Of course the danger in that argument is that we should probably make OACS more 'windows-like' if we want a widely accepted UI.(?)
Yes, that was exactly the point I was trying to extract from my "Microsoft Usability" vs "Usability" discussion. It's interesting. But perhaps it's wrong actually calling this usability when what's really at state is the fact that the Windows UI has turned into a de-facto standard and users won't distinguish between the Windows UI and the computer itself in the sense that the Windows UI has become the standard, it is how you work with computers. When exposed to an OS like Linux they won't react to the lack of usability (if such is present), but they'll tell you it's ugly. Something a long the lines of "this is not how computers are supposed to look, this is not the standard".
From a perspective of making a system (could be OpenACS) compatibility with its users it might make some sense, apart from working on the objective metrics of usability, to work towards the "compatibility with a de-facto standard" the Windows UI seems to represent. It is not a thought I enjoy, though, being 19-year-old ideologist (sigh :). But on the other hand, the users of the system being mostly highly educated developers, I don't see the need to strive towards compatibility with an OS most of us don't use anyway (for development).
Can we learn something from this discussion? Perhaps in terms of conventional webdesign vs current simplistic design. I frequently get users telling me that the simplisity of the OpenACS UI is boring, that this system looks old and outdated. I'm sure you've heard the same. It's not a discussion of usability, though, but of "compatibility with a de-facto standard".
On an entirely different note. Gatekeepers, and perhaps also Simon Millward, can the current community handle the added work load of starting up coordinated teams working on documentation and usability?
