Amarok Blog - Comments

Janne: Micro-Options, Many-Options, No-Options? A practical guide to help you decide.

nospam@example.com (Janne) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:12:03 -0500

Everyone thinking about choices, settings and options should watch the "the paradox of choice"- talk on Ted-talks. It's really insightful.

Options and the like are only useful of the system
does not work the way you want it to work. If it does, then those options are useless. If there are lots of options, you reduce user-satisfaction, since the user will constantly second-guess that "would some other config-combination work better?" and because when things do not work optImally, user has no-one but himself to blame, since he could re-configure the system anyway he likes. With few options the user is happier because when things don't work, he can know that he's not to blame.

In the Ted-talk it was mentioned that more choices reduce the number of choices made. By having fewer choices the users would be more comfortable in making those choices, since they would understand them. The user would be empowered to make a choice, having lots of options makes it harder to choose anything.

Also, calling GNOME-users "sheeple" is not smart nor kind...

jbernardo: Micro-Options, Many-Options, No-Options? A practical guide to help you decide.

nospam@example.com (jbernardo) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:29:15 -0500

The removal of options is why a particular application went from being my favourite music player and organizer to not being used. When the developers refuse to include options (like making panes movable or hide-able) even if those options have been developed and made available to be integrated in the trunk, just because they refuse to allow users to make a application look like it was in 1.x, then I no longer care. I look for another application.
Please don't make that to all KDE. I like being able to manage my applications without having to invest more time (that I don't have) learning QT and remembering C++. I don't like Gnome (or MSFT) approach "developers know best". I don't like survey oriented interfaces - they always end up being usable only by those that participated in the survey.
I like choice - don't take it away. Hide it with a "advanced" interface if needed, but don't remove choice. If I don't have choice, I might as well go to Gnome.

Dotan Cohen: Micro-Options, Many-Options, No-Options? A practical guide to help you decide.

nospam@example.com (Dotan Cohen) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 06:51:36 -0500

> Who is advanced, and with
> what specifically?

What is advanced, not who: the option. These would be options that would interest only a minority of users, yet would be very important to that minority. These would be the features that would otherwise be not included for the sake of simplicity. See for instance this bug:

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=191342

Ian: Micro-Options, Many-Options, No-Options? A practical guide to help you decide.

nospam@example.com (Ian) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 06:49:06 -0500

I know its an old idea but it works. Just because an idea is old doesn't mean its bad, maybe it can be refined.

I see it more for advanced options rather than advanced user. It allows you to hide fine grain configuration options that are not required to be seen by someone who is quite happy with sensible defaults but also accessible to those that want to play.

JohnFlux: Micro-Options, Many-Options, No-Options? A practical guide to help you decide.

nospam@example.com (JohnFlux) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:54:56 -0500

You should probably things those options automatically if the graphics level is low:

KGlobalSettings::graphicEffectsLevel()

http://api.kde.org/4.x-api/kdelibs-apidocs/kdeui/html/classKGlobalSettings.html

Please obey this function

Hans: Micro-Options, Many-Options, No-Options? A practical guide to help you decide.

nospam@example.com (Hans) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:40:55 -0500

You can make Dolphin/Konqueror look pretty much like Folderview:
http://hanswchen.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/folderview-dolphin.png

It's also possible to link your "desktop" (activity) to your virtual desktops:
http://userbase.kde.org/images.userbase/6/6b/Plasma_howto-activity-link.gif

Mark Kretschmann: Micro-Options, Many-Options, No-Options? A practical guide to help you decide.

nospam@example.com (Mark Kretschmann) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:44:18 -0500

An "Advanced" mode is an old idea, it comes with problems of its own:

Who is advanced, and with what specifically? For example, I might be really advanced with configuring color schemes up to the tiniest detail. At the same time, I could be totally unexperienced with configuring a crypto system.

Does that make me an advanced user, or an unadvanced one?

Ian: Micro-Options, Many-Options, No-Options? A practical guide to help you decide.

nospam@example.com (Ian) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:30:53 -0500

I don't see any reason why all the confusing KDE options could not be hidden behind an "Advanced" button (not necessarily password protected). When Advanced is pressed as warning on the opening dialog says "Don't touch unless you know what you are doing, you could ....." (or something).
Opensuse's Yast/System Settings is subject to the "confusion" of too many places to modify one item e.g. you just need one button called "Screen" (or Monitor).
You can still have all the options you want but limit the number of ways to access them.

Mark Kretschmann: Micro-Options, Many-Options, No-Options? A practical guide to help you decide.

nospam@example.com (Mark Kretschmann) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:02:12 -0500

Except that noone besides Bruce Schneier is going to understand this dialog. This doesn't help security, it weakens it.

Clicking one wrong button (of the many obscure ones) could get you in a lot of trouble.

Mark Kretschmann: Micro-Options, Many-Options, No-Options? A practical guide to help you decide.

nospam@example.com (Mark Kretschmann) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:56:43 -0500

Thanks Max. This means a lot, coming from you. I have actually learned quite a bit from you regarding GUI design.

ron: Micro-Options, Many-Options, No-Options? A practical guide to help you decide.

nospam@example.com (ron) — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:18:22 -0500

Oops, somehow the above got top-posted. I meant it as a reply to post #1 by Roland. Sorry.

ron: Micro-Options, Many-Options, No-Options? A practical guide to help you decide.

nospam@example.com (ron) — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:16:41 -0500

You can actually set up each desktop to be its own environment. This will let you set up unique backgrounds/wallpapers and desktop specific plasma widgets/applets.

To do this :
Click on the Desktop Cashew in the upper right corner of your screen. A pop out menu will appear;
Select the Configure Plasm... option. A dialog box will appear with two options:
Different Activity for each desktop
Use a separate dashboard
Enable "Different Activity for each desktop".

Now you can set up a unique folderview plasmoid/applet/widget/thingy on each desktop.

HTH,

Ron

Prasad: Micro-Options, Many-Options, No-Options? A practical guide to help you decide.

nospam@example.com (Prasad) — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:57:25 -0500

You think this is bad? How about a million compile time options?

./configure --enable-slapping-user

Anyway great article!

Ian Monroe: Micro-Options, Many-Options, No-Options? A practical guide to help you decide.

nospam@example.com (Ian Monroe) — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:12:55 -0500

These are really good examples of how better technology can get rid of options.

Max Howell: Micro-Options, Many-Options, No-Options? A practical guide to help you decide.

nospam@example.com (Max Howell) — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:07:14 -0500

Best Planet KDE post in a long time. Great job Markey