KDE (vs GNOME)

[Nicolas Goutte]

On Wednesday 09 November 2005 10:29, Olivier Goffart wrote:
> Le Mardi 8 Novembre 2005 11:14, Stephan Binner a écrit :
> > User levels don't work, see previous discussions. Citing such reports as
> > argumentation for it is poor and doesn't change this fact.
>
> Each time someone suggest that, here or on kde-usability, there is someone
> to say "it's bad, see previous discussions" and that's all
>
> But what are the "previous discussion" you are referring to,  have you a
> link or something that could let me know.

From my personal experience with software with "beginner"/"normal"/"expert" 
levels, I would think that it is not so good.

Mostly the step between each level is high. Sometimes you have even the 
feeling that between "beginner" and "expert" it is not the same application.

Also often I had to select "expert" anyway, as at least one needed option was 
offered only in that level.

Also there is the risk that a user drops the application because a feature is 
"not there", because it is available only in the "expert" level, but the user 
does not feel to be a geek, therefore does not use the "expert" mode and so 
he never sees the feature.

>
> First, "user levels"  should be defined.

>  1) is it different UI depending the level ?
>  2) different default option depending the level ?

Those make changing levels very hard, as suddenly the application behaves 
differently.

>  3) putting all avanced option in an advanced tab ?

I think that it is the only sane solution. The options are there but the user 
can be told: "Those are advanced options. Do not touch if you do not need 
them!"

>  4) or removing all the option to put them in another hiden application
>      (KTweekUI / GConfEditor / RegEdit )

That makes it even more for geeks than an "expert" level. So those options are 
lost for a normal user.

>
> I think that it has been said, on "previous discussion" that #1 is bad,
> because it doesn't let the user the change to evoluate progressively.
>
> For the same reason, i think #4 is bad too, and even, the setting is more
> difficult to find, outside of the application.
>
> But the #2 (which is, if i understand correctly, what has been suggested in
> the original post)  looks verry fine
>
> Personaly, i like the #2,  but i am strongly against #4

Have a nice day!