Comments on: Open source design and the OpenOfficeMouse http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2009/11/07/open-source-design-and-the-openofficemouse/ This can all be made better. Ready? Begin. Tue, 18 Jan 2011 00:50:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Karsten 'quaid' Wade http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2009/11/07/open-source-design-and-the-openofficemouse/comment-page-1/#comment-118534 Karsten 'quaid' Wade Mon, 06 Sep 2010 19:23:54 +0000 http://factoryjoe.com/blog/?p=1748#comment-118534 What occurs to me is this: 1. People who just want to make something that solves their problem will do whatever they have to, regardless of user design experience. Without experienced designer help, they make anything. Being able to do that is a core value of free and open source software, it's an easy place to solve your problem. It's also easy to create a terrible user experience (UX). With the right mix of people, it's possible to create a wonderful UX. 2. Someone comes along and decides to pay a team of people to design a product that "just works". They make a conscious choice to not do that work in an open, collaborative way, and a choice not to license that work with a free and open license. There is nothing wrong with the open source design process simply because the proper mix of experts hasn't arisen or been paid to solve this particular problem area you are looking at. Plenty of open source solutions are more elegant than the Magic Mouse, from the proper perspective and in the proper context. If I had a market of Linux users big enough to buy it, I can easily see the reasoning for hiring a team to make something just as innovative as both of these mice, with all the UX sense required, and under an entirely FOSS license chain (from hardware to software.) As mentioned, the OLPC XO is a good example of this. It's not really a fault of the open source design process, so let's not lay any blame there. I'm not really sure there is any blame to lay. It is simply that no one has made the business decision to fund a team, and no experts (or near experts) have sought to form a community to solve this particular niche (or other related ones where FOSS UX/UI sucks.) It is to the credit of the open source design process that an 18 button mouse useful to a small niche can arise, presuming that it actually is FOSS licensed. As an example folks have decided to pay people to make stuff just work yet be open source, the base Android UI, the base Chrome OS UI, and the base MeeGo UI are all nice UX. Even where all the bits are not (yet) open source, that is the clear trend. Getting those paid-for design teams to work more openly with external input, in all such cases, is something to be encouraged. Then we'll have even more open source design success to point to. What occurs to me is this:

1. People who just want to make something that solves their problem will do whatever they have to, regardless of user design experience. Without experienced designer help, they make anything. Being able to do that is a core value of free and open source software, it’s an easy place to solve your problem. It’s also easy to create a terrible user experience (UX). With the right mix of people, it’s possible to create a wonderful UX.

2. Someone comes along and decides to pay a team of people to design a product that “just works”. They make a conscious choice to not do that work in an open, collaborative way, and a choice not to license that work with a free and open license.

There is nothing wrong with the open source design process simply because the proper mix of experts hasn’t arisen or been paid to solve this particular problem area you are looking at.

Plenty of open source solutions are more elegant than the Magic Mouse, from the proper perspective and in the proper context.

If I had a market of Linux users big enough to buy it, I can easily see the reasoning for hiring a team to make something just as innovative as both of these mice, with all the UX sense required, and under an entirely FOSS license chain (from hardware to software.) As mentioned, the OLPC XO is a good example of this.

It’s not really a fault of the open source design process, so let’s not lay any blame there. I’m not really sure there is any blame to lay. It is simply that no one has made the business decision to fund a team, and no experts (or near experts) have sought to form a community to solve this particular niche (or other related ones where FOSS UX/UI sucks.) It is to the credit of the open source design process that an 18 button mouse useful to a small niche can arise, presuming that it actually is FOSS licensed.

As an example folks have decided to pay people to make stuff just work yet be open source, the base Android UI, the base Chrome OS UI, and the base MeeGo UI are all nice UX. Even where all the bits are not (yet) open source, that is the clear trend. Getting those paid-for design teams to work more openly with external input, in all such cases, is something to be encouraged. Then we’ll have even more open source design success to point to.

]]> By: The Case For Open-Source Design: Can Design By Committee Work? - Smashing Magazine http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2009/11/07/open-source-design-and-the-openofficemouse/comment-page-1/#comment-118527 The Case For Open-Source Design: Can Design By Committee Work? - Smashing Magazine Wed, 01 Sep 2010 13:09:10 +0000 http://factoryjoe.com/blog/?p=1748#comment-118527 [...] [...] [...] [...]

]]> By: Can Design By Committee Work? [essay] http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2009/11/07/open-source-design-and-the-openofficemouse/comment-page-1/#comment-118453 Can Design By Committee Work? [essay] Tue, 03 Aug 2010 23:20:15 +0000 http://factoryjoe.com/blog/?p=1748#comment-118453 [...] Chris Messina gives a great example for this paradox in a comparison between Apple’s Magic Mouse and the Open Office Mouse <http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2009/11/07/open-source-design-and-the-openofficemouse/>. While Apple’s solution is a slick and clean one-buttons device, the OOMouse has “18 programmable mouse buttons with double-click functionality; Analog Xbox 360-style joystick with optional 4, 8, and 16-key command modes; 63 on-mouse application profiles with hardware, software, and autoswitching capability;” and more… While Apple’s Magic Mouse embodies the company’s commitment to design leadership at the price of user choice, the OOMouse embodies the Free Software’s preference of openness and customization over unified leadership. [...] [...] Chris Messina gives a great example for this paradox in a comparison between Apple’s Magic Mouse and the Open Office Mouse <http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2009/11/07/open-source-design-and-the-openofficemouse/>. While Apple’s solution is a slick and clean one-buttons device, the OOMouse has “18 programmable mouse buttons with double-click functionality; Analog Xbox 360-style joystick with optional 4, 8, and 16-key command modes; 63 on-mouse application profiles with hardware, software, and autoswitching capability;” and more… While Apple’s Magic Mouse embodies the company’s commitment to design leadership at the price of user choice, the OOMouse embodies the Free Software’s preference of openness and customization over unified leadership. [...]

]]> By: When Design Meets Ergonomics – And When They Fail Together | CloudAve http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2009/11/07/open-source-design-and-the-openofficemouse/comment-page-1/#comment-114462 When Design Meets Ergonomics – And When They Fail Together | CloudAve Sun, 13 Dec 2009 04:15:28 +0000 http://factoryjoe.com/blog/?p=1748#comment-114462 [...] With New MouseOpenOfficeMouse crams practically a million buttons onto the back of a rodentOpen source design and the OpenOfficeMousePosted Under : Design Tags apple openoffice magic mouse mac openofficemouse Share this article: [...] [...] With New MouseOpenOfficeMouse crams practically a million buttons onto the back of a rodentOpen source design and the OpenOfficeMousePosted Under : Design Tags apple openoffice magic mouse mac openofficemouse Share this article: [...]

]]> By: John Drinkwater http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2009/11/07/open-source-design-and-the-openofficemouse/comment-page-1/#comment-111820 John Drinkwater Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:19:59 +0000 http://factoryjoe.com/blog/?p=1748#comment-111820 I don’t understand how you make the jump to assume this is an ‘open source’ mouse, because it has the OO.o logo on it? I don’t understand how you make the jump to assume this is an ‘open source’ mouse, because it has the OO.o logo on it?

]]> By: Micheas http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2009/11/07/open-source-design-and-the-openofficemouse/comment-page-1/#comment-111768 Micheas Mon, 09 Nov 2009 13:02:48 +0000 http://factoryjoe.com/blog/?p=1748#comment-111768 Hmm, remember the early 90's when it was not uncommon to have 24 or more function keys? I wounder if this is just a 2D version of touch. Most people use a five button mouse but think of it as a two button mouse. (two buttons, plus a scroll wheel, with button three being down, button four being scroll up, and button five being scroll down.) If this really is a good idea, then I am sure that someone will clean up the interface at some point. Hmm, remember the early 90′s when it was not uncommon to have 24 or more function keys?

I wounder if this is just a 2D version of touch.

Most people use a five button mouse but think of it as a two button mouse. (two buttons, plus a scroll wheel, with button three being down, button four being scroll up, and button five being scroll down.)

If this really is a good idea, then I am sure that someone will clean up the interface at some point.

]]> By: Notional Slurry » links for 2009-11-08 http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2009/11/07/open-source-design-and-the-openofficemouse/comment-page-1/#comment-111601 Notional Slurry » links for 2009-11-08 Mon, 09 Nov 2009 06:01:55 +0000 http://factoryjoe.com/blog/?p=1748#comment-111601 [...] Open source design and the OpenOfficeMouse | FactoryCity "What I worry about, however, is that pockets of the open source community continue to largely be defined and driven by complexity, exclusivity, technocracy, and machismo. While I do support independence and freedom of choice in technology — and therefore open source — I prefer to do so inclusively, with an understanding that there are many more people who are not yet well served by technology because appropriate technology has not been made more usable for them. The beautiful, usable technology in the marketplace need not be the exclusive domain of the proprietary — but so far I’ve see little indication that open source developers take seriously the need for simpler, easier, and more intuitive future-forward interfaces. Perhaps I’m wrong or just uninformed, but so long as products like the OpenOfficeMouse continue to characterize the norm in open source design, I’m not likely going to be able to soon recommend open source solutions to anyone but the most advanced and privileged users. (tags: open-source design-autism industrial-design design-by-committee contingent usability criticism community geek-cultural-assumptions) [...] [...] Open source design and the OpenOfficeMouse | FactoryCity "What I worry about, however, is that pockets of the open source community continue to largely be defined and driven by complexity, exclusivity, technocracy, and machismo. While I do support independence and freedom of choice in technology — and therefore open source — I prefer to do so inclusively, with an understanding that there are many more people who are not yet well served by technology because appropriate technology has not been made more usable for them. The beautiful, usable technology in the marketplace need not be the exclusive domain of the proprietary — but so far I’ve see little indication that open source developers take seriously the need for simpler, easier, and more intuitive future-forward interfaces. Perhaps I’m wrong or just uninformed, but so long as products like the OpenOfficeMouse continue to characterize the norm in open source design, I’m not likely going to be able to soon recommend open source solutions to anyone but the most advanced and privileged users. (tags: open-source design-autism industrial-design design-by-committee contingent usability criticism community geek-cultural-assumptions) [...]

]]> By: AR http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2009/11/07/open-source-design-and-the-openofficemouse/comment-page-1/#comment-111591 AR Mon, 09 Nov 2009 05:43:55 +0000 http://factoryjoe.com/blog/?p=1748#comment-111591 Why you call this OOMouse as 'open hardware'? It doesn't contain any open parts, it only has openoffice.org logo. Even their own press release (Nov 6, 2009) said it is covered by patents. Why you call this OOMouse as ‘open hardware’? It doesn’t contain any open parts, it only has openoffice.org logo. Even their own press release (Nov 6, 2009) said it is covered by patents.

]]> By: Adam Williamson http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2009/11/07/open-source-design-and-the-openofficemouse/comment-page-1/#comment-111532 Adam Williamson Mon, 09 Nov 2009 04:12:57 +0000 http://factoryjoe.com/blog/?p=1748#comment-111532 As others have said, I think the open source angle is a bad one. OpenOffice.org is not primarily an open source office suite, it's a Microsoft Office clone which was around for years before it was open sourced, so assuming its design philosophy reflects anything about the innate nature of open source is a bit dicey. The Abiword Mouse would not look the same, to give the obvious comparison. Nor would the Microsoft Office Mouse look much like the Mighty Mouse, and that's another proprietary software company. As others have said, I think the open source angle is a bad one. OpenOffice.org is not primarily an open source office suite, it’s a Microsoft Office clone which was around for years before it was open sourced, so assuming its design philosophy reflects anything about the innate nature of open source is a bit dicey.

The Abiword Mouse would not look the same, to give the obvious comparison. Nor would the Microsoft Office Mouse look much like the Mighty Mouse, and that’s another proprietary software company.

]]> By: Richard http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2009/11/07/open-source-design-and-the-openofficemouse/comment-page-1/#comment-111428 Richard Sun, 08 Nov 2009 18:43:24 +0000 http://factoryjoe.com/blog/?p=1748#comment-111428 It's a logical fallacy to claim that this mouse is representative of open source software. Most open source software has a large number of configurable options, like this mouse. However, most open source software comes with sane default settings; you don't have to fiddle with the options to have working software. This mouse, however, actually REQUIRES complex setup. It would be more reasonable to compare open source software to all computer mice. You only need to configure this ridiculous OOo mouse if you actually choose to use it. If you don't want to configure it, there are plenty of simpler, configuration-free mice available (and your computer surely came with a simple one). However, it's good to have a complex mouse like this available for hard-core gamers, 3D designers, and other people who might actually CHOOSE to use it. The mere availability of options is not a burden on the user. It’s a logical fallacy to claim that this mouse is representative of open source software. Most open source software has a large number of configurable options, like this mouse. However, most open source software comes with sane default settings; you don’t have to fiddle with the options to have working software. This mouse, however, actually REQUIRES complex setup.

It would be more reasonable to compare open source software to all computer mice. You only need to configure this ridiculous OOo mouse if you actually choose to use it. If you don’t want to configure it, there are plenty of simpler, configuration-free mice available (and your computer surely came with a simple one). However, it’s good to have a complex mouse like this available for hard-core gamers, 3D designers, and other people who might actually CHOOSE to use it.

The mere availability of options is not a burden on the user.

]]>