14 Jan 2003 | David said...

The open source community certainly have a much better track record for producing infrastructure-like technology, but I don't think that's tied inherently to the nature of open source.

I think that the pioneers of open source haven't been user interface-specialists, but that's not necessarily how it has to be forever. As more and more people, including user interface specialists, grow accustomed to open source, I think we'll see an increase in quality of the open source interfaces.

It can even start today. If you know something about user interfaces, why not do some work for a good cause? Pick a project you think has merit and help them to a better design. It's almost like charity :)

14 Jan 2003 | pb said...

I don't think there's any question that front-end interface design is less of a priority in open source development. But it's clear from projects like Chimera that it's possible to get decent interfaces created.

A bigger issue with open source, especially Mozilla, is that scope managment is insanely lousy. There's noone to say "No" so you end up with a bloated mess like Mozilla.

The enthusiastic response to Chimera and Safari demonstrates that Mozilla's objective to build a suite that included non-browsing components like mail, news, compose, chat, etc. was a catastrophic decision. Had it rolled out a high performance, standards compliant, stable, 140,000 line rendering engine 2-3 years ago, the browser market would be a far different, and much more interesting, place.

14 Jan 2003 | Darrel said...

I'm not sure if it is an organization issue, though I can't attest to that or not. I do think one of the reasons that Open Source products are rarely and enjoyable to use is simply because there aren't any people with user-centric skills (UI, IA, etc.) on the dev team.

I think a majority of open source projects are mostly die-hard programmers, and, as we all know, the stereotype is often 'as long as it works, who cares how it looks?'

Look at Apache and Linux. An AMAZING pair of technologies that is incredibly hard to get working if you are a complete novice to either system.

Compare that to IIS, a buggy, but 'OK' technology that is actually incredibly easy to get working.

So, I guess the question is, are there simply not that many GUI people interested in working on Open Source projects, or is it that Open Source projects don't really want GUI people on board?

14 Jan 2003 | SU said...

So, I guess the question is, are there simply not that many GUI people interested in working on Open Source projects, or is it that Open Source projects don't really want GUI people on board?

But it's not just a question of how it looks -- it's a question of how well conceived the entire user experience is to begin with. And this begins with architecture -- not when the project is finished.

You can't just slap a nice GUI on top of a product that has features designed into it that no one wants (outside the programming team). That's the problem.

14 Jan 2003 | Matthew said...

I agree with David. As open source software becomes more mainstream, the culture within the open source community is going to have to change. Historically, open source has about software by and for developers. Ease of use wasn't as much of an issue because the people making the software were also the ones who were using it. Of course there has been some resistance to change. I remember that there was a lot of protest when KDE introduced things like smooth text and translucency because they were perceived to be a waste of computing power. I think designers are going to have to take some initiative if open source is going to successfully move into the "software for the rest of us" arena.

14 Jan 2003 | Don Schenck said...

I believe Open Source is a niche at best, a fad at worst. It's a great *start*, but what after that? -- bloat ... the same problem that the anti-Microsoft crowd has been complaining about for years. It's inevitable. It's unavoidable.

It's a shame, too.

14 Jan 2003 | Matthew said...

Don, I don't think bloat is a characteristic of open source. It's a characteristic of bad project management, regardless of whether the project is open or closed.

14 Jan 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Oh Matthew, I agree completely. I just believe that the Open Source model lends itself to poor management by nature of it's very structure -- "open".

Here's hoping.

14 Jan 2003 | Matthew said...

It takes a special kind of cat wrangler. I think there are people out there who are talented enough to pull it off.

14 Jan 2003 | p8 said...

Well, Mysql isn't going for bloat ware:
"We follow this rule known as Occams razor: No complexity beyond what is necessary. It advises that the best choice to explain or model a system is always the simplest. Occam's razor helps us "shave off" concepts or constructs that are not really needed. So at MySQL, we do nothing beyond what is absolutely necessary to provide a very fast database."

"We think XML integration is mostly hype at the present and not worthwhile because its not mature enough."

And Microsoft isn't going for bloatware? How many people use more than 20% of the functions available in Word?
Microsoft needs to add new functions just to keep telling customers they need the latest versions. It looks like the product life cycle for products like Word is in it's final stage.

14 Jan 2003 | Darrel said...

But it's not just a question of how it looks -- it's a question of how well conceived the entire user experience is to begin with. And this begins with architecture -- not when the project is finished.

I didn't mean to imply that, of course. That said, I don't see an issue there. Most Open Source technologies are quite efficient and well planned. Much more so than a lot of commercial apps.

You can't just slap a nice GUI on top of a product that has features designed into it that no one wants (outside the programming team). That's the problem.

I don't know. A GUI can do a LOT towards selecting and choosing a subset of resources to make the product usable. I agree that features for features sake is a bad thing, but that's a problem with all software...not just open source.

I believe Open Source is a niche at best, a fad at worst.

Er...that comment is flying directly in the face of what is actually happening, though. Open source is being embraced by all sorts of people. As for the bloat issue, again, that's a problem with ANY software. And, to be fair, there certainly is less reasons for adding bloat to open source projects (there is no upgrade path income stream needed to encourage bloat).

14 Jan 2003 | Drew said...

Too many cooks . . .

14 Jan 2003 | Steven Garrity said...

While you are on to something in your original question, it certainly isn't the rule Chimera is very slick. The Phoenix project actually has a rule that each release must be smaller (in total file size) than the previous release.

14 Jan 2003 | ~bc said...

I for one would jump at the opportunity to work on the UI for Mozilla or Chimera, or other projects, but I've always gotten the feeling that if you're not a coder, you're not really welcomed in the development of these apps. And like you guys, I can see the value of (especially) a non-coder's perspective from the very begining of any app that's going to have a GUI. I mean, otherwise it's like trying to build a car where the last three things you do is try to figure out how to implement steering, speeding up and stopping, and that's after the whole rest of the car is built.

15 Jan 2003 | alisha said...

I think so. I have 0% experience with open source (im not a developer) but my colleagues have alot of experience, and those who are developers are very enthusiastic, it seems. But I also think its too broad to say the whole "open source community" is this way or that way. depends on the software, depends on the company itself and its business structure, and it depends on the target group for the software. Are they always organized the same?
---
"...but I've always gotten the feeling that if you're not a coder, you're not really welcomed in the development of these apps."
---
ok, this could be a reason - if they dont often allow anyone but "coders" into the original projects, then development could be very one-sided and hard to use/understand. Websites that were once slick and comprehensible can also become bloated messes over time if unqualified people change and tweak the sitemap/structure too much.

15 Jan 2003 | kristoff said...

I'd have to go with the Good Open Source Requires Management bit. I worked (as a UI designer) on a open-source CMS two years ago only to see it go down because all parties involved had an equal voice.

When you're building something and everyone wants his or her idea implemented with the fear of not making milestones because you either get the feature in and spend more time on it, or not put it in and lose the spirit-to-help of that team-member (and the time he/she contributes) you're bound to go down eventually, or completely break up (as happened with us.)

That said, communication is key - and making sure it stays key is where the leadership is required.

Open source is definitely here to stay though. OS programmers with a good product (will eventually) recognize the need for good UI design.

15 Jan 2003 | David said...

The equal voice of participants in open source projects promotes leadership through argumentation, which in my opinion is decidedly preferable to leadership through rank. Direction is decided by the better argument.

I wish more companies were run like that.

15 Jan 2003 | Darrel said...

The equal voice of participants in open source projects promotes leadership through argumentation

That's a great thought. I've always taken the 'debate it until we all agree' approach on project only to find that most of the time management (Art director, Vice president, what have you) prefer the 'do as I say or get a new job' methedology.

15 Jan 2003 | Dave said...

...but I've always gotten the feeling that if you're not a coder, you're not really welcomed in the development of these apps.

~bc, what has given you this impression? Let me stress one point of Open Source. Its open! Grab a copy & play around! If you come up with a good UI fix, submit it. The idea of there being "too many cooks" is opposite the point of OSS. The more eyeballs the better.

One problem is that UI "fixes" are not that simple. 37signals makes *money* doing it. Its tough, tedious work once you get over the initial "lets make this look better" approach. I spent two years in a web interface design team... the first 2 months of a project were fun, but after that it was a lot of tedium.

That said, there are some interesting UI projects out there. Has anyone actually looked/played around with XUL? A neat idea at least, and it certainly lowers the bar for programming skill... Also, Slicker is a radically different approach to the KDE UI.

I believe Open Source is a niche at best, a fad at worst. Well, everyone is entitled to an opinion.

21 Jan 2003 | p8 said...

"Maybe the open source community is fundamentally ill-equipped to build polished, customer-focused, usable, and useful end-user products."

The succes of software like Linux and Apache is that they are to an extent - polished, customer-focused, usable, and useful end-user products. It's just that most of the current end-users are the same people who build the software: 'computer Nerds'.
They are the expert users that want to have complete control (configure via a xml-file) and every option possible.
And everyone knows they don't care about good looks. ;)

22 Jan 2003 | fajalar said...

Open source information/interface design:

http://humane.sourceforge.net/the/helping.html