly"? And what still needs to be done to make it even more so?

The key to User Friendliness is that it has *absolutely* nothing to do with the technolgy and *everything* to do with the user and what they are doing and thinking.

Understanding that is key to creating a User Friendly system. Stop looking at the the system, do a 180 degree turn and start looking at the User. Only then will you start to understand what Usability is all about.

If the user is finding the system easy to use then it's user friendly, if they are lost and frustrated because they don't know what to do, then it's not.

IMO, the problem with Linux is that whenever anyone mentions Usability all the developers rush out and try to find a solution using technology<insert KDE/Gnome/Ubuntu/Suse/ etc flame war here>, but there is no technological solution for Usability.

To create a User Friendly system you need to understand how people think and behave and very few programmers are able to do that. Microsoft don't have developers designing user interfaces, they have industrial psychologists designing user interfaces, because psychologists understand how people think.

Unless Linux starts an open-source usability initiative to rope in people who actually understand how people think and work (not programmers) to design their user interfaces, it's destined to be a failure as a desktop OS.

 

[LFX]

very interesting point deenem

 

[wezhira]

i think user friendliness like stated above has to do with the user making things simpler for the user eg installinig applications targz dependency problems opensuse has tried to make things easier withj its one click install feature . and various other distributions have their own package management systems
but tar.gz still remains the killer

 

[milomak]

the "user friendly" problem with regard to Linux is that people switching from Windows want to do things in Linux the way they do them in Windows. If those people cannot fundamentally get their heads around thatno matter of trying will make Linux user friendly.

I have been using Linux for about 5 years now for something like 98% of the time. Whenever I try to fix something in Windows I always think damn they've made this hard to fix. So from a usability point of view I would say Linux is much easier.

Then you have repos. I mean all your software needs in one place. No need to go to a website. Look for where the downloads are. Make sure you download the correct version. Open up a GUI if that's your thing search for the name. Click install. I'd say that's pretty user-friendly.

And then desktop. Things are in different places compared to Windows? Which Windows? Vista and XP have things ordered differently. I don't hear many people crying that the Vista interface is not user-friendly. In Gnome/KDE/XFCE, you then have a menu system which categorises applications by function. Is that not user friendly?

In my mind, the whole user-friendly slur is from people who want things the way they are used to them. Which is fine. But then probably understand that Linux might not be for you.

 

[fskmh]

I have seen allot of talk about "user friendliness" the past few weeks, and this has had me thinking a bit, what exactly is user friendliness?

Is it the absence of any form of CLi? That has already been achieved (Mandriva, Fedora, PCLinuxOS, etc.)
Is it the ease of integration? Plug-and-playability? That has been achieved by the same distros mentioned above.
Is it cross platform compatibility? That is only as possible as MS and Mac allowing one. Here nobody can do anything since you need the source to better the relationship between say Windows and Linux.

So what exactly is "user friendly"? And what still needs to be done to make it even more so?

I regard the notion of "user friendliness" to be subjective, because what most people use as their criteria for determining it comes from ingrained product conditioning. Of course, Deenem has a valid point about the design of user interfaces, but IMO some knowledge and experience is always going to be inevitable to get the best use out of a particular package or the OS itself.

Removing the CLI or access to lower-level diagnostics would be a mistake, because when things do go wrong, "user friendly" messages can misdirect from the actual source of the error. I would get extremely frustrated with that scenario. For me, an efficient interface just allows me quick access to something so that I can get back to typing or reading. It wouldn't have to be a fancy GUI to do that, something like midnight commander (with lynx-style navigation) would work for that.

Idiot proof? I'll dump Linux the day it achieves this, that is what a Mac is for.

I don't necessarily agree with your POV there, but I certainly would prefer to keep the bloat to a minimum or optional. (Yes, whether it's an old 486 or my quad I prefer to use fluxbox + gkrellm + xmms + a few aterms.)

Game proof? That will probably never happen (propriety games) since again, directX is closed source and I do not see developers switching over to openGL on mass just yet. We are thankful for the developers that do use openGL however.

Separate debate, but definitely related in the sense that market uptake is linked to the perceived "user friendliness", amongst other things.

And if these are the only two driving forces behind the "user friendly" argument, then the people need to re-evaluate why exactly they use PC's IMHO.

I do not want to start a flame war between 733t and n00b, just a healthy debate on what do you see as user friendliness.

A big factor for me is digital rights; i.e. my right to not have my own PC telling me what I can and cannot do and also privacy issues.

I suspect that many users just use whatever comes on the laptop or desktop, and are unaware of any alternatives or not in a position to change that. See Ubuntu bug #1 . Although I'm not an *ubuntu user, I think Mark Shuttleworth is doing some commendable work in that respect.

 

[MyWorld]

Great civil debate so far, thanks!

To reply, to some of the stuff mentioned, it seems milomak and I are on the same level regarding this issue. You cannot expect Linux to be Windows, it is a whole different ball game and if you come to the party, take time and learn the game.

In my mind there is not realy something critical I can find lacking in Linux. And granted I have use Linux as my only OS for 8 years now, I cannot seem to understand what say a Mac or Windows do better than Linux...

Yes, Microsoft might have psychologists figuring out what Windows needs, but that does not make it a success. I have not laid my hands on Vista yet, but it seems everyone is deeply annoyed by it. Linux does not need a psychologist to tell them what to do, that is the beauty of the OSS world, freedom to change it as you like, people making changes for other people that they need or want.

And if you find it lacking, change it, the power is in your own hands.

fskmh has also touched on something, but I'm afraid it is going to derail the current discussion if I touch on it, and that is:
"Why would you want to use Linux?"
Philosophical, security, DRM, anti-Windows/Bill, etc. Will start another debate on that one later.

 

[milomak]

One thing that I am sure adds to Linux being labelled as not user-friendly is when someone you is experimenting with Linux has hardware where the vendor does not provide Linux support. The resultant work to get things working can prove to be daunting to some I imagine. So what is an issue with the hardware vendor manifests itself to the user through Linux, even though it is not the fault of Linux.

 

[MyWorld]

That has indeed been a mayor headace in Linux through the years, but that has also been adressed in a gigantic way from vendors like HP, Samsung, IBM, DELL, Intel and AMD. Granted there are still other players that have not come to the party yet, and mostly you will find it is the cheaper hardware, cheap winmodems and USB wireless devices, etc. that still need some work to deliver.

If money was not an option and I could kit myself with HP parts A-Z then I bet I would not find even one incompatible device, but it is the cheaper "knock-offs" that cause problems now and then.

 

[milomak]

yep i remember back in the day trying to configure my aztech usb modem to work. that was fun and games. but rightly as you say, the major players' hardware these days 99% of the time work first time.

 

[fskmh]

One thing that I am sure adds to Linux being labelled as not user-friendly is when someone you is experimenting with Linux has hardware where the vendor does not provide Linux support. The resultant work to get things working can prove to be daunting to some I imagine. So what is an issue with the hardware vendor manifests itself to the user through Linux, even though it is not the fault of Linux.

Or vendors that won't even release the hardware specs so that the device can be fully supported with a native driver, *cough* broadcom *cough*.

 

[milomak]

Or vendors that won't even release the hardware specs so that the device can be fully supported with a native driver, *cough* broadcom *cough*.

that's exactly the kind of example i mean.

 

[Deenem]

I regard the notion of "user friendliness" to be subjective, because what most people use as their criteria for determining it comes from ingrained product conditioning. Of course, Deenem has a valid point about the design of user interfaces, but IMO some knowledge and experience is always going to be inevitable to get the best use out of a particular package or the OS itself.

Absolutely! Usability is definately not a black and white issue like programming, it's a hundred different shades of grey.

That's exactly why programmers are the wrong people to be designing user interfaces, programmers understand 'It works' or 'It doesn't work' they don't understand, 'It works, but it's difficult to use'.

I like using car design when discussiing usability because it's common paradigm that non-IT people can understand.

Consider that every single car in the world (with a manual gearbox) has it's foot pedals arranged in order from left to right, Clutch-Brake-Accelerator. That is a familiar user interface, if you break that user interface you will not attract any users. Now what happens with Linux is you get idiot's like this who say, "The user interface doesn't matter. Re-arrange the foot pedals, if fact, put the accelerator on the steering column. It still performs the same function, even if it's in a different place."
And that the issue. No car manufacturer would ever rearrange the foot pedals in their car because people would simply stop buying their cars, but Linux programmers go around saying, "It doesn't matter, re-arrange everything, as long as it performs the same function, that's all that matters."

The equivalent of 'switching the foor pedals' in Linux is making users open a terminal window to do something. You cannot ever make a user go into a terminal window. If you do then you've basically just put the accelerator on the steering column and said to them, 'Screw you, it doesn't matter what form it takes, it performs the same function. It doesn't matter if you have to go into a terminal window and type a command or if you can use a intuitive GUI to do it, it's the same thing'. And that's just wrong, you cannot do that and then expect people to move to Linux.

The biggest failure of this kind in recent years has been the new Office 2007 interface. Millions of office workers, secretaries and P.A. have a material investment in the Office 2003 user interface. Their saleable market skill is the fact that they know the Office 2003 user interface. With Office 2007 Microsoft came along and said, 'Sorry for you', we're changing the user interface and your skills are now worthless. Just imagine that you're a secretary who does word processing for 8 hours a day in MS Word, and MS says to her, 'Sorry, that skill that you have is now worthless. Unless you invest significant time and effort into learning the new interface your going to be unemployed'. Then tell me that user interfaces are not important.

So, in answer to your stament, I disagree, Usability is more subjective that programming, but if you take the time and effort to learn the basics and get those right then those grey areas start becoming a lot more distinct and easier to see.

Usability Lesson #1: Never make users go into a terminal window.