Making Open Source Software More “Humane”

A lot of digital ink is spilled over the usability of open source software and how a lack thereof hinders the adoption of both Linux and open source software packages in general. Among the accusations frequently leveled at OSS is that UI design is an after-thought. But, as with commercial software, there are both good […]

osilogo.jpgA lot of digital ink is spilled over the usability of open source software and how a lack thereof hinders the adoption of both Linux and open source software packages in general. Among the accusations frequently leveled at OSS is that UI design is an after-thought.

But, as with commercial software, there are both good and bad interface designs floating throughout the open source community. Jono DiCarlo over at Humanized, a company dedicated to creating “humane” user interfaces, recently wrote up some interesting examples of both the good and the bad in open source software design.

For software fans like Compiler readers, part of what's interesting in DiCarlo's article is the history behind the interfaces of popular apps — quotes from developers like Blake Ross and Richard Stallman talking about how and why Firefox and Emacs ended up looking and behaving the way they do.

One thing to keep in mind when you read through DiCarlo's essay, is that by interface design he isn't necessarily referring to things like look and feel, but rather how easy it is to use and understand the software.

For instance, I happen to think that the default Firefox skin looks like it was designed by an unruly two year old who's been sniffing glue and scribling with colored markers. But, that said, the layout and design of the interface is excellent. Menus are logical and panels I need to access regularly are easy to get to. In other words, it may not look that great to my eye, but it does function well.

With that caveat in mind, here's what DiCarlo thinks OSS designers need to do to improve the UIs of OSS apps:

  • Get a Benevolent Dictator — Someone who has a vision for the UI. Someone who can and will say “no” to features that don't fit the vision.
  • Make the Program Usable In Its Default State — Don't rely on configurable behavior. It adds complexity, solves little, and most users will never touch it anyway. Usable default behavior is required.
  • Design Around Tasks — Figure out the tasks that people want to do with your software. Make those tasks as easy as possible. Kill any feature that gets in the way.
  • Write a Plug-In Architecture — It's the only good solution I've seen to the dilemma of providing a complete feature set without bloating the application.
  • User Testing, User Testing, User Testing!! — Without user testing, you are designing by guesswork and superstition.

DiCarlo also has a list of things to avoid, perhaps the best of which is to avoid the “clone wars.” I've been using Linux in my spare time lately and I find myself willfully avoiding apps that merely ape the functionality and feel of Windows software. If I wanted software that looks like Windows and quacks like Windows, I'd just install Windows.

Part of the reason many people are making the move to Linux is that it's not Windows (or Mac) and suddenly discovering that many Linux apps look, feel and behave just like the OS you're leaving behind is, frankly, a bit depressing. There's a place for standardization, but there's also much to be said for innovation.

As DiCarlo points out, OpenOffice is perhaps the worst culprit of this misguided “copy Windows” approach.

While I agree with DiCarlo for the most part, keep in mind that while there is room for improvement, OSS isn't all ugly and complex. In fact, some of the apps I thought I couldn't live without, have proved not only replaceable with an OSS offering, but in many cases those counterparts are much nicer, better designed and more fun to use.

[via Daring Fireball]

See Also: