OSNews

So why they make interface for stupid then??? I mean OLPC looks in pictures as horrible as BoB(Microsofts kids UI). Kids dont want have kids stuff, they want same stuff and adults. Underestimating kids learning skill by making interface like OLPC is just gonna keep them away from it. Let them have Windows-type system not some dump kids only UI.

We shouldn't assume these kids are incapable of using a standard interface. I'd argue that they are just as capable of learning how to use a functional computer as kids in developing countries. The proposed "Sugar" interface is both aesthetically and functionally displeasing.

The $100 laptops have demonstrated they can handle the full-featured Fedora Core operating system. So why not give them the real deal?

That's unless you don't want them to learn about computers. It's like the difference between action figures and figurine.

That's a silly position to take, as the children who end up using these laptops will be trained in an entirely different UI then the reast of the world, and then when they get older, and less flexible, they may have problems adadpting to the way everybody else does things

Yea, it's totally stupid. Just cause these kids are poor doesn't make them stupid.

This is exactly what I was afraid OLPC would have been if it'd run on Windows: A crippled platform that only allows people to learn its own paradigms and not useful things in using other software (the software of the future).

If you give the kids a box, some cds, and reading material in their language they'll figure it out. They're not stupid. Heck, they might even do it without the reading materials if you explain typing and that the cd contains information for the computer to use.

That's a silly position to take, as the children who end up using these laptops will be trained in an entirely different UI then the reast of the world, and then when they get older, and less flexible, they may have problems adadpting to the way everybody else does things

If the point of these units was to teach kids to use Windows, I would agree with you. In fact, the purpose of computers in schools (my kids vary in age from preschool to middle school) is not to teach them to use "computers", but to teach them. Period.

Computers are a tool to learn other concepts. These should be easy for the kids to use in the environment they will be using. And it looks like they are relying on the peer-to-peer "mesh" network to collaborate and share learning experience in the classroom. A traditional "desktop" metaphor is clumsy at that. Well, certainly more clumsy than this UI seems to be. Sugar seems to be (besides very different for our older [fossilized?] brains) well-suited for a collaborative learning experience of the mesh network. Kids are grouped by friends (learning partners) and by task (assignment).

Just because it is very different, and the technical description makes my brain think about this in unfamiliar (hence, uncomfortable) ways does not mean that this is a "bad" UI.

Different paradigms require different solutions.


Edited for incorrect closing of formatting tools. Oops.

Edited 2006-11-28 18:04

Here here! Why does this seem to be lost on so many posters? Clearly they are designing something that not only has technical limitations, but they are designing it for children who may have never even used a computer before. Why shackle them to a UI that even experts agree is flawed? Let them use the device for what it's intended, not to further propagate some company's monopoly or some poster's idea of what the best desktop UI is.

Because whatever OS they move onto after that will use the "normal" pardigm, Gnome, KDE, Windows, OS X, whatever, and they'll fall behind other people in trying to do thier tasks/jobs/assignments until they catch up. Instead of shackling them to a UI that is flawed, you are creating a class of people who don't understand the current and highly relevant UI. It seems like it is designed to hold the target audience back, not help them move ahead

"I tend to think icons organized on the screen (like a crowded desktop) are the way to go, and "minimizing" to *somewhere* on the screen is the most logical way to manage multiple windows. This is a fairly simple way to present a familiar feeling and not completely foreign interface."

Yes but this is because this is what we have today that we think this way. We assume that what we have is the best, efficient and most suitable way of organizing.

They aren't trying to present a familiar feel! Not in the slightest. They are creating an intuitive, education-oriented GUI that will be quick to learn and quick to allow full exploration of the device.

New things are always hard on those used to the old.

and also, I don't think that kids are going to be reading through these huge purpose-oriented docs.

For the record, new does not equal better. Just because they are thinking outside the box doesn't mean the new interface is any better or more advanced than the desktop paradigm.

Frankly, I don't see the new interface as "intuitive" AT ALL, and please don't think it's because I'm too stupid to understand that I've been trained on an existing metaphor and it's not my first instinct is too look for like-minded organization. I don't see Sugar as superior, because I don't think anything about it appears to be decipherable without guidelines.

i would much rather see the different "apps" sorted as buttons or tabs, with the desktop being one of them. that way you do not have to minimize all running apps to access the desktop.

but most of all i would like said "tabs" to be task tabs, where in each tab one is working on one specific file or similar object. one object, one tab.

at times you may want to align two tabs side by side to visually compare or reference one while working on the other. this should be allowed. but no free floating windows (one problem here can be the im programs, not for the individual contact communications, but for selecting who to contact).

and if a "app" have to ask the user a question, the question should be attached to the inside of said tab (i kinda like the way firefox and IE does it with the question/warning bar for popups). and if this happens while a tab do not have focus, it should not steal focus, ever.

I admire the IDEA of Sugar - to rethink the tired old interface - but I don't really "get it" yet. It doesn't have a metaphorical foundation to build upon.

I believe the idea behind SUGAR is an interface centered around activities, just like Don Norman advocates:
http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/human-centered.html

It makes a lot of sense; desktops nowadays focus on discoverability of the controls, which is a good thing in and of itself. However, discoverability of the theoretical model behind the activity sometimes gets obscured, and workflow suffers as a result. And if I read the guidelines, they have the latter in mind, and if I read Thom's rant, he says discoverability of the tools isn't that important.

So no point of contention there actually

Considering the desktop metaphor is still in it's infancy I'd say burying it is way too soon. Most people make the mistake to judge the desktop metaphor based on the poor insufficient implementations in Windows, OS X, Gnome and KDE.

All of these DE are missing essential elements of the desktop metaphor, elements available in AmigaOS 1.0, OS/2 2.x and in BeOS.

The desktop metaphor is good. It's the main stream implementations that suck.

All of these DE are missing essential elements of the desktop metaphor, elements available in AmigaOS 1.0, OS/2 2.x and in BeOS.

Which elements are these, exactly?

Oh well... Here's a small list. Mind you that some of these have been fixed in Vista or OS X or Gnome/KDE. But there is still a long way to go. At least they have all understood the importance and relevance of indexing in the Desktop metaphor.

* Proper drag'n'drop printing for one (why does the office suite start when I drag a document to the printer? The Print Manager should just load a "Document Parser" plugin and print the document with no further crap).

* True system wide plugins with clearly defined interface (think translators, available in BeOS/Haiku, Syllable, SkyOS, and datatypes in AmigaOS, MorphOS, AROS).

* natively supported extensibility in all applications (not unlike REXX in OS/2 and AREXX in AmigaOS).

* Extensive usage of File Manager to handle tasks (think template creation and usage in OS/2, Gnome has such a support but it's actually hidden away *sigh*).

* Extensive use of drag'n'drop, drop, point'n'click operations (think font changing or color changing of a window in OS/2).


Firefox and Outlook Express (earlier than v.7 (Windows Mail)) are two good examples of anti-Desktop applications, one might add in Thunderbird, Microsoft Office and OpenOffice (most office suites are generally anti-desktop, due to main stream OS'es having insufficient frameworks in earlier version, requiring the applications to handle OS-tasks).

OTOH, the usage of individual files as internet shortcuts (favorites in Windows) is a good desktop-true solution.

* Proper drag'n'drop printing:

Had that with JazzBench on my Amiga 1000 and 4000. While of limited use without the full print/format code of the original creation program, it sure made things easy when you needed a code dump or a printout of an interesting text message.

* True system wide plugins (datatypes):

Using in BeOS today, Amiga in the past. I can't stand using OSes without datatypes. I like that once a datatype is install *ALL* programs that use that data can now understand it. It is just plain weird using a computer to save a file in one format only to find another program on the same computer can't read that format.

* natively supported extensibility:

Never learned AREXX, used lots of AREXX scripts, the biggest failing of BeOS was not coming with REXX - BASH is no REXX. Worse even the 'HEY' utility is not shipped with BeOS thus limiting the power of scripts. I know lots of people swear by Ruby but whatever the choice all OSes should ship with a scripting language from day one.

* Extensive usage of File Manager:

Do you mean like ClickDOS? If so, then yes!

There are still others, BeOS add-ons seem be very well design. And OpenTracker's find function is way better than Window's. (I have not use OS X lately to compare.)

Adblock is your friend.
https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/10/

Actually Thailand is far from OLPC's "Third World" target, because of the vicinity to Taiwan commercially available $150 laptops might not even be that far in Thai stores.

That said, it's still prohibitively expensive. $5 should be the target if they are really talking "Third World". Of course some governments can surely be corrupted into buying a few million of these MIT laptops for $100.

But if you consider $100 in the "Third World" is food for 10 people for a whole year, I very much doubt any government has the budget for it.

They're not exactly peddling the OLPC machines to destitute countries, you know. Food, water, and medicine obviously come first.

The key thing here seems to be using icons without text because of the inherent internationalization of the project itself. Seems like a very wise implementation to me.

Just because, there is no text doesn't mean you will not have internationalization issues. An image may mean different things to different cultures. Colors may be interpreted differently (e.g. black & white for sorrow).

Even though some icons most likely will be understood everywhere, the job of translate the few ones that are not universal may turn out to be just as much job as translating text.

So, my guess is that their use of icons have more to do with the fact that some of the potential users will not yet have learned to write and read, than to lower the costs for translations.

I think this UI might be very successful. I think the kids will love it. The key thing here seems to be using icons without text because of the inherent internationalization of the project itself. Seems like a very wise implementation to me.

I'm sorry but I strongly disagree - I think the exact opposite will happen, "mystery meat navigation" is simply annoying:
http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/mysterymeatnavigation.html

"I'm sorry but I strongly disagree - I think the exact opposite will happen, "mystery meat navigation" is simply annoying:
http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/mysterymeatnavigation.html"

I agree 100%, although what is the relevance, to a single web site amongst millions creating a new standard, to a unified interface across multiple applications.

BTW its not a web site, and conventions for web sites have actually evolved quite rapidly, because it has the potential for such a flexible UI.

I actually don't dislike the idea of rethinking the interface. 99% of the time I use my applications full screen, especially in my 12-inch laptop display.

I think that is a very important point. Most users on small laptop screens seem to prefer maximised windows anyway, so I don't see how a traditional desktop environment could be superior in any possible way. I see Sugar not so much as an attempt to provide a "dumbed down" interface for children, but an attempt to get the maximum out of the capabilities of the hardware (while at the same time providing an interface that is ideally suited to the situation those kids are in).

Thos, you describe in great detail that kids aren't idiots and well capable of learning computer interfaces, yet in the beginning of the article you question just that! I can't really follow that logic.

Neither do I believe that anyone growing up using an OLPC computer would have any trouble switching to another interface concept. Moving windows and clicking desktop icons isn't rocket science after all. The complexity lies in the actual capabilities and those differ from system to system anyway.

I'm not commenting on the other points, since I don't really follow Mr Negroponte's carer. I don't know if he is aware how things are in these 3rd world countries.

But most of the troubles linux has with hardware are because the vendor doesn't support it, and only has binary drivers for windows. Now, I doubt the first thing anyone will do when they receive an OLPC is switching the sound card and wifi card to something OLPC doesn't support. And I also doubt the people behind OLPC would choose any hardware unsupported by linux. They should be delivered fully configured and ready to work.

I don't know if there won't be any tech problems when the OLPC is delivered to these remote places, but I do know they can reduce or eliminate problems caused by users. I didn't see any cli in the videos, and I doubt you can run "sudo rm -Rf /" on the chat program...

Linux has to do many things for everyone. The OLPC only has one target, and a limited set of functions.

@rakamaka You have obviously, put a lot of effort into your post, but you make the same mistake *I* do which is obscure the points your trying to make. I'll try and ignore the waffle and respond to the points.

1) Mr Negroponte driven by intellectual not financial
2) 3rd World children backward
3) Limited by Small storage, and Display Size(hand cranking I thought had been removed)
4) What happens when something goes wrong.

In response.
1) The harsh reality of the things that would benefit the project, by it being driven by "The Marketplace"
is simply not going to happen for many reasons...The main one being there is not a computer marketplace. Its very monopolistic, Look at the main hardware, and software manufactures.

2) You really need to look at the countries this device is heading for. I just think you have the wrong end of the stick. I don't think you are intentionally being insulting.

3) The device is more powerful than you think. The harsh reality is that software evolves at much slower rate than hardware. The second point is look at what this device is designed for, and how it will be used. I can't think of anything that it needs to run where it needs more anything.

4) This is the only part that I think is interesting. You mistake what the device is, and how it is used. It is the going to be the largest manufacture of any single *hardware* platform ever. Think about the significance of that for moment. Now take a little time and look at what it *does*. Your analogy is soo off base it not comparable. In reality the OS in this instance works more like a Phone, PVR, blackberry, nokia 770

Now you are the one with the Ivory Tower attitude!

Sorry, who do you think were teaching the teachers how to use computers in the late 1970's and early 1980's? Answer, many times it were the students themselves who had no trouble in digging out the details of how the machines worked and spent so many hours with the machines after school till the point that the maintenance staff had to kick them out. I know, I was one of those students. And if computers back then had the mesh networks these babies come with it would had been harder still to get rid of us. Even your analog fails - put a real NASCAR in the auto-shop of any high school and you could not slip a grape into the remain floor space from all the students. And yes, they would be reading all the manuals too!!!

The nature of computers are that you don't have to understand how best to use them for the poorer countries, unlike here in North America some stupid committee might switch to something entirely different next year these people can't afford to dump the lot if they find the software does not match their needs. Instead they 'HOLD ON TO YOUR HAT' ----- REPROGRAM them to fit their needs. Before the big budgets here in Ontario many schools helped to develop and distribute a series of education programs, many of them written by the students themselves. Again don't forget that mesh network, good programs will spread like crazy ie fast.

The rest reads just as dumb to me. Power supplies that don't depend on the grid - makes sense to me! Small displays? I learnt on 40*25 character displays and delivered business software on machines with only 80*25 character displays - since when did display size become so limiting? Only 512MB? Only? Only? Again I delivered A/P and A/R and complete inventory systems on machines with only 32 KBytes of memory, what do you think the child need more for? Oops, pen disk! Even then my comments stand, why would children learning about computers need more for a while. At-least they will learn not to fill it up with junk, people on a memory budget soon learn that they can't have it all, and that they don't need it all either. I would killed for a computer with those features when I was in school in the 1970's (yes I did fight over use of the school's few computers).

Linux - the kids will maintain it themselves just like thousands (millions?) of kids already do today! And how is installing a Mac from a CD any different than installing Linux setup for the laptop in the first place. All the laptops are the same, they all use the same install CD.

Your complaint is silly about installation because there is only one real model, when Amiga, Mac, Atari ST only had one or two models and a lack of different hardware options for particular functions there were also a lack of install problems for their OSes. The problems we see today is caused by the wide range of hardware needed to be supported, not because the software is hard to install.

One model means easy installs!

Edited 2006-11-28 20:44

Agree completely.

Sorry, who do you think were teaching the teachers how to use computers in the late 1970's and early 1980's? Answer, many times it were the students themselves who had no trouble in digging out the details of how the machines worked and spent so many hours with the machines after school till the point that the maintenance staff had to kick them out. I know, I was one of those students. And if computers back then had the mesh networks these babies come with it would had been harder still to get rid of us. Even your analog fails - put a real NASCAR in the auto-shop of any high school and you could not slip a grape into the remain floor space from all the students. And yes, they would be reading all the manuals too!!!

We put Linux thin clients into our elementary schools, full labs of 30 computers (donated P2 333/400 MHz initially, now donated VIA C3 800 MHz). When the labs went in, it was the teachers that had problems with them, not the students. Several schools implemented peer-tutoring programs where the grade 6 & 7 students helped the younger children learn to use the Linux apps. A couple schools had the older students develop pamphlets and booklets for teaching others how to use the apps (all done using the Linux labs). Some schools even had students give workshops for the teachers.

Kids are not idiots, nor are they unwilling to learn.

Having an identical setup for the servers in each school, as well as identical hardware in the labs, made it possible for 2 in-school techs to manage 37 elementary school labs, and for 1 district tech to manage the 37 servers. There's something to be said for minimising choice intelligently. And having identical hardware means replacing a dead/dying system is as easy as power off, unplug, plug in, power on.

>hand crancking power supply

And? The computer is supposed to run on what where they don't have access to a power grid?

Hot air? pixie dust?

Solar cells do not provide enough energy..

Correct URL
(here are the OLPC screenshots)

http://www.thecodingstudio.com/opensource/linux/screenshots/index.p...

Greetz,
YBK

Thank god it's not you who gets to decide!

Seems like you live in a dichotomy world. Where a country, city or school is either reasonably affluent, or cannot afford "soap and water".

There are less affluent countries that have cities. And schools. They have food and water, and even soap!

For these places, a tool like this may be useful. This OLPC project is targeting a specific narrow range of users. People in countries that aren't absolutely starving to death. These units aren't replacing any other sort of foreign aid. There is no condition to stop grain or medical shipments to countries where OLPC is going.

Please think of the world as a spectrum encompassing varying needs. This is a tool that will meet some of those needs.

"the children need water + soap + true education (reading-writing) + PLOUGHS"

You mean, just enough that Spain (and the rest of Europe, America etc) will be relieved of the tiresome burden of handing out food, but not enough to actually threaten our economic domination?

Nice self-preservation thinking, there.

You, like many others, miss the point of the OLPC. The OLPC is not going to people in Rawanda(?) instead of food and sanitation aid. This is going to people that already have a schooling system, not to mention sanitation and housing.

Don't be so niave as to think that the OLPC is a replacement for 3rd world aid and support for poverty-stricken nations. The OLPC serves a completely different purpose for a completely different mass of people. If you don't realise that, then perhaps you need a teaching-aid.