I frequently download Linux distros, from Fedora to Linspire. There’s yet another on the block though, Symphony. The reason that I’m highlighting this distribution however is the very unique approach it is taking to potentially improve the end user experience.

There are 3 major parts to the Symphony OS.

 Mezzo – a desktop system built for Symphony. It’s hard to easily describe easily, but suffice to say that the “Start” menu and its clones are definitely not present. One of the developers, Jason Spisak, has provided the Mezzo Slideshow. It harkens to an early test version of Windows that I recall (anyone remember what it was code-named?), but I don’t remember the time frame. The idea is that everything is on the desktop in easy to find and use places.

Orchestra –  the application environment. It’s the development platform rendered and programmed with a variety of options, including Javascript, Perl, Flash and more.

Operating System — based on Debian GNU/Linux and Knoppix GNU/Linux. Some basic applications such as a web browser and office suite are included.

If you’re interested in more detail about the design principles, they’re here. Some of the more interesting topics he considers (and hopes to solve):

Configuration gluttony must be stopped. I applaud this idea — but it is a challenge to follow. Too many users want too many options and it’s difficult to say no to them all. Before you know it, you have the same number of options as the next application! The more compelling the application, the less need there may be for configuration, but you often leave out power users — who want to tweak the software all day long until it is just right. He comments that the configuration should be simple — just like their TV. It’s a generally good metaphor as most TVs come reasonably well configured for out of the box use. I’m sure that is what Jason is targeting. However, honestly, my larger screen TV has a ton of menus and options! In the end though, I’d prefer a button that I could click on my TV: “Just make the picture good, right now.”

Consistency plus relationship wins over “put it in thee [sic] places, and they’ll find it when they need it.” Jason’s general idea here should be followed by many software developers and designers. Having more than one or two ways to accomplish a task is likely to confuse and clutter. Is having yet another way to do the same task for the super power user good for the average user? You’ll only have a small group of super-users, but your general audience will be huge. Is having a feature specifically for a very small group of users good for all? Think about your users as a group and design for them. (And strongly resist the temptation to add in a “switch” for just the power user as it requires extra development time, extra testing, and extra maintenance over the life of your software application).

It’s still an Alpha product (download) and has a long way to go, but until its complete, I’d recommend you read and consider Jason’s complete Mezzo document or his summarized “Laws of Interface Design.” I’m in particular interested to hear what you agree/disagree with. What aspects would you want to apply to software you write or design?