Should a computer require learning or just be an appliance

[ElPolloDiabl]

I like it when human tasks are dumbed down to: Push the button get the food reward.

[Karlos]

I don't understand why so many of you think that an easy to learn interface can't be combined with a very powerful OS.

To this day, I think Ubuntu is one of the best Linux distros, but I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to users that are unfamiliar with Linux.

No complaints here. I had my qualms about installing it originally given that I was already used to Fedora at the time but it turned out to be fine. The fact I haven't actually felt any need to upgrade to 10 yet must say something about the usability of 8.10

[Kesa]

[attach]951[/attach]

The idea of thinking machines makes me worried somehow...  :evil:

[Kesa]

But i think the idea of having a girlfriend that doesn't think is appealing to me very much! All i have to do is push the right buttons...  :roflmao:

[kolla]

"Gentoo for you, Ubuntu for your grandma! Hahaha!"

[Franko]

I have to go with other here.

It should be an appliance until you need to do something more advanced, then it should allow obvious ways for you to dig deeper.

Otherwise you're making it too hard on the new users and too restrictive for advanced users.

I agree with that line of thinking, There is no reason why a computer can't be produced that will allow those who don't want to learn anything about them and just want to point and click and at the same time have the scope for those that do want to learn, expand or tinker.

[Heiroglyph]

We went through a lot of this while creating TriCaster and TriCaster TCXD300/850.

I think we're getting really close to the right balance of simple and powerful for this type of device.

On TCXD, the default actions are good for most uses, but there is a "gear" icon on anything that you can dig into and tweak.

Clicking the gear you get a window showing the most likely tab of information by default and other tabs with other tweakable sections.

New users quickly learn that gears mean options for that item, so they can usually infer where to find more advanced features as they need them because they are always in context.

The new user isn't inundated with options, preferences and menus, but the advanced user can easily get to a lot more powerful tools that we would otherwise have needed to remove to appeal to the huge "ease of use" demographic.

I'm pretty proud of how it turned out

[Iggy]

As far as easy to use and powerful go, I've had experience with lots of OS' and GUIs in the past, but I am relatively new to AmigaOS and MorphOS. I found Amiga (and Amiga like) OS' both easy to figure out and that they offered a lot of power.

I especially like the incredibly fast boot time of MorphOS and the fact that processor intensive tasks (like video) seem to run better under MorphOS than OSX.

[the_leander]

I have to go with other here.

It should be an appliance until you need to do something more advanced, then it should allow obvious ways for you to dig deeper.

Otherwise you're making it too hard on the new users and too restrictive for advanced users.

/thread

[stevieu]

A bit of both.

Something that requires learning, is always a good thing. It's a shame it's not often seen that way in 'this day and age'.

Steve

[stefcep2]

I don't understand why so many of you think that an easy to learn interface can't be combined with a very powerful OS.

To this day, I think Ubuntu is one of the best Linux distros, but I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to users that are unfamiliar with Linux.

Sorry, but I just cannot agree with this about Ubuntu.

[mingle]

I personally think that computers are now really nothing more than appliances.

In the 'good old' days they were great fun to tinker with and hack and improve upon. I think they've reached a level where 99% of people just want a device that will allow them to browse the web, look at photos, watch videos, etc...

So it doesn't really matter whether you use a windows/mac/linux box - they all do the same thing.

Now, back in the 1980s things were different - it was a brave new world, much more fun and much more true innovation happening. We've reached a  plateau now.

Mike.

[Belial6]

The question makes no sense.  Half of my appliences ARE computers.  My microwave, TV, oven, refridgerator, washer, dryer... Heck, even some of my lights are computers.

The computer that is an "appliance" is here, and has been for a long time.  Asking if we should have computer that are not appliences that are appliences just doesn't make sense.

It is it's complexity of use and variability of function that leads to people calling it a 'computer'.  If it only did one thing, it would be referred to by it's function.

[ElPolloDiabl]

The question makes no sense.  Half of my appliences ARE computers.  My microwave, TV, oven, refridgerator, washer, dryer... Heck, even some of my lights are computers.

The computer that is an "appliance" is here, and has been for a long time.  Asking if we should have computer that are not appliences that are appliences just doesn't make sense.

It is it's complexity of use and variability of function that leads to people calling it a 'computer'.  If it only did one thing, it would be referred to by it's function.

The original computer was a person. What you are referring to is 'smart' appliances.
Too define computer: archetypical box plus monitor and keyboard in the era of 1980 to 1999. Requires knowledge of the OS to do anything other than the most basic functions.

[marcfrick2112]

I REALLY like this answer. I sold PCs back when they ran soley on DOS and expecting the average user to memorize multiple CLI commands really held back adoption by the general public. I remember when my firm obtained beta copies of Windows 3.0 (all earlier versions of Windows being really lame) I'd I remember thinking "Well this sucks a lot less. The average person could probably adopt this a lot easier".

I wholly agree with Heiroglyph, the system should be easy to use Like an appliance. I guess the best term is that most operations should be intuitive. That actions should seem natural and interfaces uniform.
But under this layer an OS should still have all the capablities that allow more experienced user to get everything they can out of their system.

Believe it or not, I do feel that this is being accomplished on newer OS.
Even though I have never coached her, my 73 year old mother has had no problem figuring out how to use her Windows7 based computers.
Not only has she figured out how to use her computers, but her last two purchases were on her own (a laptop and a netbook).
She completes contiuing education courses required to maintain her nursing license, pays her bills, and buy merchandise on line.

Not to underestimate her intellengce (my mother is remarkable - she still works two to three days a week in the local hospital's OR), but I don't think she would have been able to adopt to an earlier, harder to learn OS.

Hear, hear Heiroglyph! (hey, that'd make a catchy cheer...)  :hammer:

[Belial6]

You think you are arguing against me, but in fact, you help make my point.  You describe what I said was required for the population to call it a computer, and then say that it is a computer, and you say that if it isn't that, it is a 'smart' appliance.

So, by definition, a computer cannot be an appliance, because as soon as it is, it isn't a computer.  If it can be, then they are all over.

We have computing devices that run from incredibly simple clocks to mainframes, and everything in between.  There is a point in the shades of gray that we draw a line and say that anything on one side of it is a "computer", and anything on the other is an "appliance".

Is a laptop running an ARM processor with a display screen and keypad a computer?  What about a cell phone that is running an ARM processor with a display screen and no keypad?  What about a desk phone running an ARM processor with a display screen and a keypad?