Hello

[Kittani]

Hey folks,

I'm here to do research for a bit of a pet project of mine. I've been using linux off and on for over a decade now. I started with Slackware 3.0 if that dates me any. I am more of a GUID designer than a programmer and most of my adventures relate more to usability studies and critiques. I am typically good at figuring out what an average user could figure out versus what only the programmers and elites would grasp, and how to make it more non-root friendly. I am currently designing concepts for an Integrated GUI that is loosely based off of the concept of Star Trek's LCARS system, where every device has a similar interface making the integration of home media centers, PC's, tablet pc's, smart-home interfaces, and even cell phones easy to pick up and understand how to use without having to RTFM every time you pick up a new gadget. That's basically what I am here for. LCARS in Star Trek is very "nerdy" and not very practical, or aesthetic, but I believe is a sound principle to work from for more than just "trekkie" use. I am still designing each page manually to begin with. I hope you folks have the time to assist with answering questions. There's just so much information and options out there it's difficult to pick out single applications that can be integrated into the system. Anyways... here I am. I do have alot of things I can contribute to the system when it comes to GUI design if anyone needs it. I can also test software for people and am fairly good at ferreting out bugs in most scripting languages, though I can never seem to be able to write them from scratch.

[paulio]

I'm not sure of all that your on about, having no knowledge of LCARS or what RTFM means but the drift that I get is to do with, I think, how a page is set up? Yes? If that's the case then I like to know how to get into Ubuntu and change how things open. Back in the old DOS days I had Quick Menu III and it was a ripper. Boxes opened on top of each other. Piled up so to speak and I didn't have to chase all over the screen with the mouse to 'action' something. If I wanted to go back , all I had to do was to 'reach' under the pile and click on that page. When I upgraded to Windows '92, I was dissapointed at the loss of usability and all these years later I still am! I mean how hard is it to get an box to open up where the mouse pointer already is? Why do I have to chase all over the screen?Why are some text boxes so ridiculously small that they have to have sliders? Like the one I'm typing into right now! It's as if the designer is paying for the space everytime I open something up. Why do I have to go from one corner of the screen to the other. Why are the most used keys, buttons, drop downs in the corners? And why are some pages half used up with empty space, half empty tool bars. Why are page sliders not more like rocker switches at the center of the page? Is this what Apple uses? Why do drop downs dissapear as soon as you click on something, neccesitating mutiple visits to the other corner of the screen to get a simple job done. QM III only went off when I decided. Sometimes I'm reminded of the time and motion studies conducted at the factory I did my apprentiship at and if they where applied to computors, they'd fail miserably! Someone asked me recently "Why do I have to open another program to finish a task or to do another process when the first program could have had in inbuilt?" I couldn't think of a meaninful reply other than that's just the way it is.
Even though this sounds like a massive gripe, I hope it is relevant and useful to your project.
ps; love your quote.
cheers
paulio

[jayd512]

Hi Kittani! Welcome to LinuxForums!

I might not quite get what your main project is, and while I'm far from being the most advanced user on these boards, but I think I can answer one part of your question as well as anyone here.

...figuring out what an average user could figure out versus what only the programmers and elites would grasp, and how to make it more non-root friendly.

I'm pretty sure I know what you mean by "average user". And I've got a couple of years under my belt of doing tech support for the average user... call centre style!
The average user want to be able to use the computer. Nothing more. Youtube works, Outlook/Evolution works, can pop-in a DVD and kick back to watch a flick. Most average users can do this... may ask a question here and there (ie. What's the name of the SMTP server? What site is it for Flash?). Most folks just need a little info to get it going.
Also, I think I happen to be the average user. I don't claim to be a programmer, have never written a script in my life, and couldn't write a patch to a program if my life depended on it. The difference between me and the people I mentioned, though, is that I want to learn. Not really to be a pro... just because I like learning. And if I ask you how to do something, then I might not have to ask again, ya know?
As far as making it less 'root-friendly', I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that a user with no root access should be able to do what they want to the system? That's what Windows is for (not flame-bait).

Did that help? If not, let me know. I like giving feedback.

By the way, when I said I am an average user, I mean it. Up until a few years ago, I didn't even know how to clear cookies from Internet Exploder.

[rokytnji]

Howdy and Welcome Kittani. Just a Biker using Linux saying Howdy.

[Kittani]

I'm a Biker too.

What I mean by a non-root user is that a person without any computer experience in the maintenance or navigation of file systems, can pick it up and use it. It still has admin or super user level stuff, but it's hidden and doesn't even require maintenance. Think of how a blackberry works. Users have thier contacts, e-mail, word processor files, spreadsheets, internet, messaging... everything in one nice and "mostly" neat package. Today's Linux "Distributions" are worse than a windows pre-install on an HP computer. The problem is too much variety. Linux will never be anything other than an OS novelty and a back-office solution to high liscencing fees on servers unless it can break tradition and become a personal computer OS again. Look... goals...

1) Minimal selection of pre-loaded software, all pieces fully integrated into interface (bull still optional at install for the users who do like to have choices)
2) Streamlined install routine that builds the installed OS specifically tuned for the device its being installed to.
3) Separate database and user files system that is specifically organized and integrated into the interface and all applications for cross-refrencing.
4) Interface that stays consistent across all applications and all devices. (Your cell phone, PDA, tablet PC, desktop, and server all operate with the same apparent control scheme and basic functions.) (Yes, there is a planned interface for a home server for smart homes and media-enabled homes that can be controlled from any system or terminal in the house.)
5) The entire system is easy to use for even beginner users, while still customizable for advanced users. (today's linux throws the book at you and its six versions before you figure out how to chmod your soundcard so you can play cd's.)
6) Roaming interface and user files through the home server and remote access and login for all devices. Your files wherever you are, instantly.

The idea started with the interface for the Gamecube for me, actually. It kind of impressed me and I thought. "What if I designed a linux OS the way game designers design console OS's?" I had always watched Star Trek and I noticed the computers they were using were essentially really big encyclopedia systems that allowed users to add thier own media to the database and displayed various system and technical data logically and simply. I then thought that that would be a very good idea for Linux to have as a minimalist and more "Mainstream" distribution.

I have watched Linux for over a decade now, Windows too. Both are bloating more and more every year and getting harder and harder to use. My mother still uses windows 3.1 on a small vga notebook because its simple and does what she needs it to. She uses her XP desktop once a week to check her e-mail and hates doing even that. I want to bring back the simple PC. Few people remember when there were all of 16 DOS commands or so and most applications were a single executable file. Now there could be hundreds, many of which duplicates of others with only slight (if any) differences between them. And even that is considered minimalist.

I'm still building concept pics and operational flowcharts for it. It will use Linux's kernel, and basic system libraries as a base, but from there on its getting redesigned from the gorund up. People have gotten Linux with a full desktop installed on a single CD... The system I'm planning will have all the stuff needed to get a home server, PC "terminals", smart and media home consoles, Tablet PC's and possibly cell-phones, be bootable, and set and link everything together for the user. Literally the user can just boot the CD, tell the installer what they have for computers and devices, and the CD will instruct them on the rest.

[paulio]

Thanks for the clarification! Now I'm getting your drift and I think your on the right track. I too remember DOS and how simple it was. For a while there I was tempted after yet another XP freeze up, to go back to windows '98SE, the best I thought and maybe not the most stable but at least user friendly. Though I do like how XP recognises most stuff that gets plugged in. At least I could root around in the basement of 98 so to speak. Fortunately a friend turned me onto Ubuntu. Haven't looked back.
Just the same my earlier post still stands and I'd dearly like to see a least some of things talked about in that post. Any hope?
One of my points from the earlier post was about how drop downs close as soon as they are clicked on. Today I discovered that in Mint 6, the 'Control Centre' box stays open till I've finished doing what I want. I like that!
Paulio

[Kittani]

That is a nice feature, but tell me.. with your Ubuntu.. how many applications and commands do you actually use versus how many are on the system? Last time I used Slackware (10.1) I used a grand total of just over 35 commands to do everything I do on my windows box. Near as I can figure about 15 or 20 background commands were executed as part of normal operations of other programs. In all there are nearly a thousand executable commands in a basic Slackware install and an incalculable amount of commands in a full install. The problem is that Linux in general has a half dozen command line text editors because they were made, not because of any logic behind having them in there. I do everything in VIM on my linux box when I'm not in the GUI. Configs are ALWAYS edited in VIM... Scripts are always in VIM. There is a whole three packages of nothing but text editors... I think its around 45MB worth of them. Point is, Linux keeps trying to look like windows, act like windows, and be as bloated as windows. ( I just got an HP laptop with vista and 6 basic office apps included with the system that I cannot use because they are not compatible with anything else, but cannot remove because M$ knows what's best. How asinine is it that the included Contacts manager, calendar, mail, and phot gallery are not in any way shape or form compatible with any windows live counterpart? AND YOU CANNOT REMOVE THEM!) Linux is no different... hundreds of options, most you will never use. It overwhelms newcomers so they just pop back over to windows and call it a day. As to the operation of the system... take a peek at LCARS and remove the Star Trek component and just look at the aesthetics of the layouts and functionality. That's what I am shooting for.

P.S. Oh! the entire interface doesn't use "windows" it uses "control areas". There is the application selection area, appliaction interface area, system status area, notifications area, and application control area. Some are akin to static toolbars that rollover from one thing to the next depending on what is in front of you. I have looked at "windows" concepts for 20 years now (since claris appleworks and Windows 3.0) and to be honest, having more than one "window" is not terribly useful considering how much realestate there is on a desktop to begin with. Instead you can "dock" a secondary window in the system status area at the top, or have two monitors with a main interface and a secondary interface since monitors are so cheap. Widescreen monitors can also be "split" into two or four application interface areas giving you up to 4 fully functional (and cross-copy pastable) applications open. (I have a 32" LCD so I got the real-estate)

[elija]

Pretty much all of the apps on my system get used. But then I uninstall what I don't want and install what I do. As for the background stuff, I think you'll find the Blackberry has an awful lot of those as well - as will every piece of kit.

I currently use Xubuntu after discovering somewhat to my suprise that I do have principles that I am prepared to act on and moving away from Linux Mint.

You have quite an interesting idea although initially at least it would probably regarded as toy, now if you could provide the full Star Trek interface complete with the voice of Majel Rodenberry answering generic voice queries