My request to ubuntu developer team

[Pongo A. Pan]

On Sun, 2011-11-20 at 15:49 -0800, Ernest Doub wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Amedee Van Gasse
> <amedee-ubuntu at amedee.be>wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, November 19, 2011 23:40, Pongo A. Pan wrote:
> >
> > > 5. Michael Jackson and gnome 2 are still dead, and pretty soon the
> > > traditional desktop computer will be too for most users.  Get over it.
> >
> 
> BZZT!  Wrong...  
Impolite and juvenile!

> This multi-mega-billion dollar investment isn't going to be replaced by any
> handheld device in less than a decade given the most optimistic projection
> of technology adoption.  This would require an increase in device
> capabilities at a rate some multiple of the fastest rate seen since the
> introduction of the silicon transistor.

You have some citation to research for these claims?  All I know is that
virtually *all* of the salespeople who call on my wife's family business
are toting iPads now.  My local Best Buy has lots of touch screen
devices which aren't made in the Apple sweatshops.  The adoption of
alternate interfaces seems very rapid to me, motivated, I think, because
lots of people don't touch-type and like the smaller form-factors.  

> As far as the traditional desktop being dead, I will use the analogy of
> motor vehicle controls as a parallel to the GUI front end used to control
> the underlying computer hardware and software.
> There are 3 basic control schemes for self propelled motor vehicles.  Each
> has its preferred applications and there is very little cross platform use
> yet all accomplish the same basic function of controlling the functions of
> a self propelled vehicle.

Interesting analogy, but think how rapidly the CD replaced vinyl disks,
or how few people carry a transistor radio around or when was the last
time you changed TV channels by walking over to the set. I think we're
in an age of very rapid technological change.


Seems to me that the standard computer-human interface is pretty awkward
and inefficient: querty keyboards were designed to slow down fast
typists, and mouses, trackballs and ill-designed computer furniture
which force people to sit upright all day combine to cause repetitive
stress injuries, back and eyesight problems.  We have what we have
because we used to have typewriters and desks in offices, and the
joystick-like pointing device was common enough in industry.  The design
of the IBM PC wasn't handed down from Sinai. The standard model may be
the best thing for some people: computer geeks, writers and CAD people,
but for most folks who just want to check Facebook or listen to music,
it may well not be.  

< some more stuff about vehicle controls deleted >

> Sometimes the collective mind gets it right very early in a products
> development.  The Unity desktop model is not as productive as the model
> that the Gnome 2 desktop is based on.

[Citation needed]  How do you know that your sweeping generalization
that "The Unity desktop model is not as productive..." is valid?  Maybe
not as productive *for you* as an inexperienced user of it, but can you
point me to research that says that either experienced computer users or
novices are more productive in gnome 2 than in unity or gnome 3?


>   Business decision makers aren't
> interested in how shiny the new toys are they are interested in how much
> work per unit of time they will produce and what it is going to cost in
> terms of training and acquisition costs.  Over the long haul productivity
> wins over shiny.

And you know what will enhance productivity, based on your years of
research and peer reviewed publication in this field?  If not, please
point me to research on human-computer interaction which supports these
assertions.

> If you don't believe me, go ask those people who have spent their entire
> career studying how to increase productivity and ask them for their opinion
> of which system is better.

Why don't you do this and report back to us?  The only research I'm
aware of on this point was done by the gnome developers: they came up
with something I find a little awkward.  I think the unity variant of it
is easier to use and more discoverable for my own purposes.  As always,
everyone's mileage may vary.

As I have written here before, I'm undecided about what desktop I'll use
for myself in the future and even more undecided about what we'll
provide to employees and family, some of whom are curmudgeons and some
of whom are elderly.  Most of these folks don't need a standard copy of
the 1981 IBM PC for what they do, and many would be better off with
something much more portable, which they could hold at varying distances
from their eyes, or in their laps.  Few of them type anything longer
than an email or a parts list.  We'll see what is available and what
they feel comfortable with.

> If the Gnome 2 software is getting old and creaky then it is time to
> re-engineer the interface using the current state of the art of software
> development to take advantage of advances in hardware, similar to building
> automotive controls with newer and better materials.

To a first approximation *nobody* uses Linux.  Less than nobody uses
gnome.  It really doesn't matter.  What's really going to drive the
future of the human-computer interface is what Apple, Microsoft and a
few others will come up with.  Gnome *has* been re-designed: you don't
like the results.  Canonical is betting the ranch on having a user
interface that works across multiple devices.  This may be a great
success or a dismal failure; we'll see.  Apple seems to be happy with
the iPad sales figures.

> Lets have this discussion about 5 years from now.  By then it will be
> possible to discern whether the tablet is supplanting the desktop or
> whether it is an accessory allowing the desktop environment to extend into
> other areas.

If I'm still here.... Sure!


-- 
pongo pan
Sun, 20 Nov 2011 18:00:18 -0800
Aurelius up 22:12, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.01, 0.05
Linux 3.0.0-12-generic
Ubuntu 11.10, unity 4.24.0