I love the concept of open source, of developers all over the world working to create free code, free applications for all to use - or improve. I love the concept because it is a world of creativity freed from commercial concerns, and because it provides access to applications and software that - for an ordinary income - would be almost impossible to get access to, if you were to buy a legal copy.
Now, I know that one of the reasons that commercially developed software is sometimes almost immorally expensive might be the fact that so many people use illegally obtained copies. But I don't want to dip into that discussion now. What interests me is the way open source seems to be developing.
I'm not a programmer. I'm an anthropologist who works in web usability, user centered design and information architecture. And one of the things that have always annoyed me about open source applications is the fact that it seems to be made by developers ... for developers only. The ordinary (read: less than super-geek) user is often completely ignored, and the GUIs (Graphical User Interfaces) are absolutely hopeless when it comes to basic usability. And somehow this draws the democratic, freedom-spreading aspect right out of the concept of open source. Well ... I don't really know if it was ever intended to contain that aspect - or if it was actually meant to be an underground activity with a strong potential for geeks to create a cultural community with its own rules and almost tribal systems of prestige. However, if open source products were originally intended to be spread to less than super-geeky people also, then the lack of attention paid to the GUIs has been a major stopping block.
Now, there are some signs that this might be about to change. Take The Gimp, for instance. A large, complex application developed as a substitute for Adobe PhotoShop - an image editing software which carries quite a price tag. Now someone actually sat down and developed a more user centered design, which uses similar names for basic functionality as Photoshop . Scott (as the developer is called) has worked on the GIMP only in order to improve the GUI. Not the basic code. By improving the usability of the GUI, he says, more people may be inclined to shift from an illegal version of Photoshop (and therefore always desperately hunting for copies of the latest upgrade) to The GIMPshop, as he calls the improved interface. Unfortunately, he's only made a version for Mac/Linux so far, but the project in itself, as well as the discussion taking place in the comments, is very interesting.
One discussion is particularly interesting - and that is the legal issues. Does Photoshop own patents on their GUI? They probably do, but in what detail? On the labels they use to name the tools in their application? And if they don't, will major software developers start protecting their investments by patenting specifically user friendly interfaces? If that is the case, I think people like myself may be heading for a major income boost!
*Smiles widely*
Recent Comments