On 16 June 2010 05:02, Connor Lane Smith <c...@lubutu.com> wrote: > On 16 June 2010 02:32, Kurt H Maier <karmaf...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Using the term 'user experience' at all, much less abbreviating it >> 'UX,' is every bit as snotty. A lot of programmers don't give a shit >> about 'user experience' because they are competent users of a >> complicated machine, and they expect other people to be able to >> maintain respiration while remembering which button to press next. > > I think one of the problems you're having is that when you read "user > experience" you think "graphical design", which means you sort of miss > the point. (Apologies if the term is snotty, but we don't really have > any others. If the term "these days means" something else, that's > unfortunate - a lot of terms we use around here these days mean > something new. "Unix", for instance.) Think of it more as how the user > interacts with the software, not on a graphical level but a > psychological one. > > The Unix philosophy, creating simple tools which can be easily > combined in new ways, isn't an engineering improvement, it's an > interactive one. It's about allowing the user to more efficiently use > their software. That's why we have stderr (hey old thread), why we > prefer fewer flags, and why "silence is golden". It's more about usage > than machinery. > >> Try to keep that in mind while we all ignore your glowing buttons and >> dynamic menus with pastel gradients. > > Talking of pastel, have you ever used Acme? You should read the paper > on it [1]. The "nuances and heuristics" section is all about is how > Pike tried to make the user interface simple and efficient. But- but- > that's a user interface for Plan 9 programmers! Could it be that we > too need well-designed user interaction? > > This may shock you, but we are mortal. Programmers cannot understand > the entire machine down to the last transistor, and computers are > becoming ever more complex. Some software we use may assume that it > has the undivided attention of some infallible user (*cough* vi), but > generally we try to use simple software which just lets us do whatever > it is we want to do. > > However, you are right about one thing: a lot of programmers don't > give a shit about "user experience". That's a huge shame. That sort of > thinking will get us closer to vi and emacs and further from acme and > sam. None of the editors I've mentioned are perfect (please no holy > war), but the latter two are designed to be simple both internally and > externally. (If only internal simplicity mattered we would have stuck > with ed.) > > I hope that someday more programmers will care about user experience. > I also hope that they realise programmers are users too, and aren't > perfect either. > > [1] http://doc.cat-v.org/plan_9/4th_edition/papers/acme/
I wouldn't say that careful user interface consideration results in sam or acme necessarily. I tried to adapt acme for quite a long time some years ago; and always felt uncomfortable. This doesn't mean that they don't work for others though. My general perception is that the IT trend is the believe that there is a user interface that works for everyone, but apart from the power switch button I pretty much disagree. Having said that suckless' focus has always been the experienced computer user, hence I don't really think we should follow the trend and design an interface that works for granny. The point is we should design user interfaces for ourselves, not for Apple users ;) --Anselm
