[mythtv-users] Why Free Software has poor usability ?

Jerry Rubinow jerrymr at gmail.com
Fri Aug 8 16:17:02 UTC 2008


On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 11:57 AM, jedi <jedi at mishnet.org> wrote:

>
> > There are two versions of Office.  Why would you upgrade if you like and
> a) New installs
> b) People insist on sending you files in the newest format.


a) If IT knows what it's doing, they likely have a standard install for all
the computers.
b) You can read new formats with the old Office with a free plugin


> And it completely violates the "Windows is a pretty neat idea because
> > > you only have to learn how to run apps once" argument in favor of WIMP
> > > interfaces in general.
> >
> >
> > 1. The utility of that paradigm breaks down when you start getting to the
> > point of hundreds of menu items.
>
> ...no argument there.
>
> That's a reason to avoid unecessary feature creep. Most end users
> would be well suited by $50 "office" applications from before the
> MS hegemony in office suites. Microsoft's equivalent of Word Perfect
> is plum overkill.


I completely agree.  However I bet there'd be a much greater outcry if MS
started removing features from Word.



> > 2. It's arguable whether it's even true in the first place, but
> regardless,
> > it doesn't mean that one should never try to improve the UI.
>
> For the given context, that's such an obvious false strawman.


Well then suggest an alternative.  Given that Word is bloated with hundreds
of functions, how would you improve usability?  A menu paradigm isn't
designed for that kind of situation.  All I've heard so far is that MS
should have changed the UI.  It sounds like stasis to me.



>
> > > Efficiency: fixing the problem right.
> > >
> > > Effectiveness: fixing the right problem.
> > >
> >
> > The purpose of O2K7 was to fix its usability problems, from what I
> > understand, and I think they made good strides in doing that.
>
> WHAT "usability problems"?
>
> The purpose of Office2007 is to continue the cash cow.
> Any end user requirements or technical considerations
> are entirely secondary (if not tertiary).
>
> Why even change the tools at all since their 4.2 versions?


Yes, of course the ultimate purpose of Office is to make money for MS.
However the programming team was trying to fix a particular problem with
Office, backed up by a lot of data.

-Jerry
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mythtv.org/pipermail/mythtv-users/attachments/20080808/c93d1d85/attachment.htm 


More information about the mythtv-users mailing list