as days pass by, by Stuart Langridge

Taken from a comment: "Apple has led people astray: the only solution Apple has ever had to complexity is to throw functionality out with the bathwater and then add a coat of gloss."

When I switched from XP to OSX I did not come across any instances of 'Man I wish my Mac could do that thing Windows did' and plenty of instances of 'Why doesn't windows do that'.

I think its a misnomer to suggest Apple simply strip out everything that you don't need and that's how they make things easier to use. Yes there are sometimes elements of that because Apple has a minimalistic philosophy but frankly Apple are simply better at this stuff than anyone else in the industry and that's why people use their products.

I find it incredibly short sighted when people moan that Gnome is becoming more like OS X, because they clearly do not realise that Apple is the benchmark in many aspects of what they do. If Linux can end up more like an Apple product then frankly that is a good thing. Something Mark Shuttleworth recognises, a man who never ceases to amaze me by the amount of common sense he comes out with.

It's not even an Apple issue anyways, its an industry wide thing. Look at the way Chromium simplifies the web browser interface over the bloated interfaces we have been using in recent years; or looking at the bigger picture, consider Google's work with voice commands on Android or Apples use of multi-touch interfaces. I think its fair to say that we have reached the peak of computer complexity, and from this point onwards everything is going to get simpler and simpler, to the point that we are all talking to HAL style computers.

Of course people complain about the lack of functionality, but aren't honest in what they mean by it. They say it as if it means "removing capabilities from my computer", but really what they mean is "removing specific functions that *I* use to do things *I* do in the way *I've* always done them".

What user programmers and designers must (and thankfully are) realizing is that its not about providing specific tools, but enabling people to actually achieve the result they want.

For instance when people choose a font in their word processor, they aren't really aiming to select a font, they're aiming to make their document look good. If a computer could be clever enough to make my document look good by itself, I wouldn't even need a button to tell it to do so.

In the end the pinnacle of usability is where the computer disappears completely. No longer a device you sit down and use, it becomes a transparent part of your environment, the perfect servant that provides information and abilities whenever, wherever, and however you need them.

You marvellous time traveller you.

And KDE seems to think otherwise. :-)

Piling up features after features!

Look what they got, a crowded DE.

"The perfect is the enemy of the good" - okay, Voltaire was French, but that doesn't *necessarily* mean he's wrong.

PS, speaking of user interfaces, why does this comment form have black-text-on-dark-grey? Tch :-)

Actually, our goal should be a zero-button interface that "Does what I'm thinking" without having to push any buttons at all :)