Hi, I agree (as is clear in the report) that the design is coming at the problem in the wrong way. It seems to be the old style "there are lots of useful features available in the back-end tools, we should have an UI for them" school of thought. But that's not the point.
The point is that when we receive a patch, we expect developers to review the patch and suggest improvements. In this case, the owners of the settings design have received a "patch" to the sharing settings design, and it hasn't been reviewed by them. With all due respect to your design skills, it's entirely possible that all your suggestions (and mine) get taken on board, and the design will still be rejected. The best way to avoid that is to have maimtainers review submissions. Cheers, Dave. Bastien Nocera <had...@hadess.net> wrote: >On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 08:56 +0100, Dave Neary wrote: >> >> Dave Neary wrote: >> > In defense of Sebastien, he has been proposing mock-ups, and no >> > developers have been commenting on them there. >> >> ...where by "developers" I mean "designers". > >I don't think one needs to be a designer to see that there were problems >with the design. I came up with the use cases list, and it wasn't used. > _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
