I actually think Unity is great and every single Ubuntu novice I have shown it to picks it up in no time. I don't know about the metrics you propose, I think user experience takes in more variables than those. I'm a power user by the way and usually make use of 9 view ports (compiz desktops) . I think Unity comes into its own when you learn the keyboard shortcuts. But newbies who stick to the mouse find it very easy.
Canonical do a lot of user testing but it's obvious that they're trying to create a user interface that can work for everyone, everywhere, on all devices. That's a mammoth ask and I reckon they're doing something that not even Apple can do elegantly. On Oct 19, 2011 4:11 PM, "Andrew Thornton" <[email protected]> wrote: > > OK. If I am a software developer then Elvis still lives. > So maybe this is all reinventing the wheel. I don't know. > > Anyway. I find Unity in ubuntu very counter-intuitive. It > feels weird. > > Yet it is meant to be the latest thing/fad/trend to make > me happy. No evidence. No measurements. No tests. I am just meant to be a > "happy" Unity user. So, what about this: > > 1. the distance the mouse travels across the screen to > use a GUI > 2. the number of mouseclicks. > 3. the clock time taken to do task x. > > 1 + 2 + 3 = user figure for a GUI. The lower the score the > better. > > All you guys here who make software. Do you do any > measurements like this to arrive at the usability of software such as a GUI > or anything else? Or is it just Macbeth Witches style chuck in eyes of newt, > frog legs, pigs' blood and basil into the cauldron and hope for the best? > > Andrew > > _______________________________________________ > Free-software-melb mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb > >
_______________________________________________ Free-software-melb mailing list [email protected] http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb
