[hoary] initial usability reactions

[David Feldman]

While I wouldn't suggest that all users do (or should) use the desktop, 
it's going a bit far to say it's "much better in the long run." Why is 
it better? If you don't want to use the icons, you don't have to; if 
you do, they're there for your use, as well as anything else you want 
to dump on the desktop (and the icons help let you know you _can_ dump 
things on the desktop). And there is actual evidence (aside from the 
"my friend does it" variety) that users use their desktops for 
short-term storage of things. Take a look at 
(http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1005361.1005363). Granted that's just one 
article, but it does document extensive use of the desktop...and, 
unlike some other UI decisions there doesn't seem to be much of a 
trade-off, given that users who don't use the desktop icons shouldn't 
really encounter any difficulties due to their presence.

--Dave

On Nov 16, 2004, at 23:28, Ben Novack wrote:

> Speaking for myself, I never have anything on my Windows desktop - it
> seems pointless, when having almost any app open means I can no longer
> access anything on it. I use TweakUI to remove even the recycle bin.
> So for me, Ubuntu's setup makes perfect sense; I don't have to
> minimize things to get at my programs. It may be a little strange for
> those coming from Windows, but it doesn't take much time to adapt, and
> it's much better in the long run.
>
>> - Particularly for those switching from Windows or Mac, the desktop
>> itself is a bit bare. I'd like to see the various options that put
>> Trash,  Computer, and Home icons on the desktop enabled by default, to
>> increase familiarity and provide a few extra "oh, I can click on 
>> that!"
>> sorts of things. They would also serve as a handy indication to new
>> users that everything has loaded up properly. It would be cool to have
>> a Network icon as well.
>
> -- 
> ubuntu-users mailing list
> ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com
> http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
>