To Mike Nordell

[Mikko Tikkanen]

>  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

[Patrick Mauritz]

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

[Mikko Tikkanen]

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(a)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

[Robert Köpferl]

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(a)reactos.com
>  http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
>