[linux-audio-dev] Usability (was: marketing hype)

On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 12:39:42PM +0200, Alfons Adriaensen wrote: I wasn't refering to anyone specialy, but there were several instances of quite agressive tone around here, and it helps no one. I guess the word is misused and misunderstood quite often. I think a nice and useful definition is this one: - Effectivity - Efficiency - User satisfaction The fact that users are total noobs only once lowers the need for easy learnability. In many cases allowing efficient use is more important. But having to learn various means to reach the same goal is bad (at least if there are no clear advantages to each variation). The maybe most central aspect of usability, consistency, is not only good for having to learn stuff only once, but also allows habituation: subconcious handling, so full attention can go to the actual task at hand. One can perform several tasks at once if they are automated/subconcious, but concious attention can only go to one thing at any time. Therfore good ui is careful not to distract the user's attention and tries to step into the background as far as possible. As user of professional audio, graphics and 3d apps ... do I need to say more? I'm not in it for the money (allthough I might put gui work in my portfolio), I'm quite idealistic about human-computer interaction, as it is a important aspect of my life. I'm against dumbing down, but much for making things as simple as possible, but not simpler. Or by another way, there must be a clear advantage for every complication. Any complexity should bring possibilties, not just confusion. Differences coming from functionality are not the problem. But having to deal with various ways how knobs react, scales are implemented, pulldown menus behave and so on doesn't bring an advantage to anyone. There would be still much space for differences in concept and behaviour untouched by unification on widget level (and always room for totaly new widgets, if they make sense in a special case). Why do you think I might have some strange ideas that would give asking such questions to me any sense? Oh, and: No! Interface aspects that allow special control/expression/results can of course not be replaced by ones that do not have such characteristics. But a volume slider is a volume slider, and there's more to be gained than lost by standardizing such things. Different interfaces for different results. But please not different interfaces for the same results without specific advantages (besides experimentation). The comparison to physical musical instruments is rather lacking, but it would be great to have software that actualy feels like one. What's wrong with the 'attitude' of liking to have highest usability for concentrating on getting work done / transforming inspiration into music with least obstacles? And in many varying details in guis I don't see a 'flavour', but rather not knowing better / random decisions. Bad wording on my side. I mean the ability to achieve more and better things by working together. I did not say that you would have to be interested in anything, and I'm not about world domination or just copying commercial stuff (should be left behind in the dust in all aspects :) I don't rant, I rather use 'should', not 'must'. No bad word about this list / the community from me. I don't want to push people around (actual I could only try and fail, it's funny how marketing was mentioned in a mail being an example how not to do it). I would like to see more cooperation, and I offer to bring my time and skills in. --- Thorsten Wilms