Productivity and Nothing More
As is usual in these circumstances, someone piped up with a sarcastic comment about how "that's going to increase productivity". This is a standard way of saying that visually appealing features have no value because they don't increase "productivity". Normally I don't think too much of these comments either way, but for once I thought, hang on a minute... Why does "productivity" have to be the ultimate measure of a computer's feature? Are we all trying to do nothing but be productive? I agree that if it reduces productivity, that's a bad thing, but if all it does is maintain the same level of productivity and at the same time is a little easier on the eyes, why not? After all, most of us (myself definitely included) will be spending a significant portion of their lives in front of a computer, one way or another. I'd like to enjoy that if at all possible...
Now I happen to think many of the desktop effects actually increase productivity, but that's a different discussion. I guess my point is that computing (and life) should be about more than just productivity. Kthxbye.
eataTREE commented, on January 8, 2008 at 5:49 p.m.:
Anyone who claims that visual appeal is irrelevant ought to take a hard look at the success of Apple's products, both hardware and software. They are (in general) both well-engineered and very aesthetically pleasing, and both are important to their success.
People are drawn to beauty and averse to ugly. That's hardly rocket science, yet it seems lost on some who claim that they want Linux to succeed as a desktop OS on one hand, and that making Linux more beautiful and eye-catching is wasted effort on the other. I can personally attest to having "spread the gospel" to more than one non-technical user who happened to catch sight of my Gnome desktop over my shoulder and say something like "Oh, what's that? That's pretty!"