<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Why Free Software Has Poor Usability, and How to Improve It</title>
	<atom:link href="http://voices.allthingsd.com/20080804/why-free-software-has-poor-usability-and-how-to-improve-it/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://voices.allthingsd.com/20080804/why-free-software-has-poor-usability-and-how-to-improve-it/</link>
	<description>from other Web sites</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 06:07:14 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Michael Long</title>
		<link>http://voices.allthingsd.com/20080804/why-free-software-has-poor-usability-and-how-to-improve-it/comment-page-1/#comment-407</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Long</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Aug 2008 22:49:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://voices.allthingsd.com/?p=2227#comment-407</guid>
		<description>For some reason, OSS seems to attract the &quot;feature&quot; crowd who seem to think if one feature or function is good, then 5,343 of them are better. This leads to things like the PHP language, with seemingly a billion functions served (and counting).

And for every group that does pay attention to design (like Firefox), it seems like there&#039;s fifty or more who don&#039;t, or who think that &quot;design&quot; can be solved by coming up with yet another way for a user to &quot;skin&quot; a program.

We often point to Apple as a company with great design, but what most people miss is that Apple&#039;s design aesthetic is largely based on editing. Or quite simply, it&#039;s based just as much on what to leave OUT as what to include.

And leaving things out, to a feature-counting function junky, is anathema.

Finally, the OSS community is just that, a community, composed of individuals, each of whom has his or her own likes, dislikes, and sense of design and style (or not).

Without editing and without a strong guiding hand (which OSS developers disdain), every program is bound to have it&#039;s own identity, style (or lack thereof), word choice, and set of behaviors. 

OSS is, and probably always will be, a cacophony of design.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For some reason, OSS seems to attract the &#8220;feature&#8221; crowd who seem to think if one feature or function is good, then 5,343 of them are better. This leads to things like the PHP language, with seemingly a billion functions served (and counting).</p>
<p>And for every group that does pay attention to design (like Firefox), it seems like there&#8217;s fifty or more who don&#8217;t, or who think that &#8220;design&#8221; can be solved by coming up with yet another way for a user to &#8220;skin&#8221; a program.</p>
<p>We often point to Apple as a company with great design, but what most people miss is that Apple&#8217;s design aesthetic is largely based on editing. Or quite simply, it&#8217;s based just as much on what to leave OUT as what to include.</p>
<p>And leaving things out, to a feature-counting function junky, is anathema.</p>
<p>Finally, the OSS community is just that, a community, composed of individuals, each of whom has his or her own likes, dislikes, and sense of design and style (or not).</p>
<p>Without editing and without a strong guiding hand (which OSS developers disdain), every program is bound to have it&#8217;s own identity, style (or lack thereof), word choice, and set of behaviors. </p>
<p>OSS is, and probably always will be, a cacophony of design.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
