Groupware Overload in Linux?

Sorry about not leaving a space at the end of the URL above. I didn’t think it applied to HTML italic tags I put around it.

And one developer expressed on the mailing-list that he likes it too.

I don’t like the new outlook UI

It’s still blue

Everything Microsoft is producing now is blue, it’s just wierd. I find it hurts your eyes more after long hours of staring than the old gray theme (Classic) from windows 9x.

And it *looks* cluttered, it’s less cluttered than the current one, but looks like it’s more cluttered. Oh well.

As much as I hate to admit it, the new outlook looks very nice , although a bit too much bloat.

Now whe’s KMail going to catch up with at least mozilla mail’s functionality

gabout gthe gsame gtime gnome gdevelopers gstop gusing gg’s

Yeah, those people are just like parrots.

They are saying what everybody else is saying no matter if it is true.

People asociated with the project keep telling them that kroupware is the project name, but the others won’t listen.

Btw, the project is a contract work for a German governmental agency and kroup or croup doesn’t mean anything in German, it just sounds like group.

> http://microsoft.com/presspass/images/features/2002/07-15exchangeqa…

> Is it just me, or does that image look very

> similar to Mozilla with its Modern theme?

It is just you.

If the author of the article had bothered to read the announcement of the discussions on the kroupware list, he would have known that kroupware *is* a preliminary name….

Actually I think that it is unlikely that the end-product will get a special name. They are just writing a number of extensions for KMail. Why should KMail’s name be changed? And why is KMail’s interface similar to Outlook (or more similar to Outlook than 90% of all mail apps)? The article also ignores Kaplan. Kaplan is the approach favored by most developers, a shell for KMail, KOrganizer and a few other apps. And *this* is similar to Outlook or similar all-in-one apps.

> Kwhen Kwill Keverything Kstop Kbeing Kprefixed Kwith Ka K’K’?

When international trademark laws don’t allow to admonish you otherwise?

i dont get you people … these developers started something and their naming convention is apps with a K in front. i like it – at least you know the app came from the KDE camp.

Once you realize that someone will ALWAYS whine, no matter what.. You’ll understand all the whining about K’s

> Kroupware is German for groupware

I don’t know who told you that, but that’s wrong.

this should raise some controversy, but think on this.

apple is doing new and exciting things, not always the most “functional” but a lot of stuff is. word processors are word processors, and not much in terms of ui to do.

Evolution is mimicking Outlook, which is wrong. But its always been a fact the opensource and ui almost never work.

good ui designers work for companys. linux is starting to get nicer looking with time, but not without regular employees working for companys doing the grunt work.

This whole thing illustrates a basic problem with Linux (Note I love and run Linux). And this problem this Linux people are too busy trying to clone windows apps and the Windows UI. The reasoning is you make it easier for Windows users to migrate over but you also replicate all the mistakes that Windows UIs make.

Linux needs to define a UI that says “I’m Linux” Instead of “I am Linux even though I look like Windows”.

hey, good idea

hiya,

frankly i hate all these type of destructive critics. “it’s bad, it sucks etc.”. instead of saying evolution is bad at design, MAKE A BETTER ONE. the UI of outlook is rather usable. evolution’s is probably identical. so it is usable as well.

the other one is also not so fair: why cloneing this program, why not my favourite? oh, please… there is a big difference in evolution and outlook. evolution is free. as in speech and as in beer. missing an SQL interface? you are free to implement it.

and, evolution runs on linux, but what about outlook or even notes (don’t come with wine, please…)

cheers

gaboro

i think most people because something is free, that it is better then another product wich is not free.

i don’t get it! if i have a problem or need a solution for a specific task wich can be done with a software, then i look what is around. and if i find a product wich is free and suites my needs then i take it. but if there is nothing free around wich suites my needs, but there is something wich is not free, then i buy the product.

i need software to solve my problems or do a specific task and not to show the world that i am a super ultra giga mega <insert geek word> freak.

don’t get me wrong. i use linux on all my servers and i am very happy with it. but i have ibm domino runing on 2 of them and webspehere and db2 and oracle. all of them are not free, but i need them and i am happy with it.

now when i read about groupware projects in open source and look at the feature list… then i have to laught.

not that they are bad. but i am much faster in building solutions in domino then in any of the other open source products.

and if i look at how much solution i would need to build with the open source product, then i can just say: YEAH. free in first place, but later you have to work like a horse to get good solutions runing on that platform. and this is alot of time. and time = $$$

cheers

SteveB

Speaking as someone who is planning a Mozilla based PIM, I’d love to get some user thoughts on what makes a really great PIM. Outlook may be the most popular, but I know its not perfect (after all, no matter what you create, there is always a better way to do it.).

Anyone wishing to give input, you can either email me directly, or join our mailing list (http://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/mozoffice). I encourge everyone to provide any input. And if you’re interested in development, let me know that, too. We’re looking at making a fully function, cross-platform Office Suite based upon the Mozilla XPFE (Cross-platform Front End).

Thanks,

Chris Shaffer

mozoffice.sourceforge.net

mozoffice.mozdev.org

David, see my post above about ‘koala’. Now calling a piece of software after our nation’s kapital is just plain krazy (nor very flattering!) If this wasn’t such a polite forum, I should want to kastigate you.

Croup: http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=croup&r=67

Regarding interfaces: Everyone complains. At least once a year someone writes an article relating that “the desktop paradigm is dead” and that something else needs to be created, but as usual no one ever volunteers what that next thing will be.

Why don’t people open their Gimp or Photoshop or Refraction or Corel and create mock-up pictures of what “they greates UI in history” should look like? That way when the people who’s talent should be in the guts (and whom should never, ever be allowed to create an interface) could design something around the submissions?

Hackers -> code. Artists -> art. h_ank -> pr0n. Just the way things are meant to be…

Maybe name it like “Kicrosoft”? To kick this Mi”c”rosoft?

The article in ExtremeTech failed to understand the main advantages of the work being done in the PIM projects in KDE.

For PIM applications, one size doesn’t fit all. On one side of the chain, they are people who just want a mail client and dial up their ISP to check their Pop3 account and on the other side knowledge workers in big companies where information (emails, addresses, notes, calendars) should be located on servers.

KDE has already PIM applications for simple users and is busy reengineering his PIM infrastructure to accomodate the different needs of organizations.

– Standards only standards.To ease the interoperability with other systems, KDE tries to use all the available standards on the market. For example the icalendar format is the internal format of KOrganizer.

– Separation of backend and frontend. Work is being done to separate the front end and the back end of PIM application. For example, in the new kaddressbook your list of contact can be a local file or an OpenLdap server, etc… The Kollab server developped by the Kroupware group is going to be a backend that will work out of the box with the KDE PIM but the architecture is open and IT managers will be able to choose the infrastructure that suits their needs.

– Modularization of the components. Kmail, KOrganizer and other PIM applications will get the possibility to become components (KParts). That means that you will be able to integrate them in a common framework like Kaplan. You will get some extra functionalities but lose some performance. The power of the Kaplan / Kparts way is that it is not at all limitating to creating an Outlook clone. More components can be created and integrated. Aaron Seigo has talked about creating a Customer Relation Management component. One can imagine all kind of different components some tailored for a niche market.

In a nutshell, if you are a home user. Don’t worry. KMail is not going to disappear as a standalone application. If you are an IT manager trying to escape from Exchange hell, look the KDE way.

Outlook is bad for 2 reasons:

1) The user interface is bad. USABLE interfaces are in Mac and Nextstep. If you want to copy, copy from something good.

One’s an application interface, the other two are operating system interfaces, perhaps you’d like to try again? An example of an application or applications that do what Outlook does with a better interface? Personally, I find most of the Outlook interface to be usable, though not optimal. I find the high dependance on wizards to be a specific problem.

2) The idea of one big program that does it all is bad. Multitasking and ipc born for this. I use evolution, I started using it because it is fast for big inbox but the monolithic approach is bad. Sometimes calendar crashes and I cannot use mail anymore. To kill it there is a special command “killev” because it is to difficult to kill by hand.

That’s an application-specific problem, not a problem with the ‘monolithic aproach’. Software can be developed to appear monolithic without actually being monolithic (which is mostly the case with Outlook, though may not be with Evolution). Then again, the Calendar shouldn’t crash in the first place… but if it does, mail should still be usable, though with a note that calendar information will not be available/updated until the calendar is restarted (a one-time message, not a message every time you try to do anything).

3) The idea that you should mimick windows to help “lame” users is bad. These users will never contribute to linux or care which software are using. If someone likes to make linux a windows clone please tell me NOW that I buy a MAC.

Outlook is bad for 2 reasons:

Oh, wait, #3 isn’t about Outlook (and neither was #1, nor #2, really, since it was about Evolution). Anything that gets more users on a platform increases the amount of development that goes into that platform, even if the users being brought in are not themselves developers. The real key comes in getting applications like this developed more as isolated components, so that they can be reused without a lot of extra coding to give them new interfaces and even use them seperately (or as part of other applications). Reuse of components is the sort of thing that Microsoft DOES do really well, though seperating the functionality from the interface may not be.

Fact is, the Kroupware project’s goal is to build an Outlook-workalike for the German government to be independent from a foreign known monopoly. It’s not a waste of time for the KDE folks, because the work is done by independent contractors.

Currently, the Bundestag uses Outlook. That means a lookalike system would ease the switch from proprietary to open system; since that is something that counts for the institution which pays for the solution, it will be implemented like that.

The only connection between the resulting program and the linux community is that the community profits from the program. The program is not itself written by the linux community.

Because it’s not what the UI looks like that matters, it’s how it

works.

and something like this could be illustrated through a series of images and/or description. Arrangement is as much a part of GUI design as anything else.

A program is a collection of routines each of which performs a task

and an experienced user?

If we’re discussing replacement of the desktop metaphor, wouldn’t some sort of imagery at the very least help the discussion? When examining implementation the question of whether or not the use is logical definitely should be a major part of the discussion, but this is not independent of the way things look.

Not what colour are the window borders.

Most (but certainly not all) would agree that the colour of the window borders should be up to the user, though you should not allow the user to make changes that would make it hard to use or hard to revert back to the defaults. When choosing defaults it is very important to consider a large number of factors when choosing colours, though, as it’s the first thing a user will see.

An example of how _not_ to do it. In Pagemaker, you can place a bitmap

tries first.

Why does an experienced user try this first? There’s no logic in doing that unless it’s consistent with the application or the operating system. That is the sort of thing that no one would even know unless they did it on accident, were experimenting with it, or were told they could do it, and is exactly the kind of thing UI design tries to avoid unless there are definite cues for the user to do it. Why ALT instead of SHIFT or CTRL?

In fact, you are supposed to click on the Crop tool and then drag.

find out.

and here I agree with you, after all, what does crop have to do with the operation at hand?

If Linux coders concentrate on thinking “How will this seem to a

user?”, instead of “How is it done in Windows?”, they will be OK.

But the problem is that a large part of what they have to deal with is ‘How will this seem to a Windows user?’. In your Pagemaker example, though, there’s no reason why someone couldn’t implement both methods, if the ALT method had some justification (or was a user option). GUI design is as much about flexibility as it is about optimization for a particular group of users. What is logical or obvious to a new user may become cumbersome for an experienced user. Keyboard shortcuts are great for people that take the time to learn them, but are of no help to people that have to look them up, and therefore it’s important that what is implemented on the keyboard (other than inputting data, usually) is also implemented in on-screen controls.

I know some people that use certain versions of AutoCAD almost entirely with the keyboard, which makes them very accurate and fast doing the things they know how to do and do often. At the same time, I know people that are very mouse-intensive in the same versions of AutoCAD, and can get the job done equally well, but would be completely lost if you took away the mouse. When it comes to finding something new, though, both are pretty much lost, because AutoCAD is such a complex application with so many features that the mouse-driven people rarely have every toolbar button on-screen and the keyboard-driven people rarely know commands they don’t use frequently, and they’re all reduced to hunting through menus or the help for what they are trying to do. It’s a particular case where the user interface is definitely not friendly to new users, but is very flexible and can be very efficient for any experienced user, and also a case where very few people can even begin to find a way to make it easy for new users without losing the very things that make the program what it is.

What’s ultimately important is to know your audience. In the case of AutoCAD, the important point is to have a powerful, flexible tool, to the degree that being friendly to new users is not nearly as important, especially if it’s a trade-off between power and flexibility vs. user-friendly design. The audience has shown they are willing to spend the time to learn the tool and optimize it for their own uses, so this is what they get. With Linux, the audience is varied, and the operating system and it’s various distributions and interfaces reflect that. With something meant to replace Outlook, the audience is clearly defined as Outlook users. However, none of this means that one should limit themselves to simply implementing that which already exists. Look not only at what Outlook has done, also look at what Outlook users complain about, what they praise, and what they really want. If all they really want is ‘Exchange interoperability with pine’, then why do you need Evolution? If they don’t like features X, Y, and Z of Outlook, but think that features A, B, and C are implemented really well, then consider improving X, Y, and Z but maintaining as much as possible about A, B, and C.

Aethera has a much nicer looking UI than any of the aforementioned PIM’s and is already open source. Here is a collection of screenshots:

http://thekompany.com/projects/aethera/screenshots.php3

While there are still some features that need added, such as html e-mail (even if you don’t like it, it should be an option) and optional password verification for sending mail. Currently, Aethera is locked to boxes with KDE installed, but eventually it will be crossplatform, which many companies may want for their mixed OS work environments.

Even if Aethera is not suitable, for some reason, maybe we could clone it, add Outlook-like functionality, and rename it Kethra