Alex Ionescu wrote:
Mike Nordell wrote: After exchanging words with them both on IRC now, my vote is for mf.
In all fairness, you talked with Mikko for 5 minutes as he was preparing to sleep ;)
Indeed. Now, after few hours of sleep, I'm still hardly the sharpest tool in a shed but at least my thoughts can run straight line...
I forgot to mention something.. Approachability. Now I want you to think of regular user who uses his windows machine at work for e-mail and Word -writings.. Now, give him two computers, both have exactly same OS (say ROS) but with different approach for GUI (one that looks like windows and another one which kinda looks like windows but still looks like something else and somewhat acts like windows)... Now, which one do you think he/she is going to go for? To the windows look-alike. But why? Because it has higher approachability. I've seen this happen thousand times. People are afraid of anything new and sometimes even refuse to learn anything new if it is _absolutely_ necessary (i.e. if the old means are still usable even though not nearly as efficent as the new ones). Even though I'd love nothing more than to design fully new and revolutional concept for UI it is simply not efficent in this case IF ReactOS aims to be "another windows". The reason why I am driving this "another windows" concept is that it is basically the very mind and soul of ROS. The ultimate goal is to be 100% Windows compatible, but if the UI isn't Windows like the users will see it not as "another windows" but as "another OS" which then makes ROS to lose it's desired market value. (as windows compatible OS) If the user can't clearly distinct the fact that it really is "another windows" how can you expect him to realize that ROS really is 100% windows compatible AND you can run all your regular Windows software on it? Put a tag line on the boot screen? Not going to work, nor will the same line work on web-page, because regular users usually won't change their working OS by downloading and burning another one from internet but by observation. They will see someone else use it, maybe even try it themselves, perhaps think that they are using Windows but then realize that while they are doing everything they needed to do they are doing it it completely new environment. Of course to achieve this there has to be distinct clues that you are not in your regular Windows but also it has to look like Windows at the first glance. If it does look like Windows regular users will expect it to work like Windows (hence they can immediately start using it) and they will most likely will expect to run the same software because it looks and feels like Windows.
-mikko
On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 11:13:14AM +0300, Mikko Tikkanen wrote:
If it does look like Windows regular users will expect it to work like Windows (hence they can immediately start using it) and they will most likely will expect to run the same software because it looks and feels like Windows.
hmm.. sounds like the reasons against swing in java-land. just that it's mostly developers whining and users using.
with a clone project, users and devs will whine - some because it's just 99% the original, others because it doesn't improve on its blueprint. one size fits all won't work.
If you aim for "100% compatible behaviour", forget it. 99% (and risking irritiations with users, because it _does_ behave different) are possible, a "different but similar" approach is also possible and can be okay with users (depending on how different it is, of course)
example to support the last one: the complete microsoft suite of applications. how many different toolkits do they use? what about color schemes? SDI vs. MDI? they're not very consistent, but the only ones I've seen complain about it are product reviewers.
patrick mauritz
I never said anything about "100% compatible behaviour". "100% software compatibility" and compatible behaviour are completely different matters. Behaviour can be completely different even though the surface would mimic windows. What I mean can be seen from my start -menu mockup. It is compatible with windows (regular windows users can handle their way around) and yet it's taking a step furter.
Behaviour in here would most likely include doing stuff the same way that you would do in windows but it really doesn't have to be carbon copy. I think no-one is aiming for that. After all, the goal is to make another windows but better, i.e. fix the errors Microsoft (might) have done.
It really doesn't matter wheter it's SDI or MDI (or anything else) as long as regular user knows how to achieve things he wants to do without reading helps or consulting someone who's familiar with ROS.
Why are the product reviewers complaining about consistency? Maybe because they know that it is reducing the usability of the UI? Like I have said many times, the users base their evaluations on subjective experience which rarely is accurate way, if any, of measuring usability and performance. Hence, they might not even realize that their workflow is being hindered.
-mikko
On 5/23/05, Patrick Mauritz oxygene@studentenbude.ath.cx wrote:
On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 11:13:14AM +0300, Mikko Tikkanen wrote:
If it does look like Windows regular users will expect it to work like Windows (hence they can immediately start using it) and they will most likely will expect to run the same software because it looks and feels like Windows.
hmm.. sounds like the reasons against swing in java-land. just that it's mostly developers whining and users using.
with a clone project, users and devs will whine - some because it's just 99% the original, others because it doesn't improve on its blueprint. one size fits all won't work.
If you aim for "100% compatible behaviour", forget it. 99% (and risking irritiations with users, because it _does_ behave different) are possible, a "different but similar" approach is also possible and can be okay with users (depending on how different it is, of course)
example to support the last one: the complete microsoft suite of applications. how many different toolkits do they use? what about color schemes? SDI vs. MDI? they're not very consistent, but the only ones I've seen complain about it are product reviewers.
patrick mauritz
You already know it:
Another windows is compatible exactly then, if The windows are painted the same way and Arial looks the same and the mouse cursor uses the same .ani-file :-D
We all know that :-/ . Who cares about APIs - the're useless
Mikko Tikkanen wrote:
Alex Ionescu wrote:
Mike Nordell wrote: After exchanging words with them both on IRC now, my vote is for mf.
In all fairness, you talked with Mikko for 5 minutes as he was preparing to sleep ;)
Indeed. Now, after few hours of sleep, I'm still hardly the sharpest tool in a shed but at least my thoughts can run straight line...
I forgot to mention something.. Approachability. Now I want you to think of regular user who uses his windows machine at work for e-mail and Word -writings.. Now, give him two computers, both have exactly same OS (say ROS) but with different approach for GUI (one that looks like windows and another one which kinda looks like windows but still looks like something else and somewhat acts like windows)... Now, which one do you think he/she is going to go for? To the windows look-alike. But why? Because it has higher approachability. I've seen this happen thousand times. People are afraid of anything new and sometimes even refuse to learn anything new if it is _absolutely_ necessary (i.e. if the old means are still usable even though not nearly as efficent as the new ones). Even though I'd love nothing more than to design fully new and revolutional concept for UI it is simply not efficent in this case IF ReactOS aims to be "another windows". The reason why I am driving this "another windows" concept is that it is basically the very mind and soul of ROS. The ultimate goal is to be 100% Windows compatible, but if the UI isn't Windows like the users will see it not as "another windows" but as "another OS" which then makes ROS to lose it's desired market value. (as windows compatible OS) If the user can't clearly distinct the fact that it really is "another windows" how can you expect him to realize that ROS really is 100% windows compatible AND you can run all your regular Windows software on it? Put a tag line on the boot screen? Not going to work, nor will the same line work on web-page, because regular users usually won't change their working OS by downloading and burning another one from internet but by observation. They will see someone else use it, maybe even try it themselves, perhaps think that they are using Windows but then realize that while they are doing everything they needed to do they are doing it it completely new environment. Of course to achieve this there has to be distinct clues that you are not in your regular Windows but also it has to look like Windows at the first glance. If it does look like Windows regular users will expect it to work like Windows (hence they can immediately start using it) and they will most likely will expect to run the same software because it looks and feels like Windows.
-mikko
ros-general mailing list ros-general@reactos.com http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
-
Mikko Tikkanen -
Patrick Mauritz -
Robert Köpferl