Hi all, Sorry in advance for the long e-mail and any eventual harsher remark :)
For some time now it seems that the way to create, lets say a new core GNOME application has been to get someone from the design team to publish rude mockups for a couple of screens in that App and then passing it on for developers to implement it. I think this is fundamentally wrong. Not because most developers would create better designs but because the entire process gets fragmented. Ideally, every developer and designer should have an intuitive and creative sense of design and usability, have a strong understanding of the technology and its future capabilities and be able to grasp the bigger picture. And looking at the bigger picture, quite a few things are flagrant: - First of, to create beautifully designed and intuitive user interfaces there needs to be great technology. When the iPhone was first introduced in early 2007, everyone felt a punch in their stomach with how great the user interfaces and experiences were. And even on the desktop, OSX featured applications with user interfaces that were easy to use, full of carefully crafted widgets, user interactions that responded with subtle animations and a general feel that huge amounts of dedication went into creating those. In 2007 GNOME hadn't anything compared to that, and it still doesn't. Were the iPhone to be introduced today, applications with GTK3 interfaces would look almost as antiquated as they looked back then. - In 2007 it should have become clear that in the future, a significant part of computing would become mobile, with touch input. It's now mid 2012. GNOME is galaxies away from providing a touch experience even worth advertising. As an example, the people at Palm weren't very successful from a commercial perspective, but to their credit, I think they created something really interesting and more refined than Android, all of this faster than the average time it takes to get a patch through. And the first time someone used this new era of smartphones, either from Apple or the Android vendors, it should have been obvious that all mobile devices, or actually all devices, would eventually feature really high density screens. Yet there's still nothing close to full resolution independence in GNOME as a whole. - For a couple of years "netbooks" sold like free beer. Everyone on this camp got excited at all those vendors that shipped some sort of Linux (to lower their costs) but eventually, it wasn't even good enough to compete against the familiarity of Windows XP and most of us didn't realize how crappy of a form factor the "netbook" actually was. So again, GNOME stalled on delivering innovation to the desktop or a new and creative approach to touch. - I think there are many ways to tackle the same problem, but great design is Universal. When one sees great design, the immediate reaction is of WOW. When the "Shell" was first publicly introduced, a face of near terror was prevalent in the eyes of most. The Shell appeared as a design decision set in concrete, yet with a guarantee that it would eventually "get better". At the time, most felt GNOME needed a new face, but there wasn't any logic rationale as to why the chosen design was the "Shell", but not "Awn", or "Docky", or "Unity". Well, actually there was, and it's the same rationale that inhibits GNOME from integrating some beautiful Apps such as "Lingo", "Postler" or "Dexter", Apps that I didn't even know existed but are really beautiful and slick. And the rationale seems to be to not even consider stuff that doesn't originate from a core set of people working for a core set of companies. Well, It seems likely that no one from those projects ever proposed them for inclusion in GNOME, but would they sincerely even stand a chance due to the simple fact that someone from the design team submitted a mockup for a similar application? The lack of internal competition is astonishing. - Finally, great applications. With maybe a few rare exceptions, for every GNOME application, there is a Windows counterpart that is as good or better, and an OS X counterpart that is way, way better. From an user experience point of view (I'm not talking feature-wise), comparing "Totem" to "QuickTime", "AbiWord" to "Pages" or "any photo App for GNOME" to "iPhoto" might even sound embarrassing. So it would be crucial that people spent effort in creating "the best ---- application in the World", but of course, the core technology to make this happen needs to be present and even small details need to be thought through, such as the default font in GNOME3, which I swear the quality should not even be regarded as a matter of taste but rather as a matter of eyesight health :) So I find it really an issue that designers and developers aren't working as one. The new mockups look like an attempt to make applications look better, but not great. Yet better isn't remotely enough. For those who haven't yet got a chance, I urge you to try the iPhoto App for the iPad. Every interaction in that App is stellar. Tools such as cropping, painting with different brushes, colouring and so on rely on custom made widgets that transcend a level of detail that isn't even on the same galaxy as the stuff that's happening in GNOME. So what's the point on even working on stuff that's sub-par by design? Then there are (or were) aspects such as the intention to make all Apps in GNOME full screen by default. When I first read this it quite puzzled me. Why would you want to have a desktop or a laptop computer if the default behaviour is to have a single visible App? Computers with physical keyboards and mouse/touchpad offer a productivity advantage over tablets precisely because you have bigger screen dimensions that enable awareness of several tasks (Apps) at once and more precise and refined controls. Fullscreen on this form factor only makes sense for Apps such as "Blender" or "Shotwell" and even a web browser on 13" screen laptops, but that's it. If a user has a 27 inch screen, or even a 15 inch screen, launching "Contacts" in full screen is rather obscene. But apparently, part of the rationale was that these Apps would also be used in tablets, which is something I find an even more obscene proposition. Developing an Application and hoping to ship it "as is", both on the desktop and on the tablet, doesn't even categorize as a design decision, it hinders any rational logic since the end result is inevitably tragic. I hate to point again at Apple, but take a look at any App that's available both on the desktop and the tablet, they're completely different and for damned good reasons. It just feels so obvious. Cheers, Jan Jokela On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Allan Day <allanp...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > Apologies in advance for the long mail - there was no other way. > > There have been a few design-related threads on the list recently. I’m > going to try and reboot those discussions in a slightly different and, > I hope, more constructive mode. > > Let’s start with the big picture - design is important for GNOME. Our > project’s success rests upon our ability to design and execute an > outstanding user experience. It is in all our interests to make GNOME > design work, therefore - to work together to produce a consistent, > integrated, well-defined, high-quality, delightful user experience. > > So far we have made some great progress in this direction. We have a > small but thriving design community. We have successfully reorganised > our development processes around design - development tends to be > design led, and we now have new feature proposals each release rather > than module proposals. > > There are very few, if any, real community projects that have achieved > this feat. Members of other projects have even approached me in the > past to ask how they can replicate GNOME’s success in this area. > > But there are challenges and things we can do better. Among those > obstacles, I see: > > * lack of design resources - we are always trailing behind where we > want to be, and there are important tasks which we are unable to > complete (a new HIG springs to mind) > * improving the quality of design - we can always do better > * getting the project behind a common vision - we sometimes lack focus > * giving people a stake in the project - the danger of design-led > development is that people feel that the project is no longer theirs. > They want to feel they can have an impact and that they can express > themselves through their activities in the community. > * design disagreements can sour relationships and lead to discord > * letting people stay in touch with and understand design activities, > and therefore the activities of the project as a whole > * helping community members to participate in design activities > > Now, there have been some initiatives in GNOME to try and help make > design more successful within the community. Some of those are > well-known, like the design wiki pages and the IRC channel, but there > have been other things too, like design office hours (remember those? > nobody came), UX Advocates (also suffered from a lack of take up) and > Every Detail Matters. We are also working to attract more design > contributors, which the Outreach Program for Women is really helping > with right now (yay!) > > But there is more we can do. The challenge for us as a community is to > make design an even more successful part of what we do. This isn’t an > easy challenge and I don’t think there are any quick fixes, but we > have experience and a rich community on our side. > > It is important to recognise that improving the state of design in > GNOME isn’t just the responsibility of designers. There are things > that all of us can do to help - from the release team and maintainers, > to individual developers and community advocates. Here are some of my > ideas for things that all of us can do to make design work more > effectively and harmoniously as a part of GNOME: > > * a more rigorous (and better documented) feature proposal process > * new tools for displaying and discussing designs, such as something > like Dribble or Design Hub > * a process for resolving design disagreements - perhaps maintainers > or the release team could mediate if a dispute seems intractable? > * better communications about where GNOME is going and what the > project is trying to achieve > * some kind of active community management role to help soothe ruffled > feathers > * advertised designer playgrounds and discussion areas (for people > wanting to stretch their design wings) > * tackle bad behaviour across the project in a more proactive manner > (will ensure that disagreements don’t get out of hand) > * micro release-cycles in which new features are advertised, completed > and tested > * better testing facilities so people can test and give feedback on UX > changes before release time > * keep a running list of design tasks that are appropriate for newcomers > * work to prevent design disputes - ensure early informal contact > between designers and developers at the beginning of feature > initiatives > > So there are lots of ways that we can do design better as a community, > and contributors on this list can all play a part in helping to make > us to be even more successful in this regard. It will take actions as > well as words to move forward, of course - if you want to help, or > have your own ideas, just get in touch. > > Allan > > tl;dr version > > GNOME design is a community-wide effort - it is not just the > responsibility of designers. We’ve got a lot to be proud of in this > area, but there are also challenges to overcome. There many things > that can help to make GNOME design a success, but it will require > people to step up and help out. > -- > IRC: aday on irc.gnome.org > Blog: http://afaikblog.wordpress.com/ > _______________________________________________ > desktop-devel-list mailing list > desktop-devel-list@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list >
_______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
