On 2008-10-20, Hadron was urged to write the following:
> TomB <tommy.bongaerts@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> On 2008-10-20, Hadron was urged to write the following:
>>> "no free software UI is broken, ever."
>> Make that
>> "no UI is broken, ever"
>> Some people like a particular UI, others don't. I'm one of those guys
>> who's very fond of the Gimp UI as it is. So is it broken? Well, not
>> for me at least. I also very much like the interface of command line
>> apps such as mutt and slrn. Yes, there was a learning curve involved,
>> but once I got the hang of it, those applications made my mail and news
>> reading life a whole lot more comfortable.
>> For me the problem with UIs is that there seems to be a craving for
>> one universal way to interact with applications, and that way is
>> pointing and clicking on boxes and menus, and thus having the smallest
>> possibe learning curve. I find that odd. When it comes down to using
>> computers, all of a sudden learning is bad, even if learning will get
>> you to a point where it will become easier/faster to perform certain
> UIs are broken with they are inconsistent, buggy
That can be one meaning of broken. In this case however broken refers
to "not as it's done in other, more known applications". Read the
snippet you posted again.
> and unintuitive.
Subjective at best. I don't want to go there...
> called a user Interface for a reason. It *interfaces* the user with the
> program. And if it does not do a good job of that then it is broken.
If it's buggy and inconsistent: yes.
If it deviates from a commonly used approach: no.
> With your attitude it's no surprise so many OSS applications have so
> little take up. The OSS which succeeds have generally good user
Again: look at the context of "broken" in the snippet you posted.qzq
Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead.
~ Benjamin Franklin