Re: "Next Link" icon.

On Monday 29 April 2002 15:25, Sean Pecor wrote:
> On Monday 29 April 2002 11:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > This is the way you get MS Office and its enormous bloat, with a
> > zillion features that only get used by one person in a thousand,
> > perhaps once or twice a year.
>
> I don't disagree with you if what you're complaining about is the vast
> number of features built into the core of Microsoft Office. But software
> features rarely kill a software product. Much more often it's the lack of
> features that drag a software product to it's death.

Oooh, I think I'd disagree to the extent that you suggest that this 
phenomenon is rare. If you think so, it probably has something to do with the 
fact that the consumer software market is yet young, as the underlying 
popular platforms have only recently become long-lived enough to show the 
effect. I could probably count the number of terrific apps that I USED to use 
and don't any longer because they "went Elvis," but it would take a long time 
and I'd miss some. I was just recently discussing that with some 
colleagues, and the amazing thing is that (at least in my neighborhood) we're 
in almost total agreement as to which apps have "gone Elvis" (used to rock, 
but got old and fat).

But just a couple of examples: 

Nobody liked ALL the features in StarOffice 5.2. Sun did a necessary and 
courageous thing by dropping web browsing, e-mail, and that damnable 
desktop from the next release. This is a classic case of trimming fat and 
dropping features to literally save the product. (Judging from OpenOffice 
they did a great job, IMHO). WinZip and PKZip both "went Elvis" with 
overfeatured releases this time 'round. If you like what they USED to be on 
Windows, then you're better off with FilZip. PaintShopPro went overboard a 
couple of releases ago... so did RealPlayer. There are a LOT of programs like 
these that just include TOO MUCH STUFF to be useful anymore. Instead of 
upgrading we're just go find alternatives. 

Fortunately some great alternatives are showing up on Linux, and in KDE. But 
Steven's rant is on target, IMHO. Core functionality should be core. Basic, 
simple, and extensible. On top of this you should have a bunch of basic, 
simple, extensions. 

I think a good topic for KDE-Look is how such extensions (whether they exist 
yet or not) should expose themselves to the end user. For example, your 
toolbar buttons could be incorporated into the main toolbar or they could 
show up on a separate one. How do you differentiate the users' need for a 
sleek design with his (and importantly, Tech Support's) need for consistency?

-- 
Dave Leigh, Consulting Systems Analyst
Cratchit.org
  http://www.cratchit.org
  864-427-7008 (direct)
  AIM or Yahoo!: leighdf
  MSN: [email protected]
  ICQ: 37839381

Life is like bein' on a mule team.  Unless you're the lead mule, all the
scenery looks about the same.