Why Have a Start Button to Shutdown Windows?
followsteph.com
followsteph.com
But, if you argue for semantics, semantics are still semantics. You don't _start_ to _shut down_ your computer, and it really shouldn't be a process. You just shut it down.
Given that they were copying the macintosh what, a decade after the original mac's release, you'd think they might actually look at some user tests of people using a mac.
I'm sure they would find that given that the only obvious thing on the screen is a computer icon, they would click on it, and tada, there they are now staring at a window filled with what is IN their computer.
The metaphor is simple, and it works.
Now more than a decade later, and we are still stuck with this idiocy that the desktop is a totally useless wasteland for auto-installed shortcuts and crap, while the start menu of an average user's system has, not application names, but a mile long list of company names to play the "now who the hell made my text editor?" game.
Frankly, reading this article gave me nightmarish flashbacks about the time I had to use OS X. Closing down applications was a real pain, if I remember correctly. Clicking the "X" doesn't close them, only hide them. You have to unhide them and find the "Exit" (or whatever) in the file menu to actually close them for good (not the file menu in the window, mind you, but the one in the useless "desktop transforms into application window").
So please don't refer to OS X as an usability icon, definitely not when the question is how to shut down things.
It's much more important how much work frequently repeated actions take once you know them. No keyboard shortcut can ever be intuitive in the sense you could have suspected what it does without learning about it. But it's quick and you can remember it. That's what counts.
Are regular expressions intuitive? No, but just imagine you had to do pattern matching with a language full of very intuitive words, like SQL or COBOL say :)
The old word interface (not the ribbon) actually did a pretty good job in this. Beginners used the menubar to do things. The options where accompanied by icons ("ooh, that's the same as the one on the iconbar.") and keyboard shortcuts ("What happens if I press Ctrl - S?"). The user interface doesn't get in the way of power users and teaches beginners and intermediate users.
In later versions of windows, they had a whole window with tons of options pop up at every single startup. In Vista, the window has useless computer information, like how much RAM you have. They not only confuse beginners, but they punish intermediate and advanced users until they find the little checkbox that says not to start it every time.
The Wii remote has a Power button, in the same place as the power button on my TV remote control. No explanation required.
Microsoft: Yes this seems strange, but this is actually what the users want - and we have tests to prove it - so we'll do it
Linux: RTFM n00bz! Ubuntu! Ubuntu!
Your statement is an overgeneralization to say the least.
1) Does Canonical operate a usability lab?
2) Would Ubuntu developers pay any attention if it did?
(1a) I care about usability a _lot_ and I don't have a lab. A simple pc in a room is quite adequate for most studies. (For some of them you don't even need a pc)
(2) https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-discuss/2007-...
The biggest usability issue Linux has these days is a holdover reputation from the '90s.
The second biggest usability issue is that it's not a Windows clone, so muscle-memory no longer applies.
That's not to say that Linux usability is perfect, but I find that for the most part it's miles ahead of Windows, it's easier to debug when things do go wrong, and Just Works out of the box to a greater degree (downloading drivers is so 1990s) if your hardware is supported.