It’s hard making things simple, it requires research with focus groups, constant testing, firm guidelines based on the results.
They’ve done a lot of that in the middle 90s to middle 00s, when after things moving fast most GUIs were so atrocious it was just necessary. Thus classic Windows versions and classic MacOS (till 9) and Amiga Workbench and even Windows XP are very usable. Even OpenLook and Motif are not so bad.
Today we have a lot of network effects and inability to just drop something we hate to use, thus the market incentive for a similar widespread optimization of GUIs doesn’t form.
So - both KDE and Gnome today are horrible, but Gnome folks are at least trying very hard. I generally like KDE more, but their ergonomics were always overloading me as an ASD person to the degree of being exhausted by 15 minutes of using it.
Gnome is less overloading, but - use of titlebars to show custom controls for every application is good for wow-effect, but bad when you want to expect only one function from titlebar in every application. And the paradigm of Windows taskbar or Motif icons or something else for hidden windows being indicated and immediately accessible is good. If they don’t like taskbars, they could add something like iconbox in TWM or old FVWM or such. And a more Spartan (like usual) application menu.
TLDR, between imitating Apple/touchscreen UIs and ergonomics Gnomers have to make a compromise, or pick one lane. Right now it’s quite irritating when in some place they pick the latter and in some the former.
I think KDE and Gnome are much more user friendly than Mac or Windows. They just work and the UI tends to be fairly consistent and clean. I think this is due to foss and not having to worry about saving money by not fixing things.
It’s hard making things simple, it requires research with focus groups, constant testing, firm guidelines based on the results.
They’ve done a lot of that in the middle 90s to middle 00s, when after things moving fast most GUIs were so atrocious it was just necessary. Thus classic Windows versions and classic MacOS (till 9) and Amiga Workbench and even Windows XP are very usable. Even OpenLook and Motif are not so bad.
Today we have a lot of network effects and inability to just drop something we hate to use, thus the market incentive for a similar widespread optimization of GUIs doesn’t form.
So - both KDE and Gnome today are horrible, but Gnome folks are at least trying very hard. I generally like KDE more, but their ergonomics were always overloading me as an ASD person to the degree of being exhausted by 15 minutes of using it.
Gnome is less overloading, but - use of titlebars to show custom controls for every application is good for wow-effect, but bad when you want to expect only one function from titlebar in every application. And the paradigm of Windows taskbar or Motif icons or something else for hidden windows being indicated and immediately accessible is good. If they don’t like taskbars, they could add something like iconbox in TWM or old FVWM or such. And a more Spartan (like usual) application menu.
TLDR, between imitating Apple/touchscreen UIs and ergonomics Gnomers have to make a compromise, or pick one lane. Right now it’s quite irritating when in some place they pick the latter and in some the former.
I think KDE and Gnome are much more user friendly than Mac or Windows. They just work and the UI tends to be fairly consistent and clean. I think this is due to foss and not having to worry about saving money by not fixing things.
Than today’s Mac and Windows - sure. But take w2k or macos 9 - and hell no. Those are much cleaner and more consistent.
Evil or not, w2k is something everyone should thank MS for, it’s really how it should be.