It's a bad idea to try and design everything about a UI ahead of time; you inevitably end up making changes once you actually implement things anyway. I also disagree that we're risking making a bad impression, this is a *beta* after all, and plenty of software survives being in beta (just look at firefox).
Joe >> Knapp wrote: >> > OK, I can see this point but the other side of it is that we (advanced >> > users in both senses) are using it to try it out and to find bugs but >> > also to learn it, so that we can help the next wave of users. If I see >> > a button is missing, for example the play rendered animations button, >> > I go looking for it. If I find it, then I know where it is and have >> > learned that bit. If on the other hand buttons pop up later, I might >> > already know that they are not there (falsely) or never think to look. >> > >> > I think to solve your point, a message should pop up saying something >> > like, "Not Yet Implemented", just as it would on a beta web site. >> > >> > The other plus of this, from a design point, is that we have a well >> > designed UI. Putting together a UI in bits is how we ended up with the >> > mess that is the 2.49 UI. It was made by years of people adding bits >> > here and there as best they could. 2.5 is a total redesign to address >> > problems like this, at least I think it is. Why not decide where all >> > the button will go early on? Maybe even plan for buttons that might be >> > needed years down the road. (not saying they should be seen yet) >> > >> > Also the work is not useless, if the buttons go to planed but not yet >> > implemented features. The UI is a totally key part of the puzzle of >> > making a great work flow and a great piece of software. It should be >> > one of the most thought out and tested bits of the whole thing. >> > >> > A bit of auto testing would not be a bad thing. :-) >> > >> > On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 4:31 PM, Roger Wickes <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> >> With all due respect, I disagree totally with the request to add >> >> all button, even if they go nowhere. I think it is misleading, >> >> and a lot of useless work, to put in buttons that go nowhere. >> >> I would only agree if we were using an automated GUI testing >> >> tool that clicked on certain coordinates in executing the script. >> >> In that case, we would want to preserve those coordinates >> >> for later regression testing. If the goal of the release was to >> >> get feedback/work out UI placement and arrangement, cool, >> >> but that is not one of the goals of the release, afaik. >> >> >> >> Users that see a button like to click it. Otherwise, you are >> >> introducing a decision point into the process, which is "Is this >> >> feature implemented in this beta?" and I would bet dollars to >> >> donuts they would not know. Hence, if a feature WAS supposed >> >> to be in there, but was broken, clicking the button with no response >> >> masks the error, as the user will assume it was not in the release. >> >> ---------------- >> >> Sent by Roger Wickes for intended recipient. If you are not the intended >> recipient, please delete this message and contact Mr. Wickes immediately. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Bf-committers mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers >> > _______________________________________________ > Bf-committers mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
