On 11/23/12 5:26 PM, Keith N. McKenna wrote: > Rob Weir wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Keith N. McKenna >> <keith.mcke...@comcast.net> wrote: >>> Jürgen Schmidt wrote: >>>> >>>> On 11/21/12 5:33 PM, Keith N. McKenna wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Rob Weir wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Keith N. McKenna >>>>>> <keith.mcke...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regina Henschel wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Jürgen, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jürgen Schmidt schrieb: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> first of all I would like to volunteer again as release manager >>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>> our >>>>>>>>> next release if it's ok for our community. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> +1 on that from me also >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Second I would like to define with you what our next release >>>>>>>>> will be. >>>>>>>>> After various discussion and activities on the mailing list and >>>>>>>>> also at >>>>>>>>> the ApacheCon, I got the impression that the majority would >>>>>>>>> support a >>>>>>>>> 4.0 version as our next release. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm not in favor of an version 4.0 as next release. The changes >>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>> listed below would justify a version "4.0". But I doubt, that >>>>>>>> they are >>>>>>>> possible in a time frame, I see for the next release. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am with Regina on this one. I do not see a Jan or Feb time >>>>>>> frame as >>>>>>> feasible for the design and implementation of a new and still a >>>>>>> comfortable >>>>>>> bit of padding to deal with the inevitable gremlins that will sneak >>>>>>> out of >>>>>>> the woodwork to assure the kind of quality release that is >>>>>>> expected of >>>>>>> OpenOffice and that we expect of ourselves. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Uh, Juergen never suggested January or Feburary as a time frame for >>>>>> 4.0. So I don't see how one can dismiss a 4.0 proposal as being >>>>>> unfeasible based on dates that he never suggested. Maybe we should >>>>>> ask Juergen what timeframe he had in mind for 4.0? Of course, it >>>>>> might be possible to do both, provided we have volunteers willing to >>>>>> own testing and release management for 3.5. >>>>>> >>>>>> -Rob >>>>>> >>>>> As I re-read the post you are correct Rob and I apologize to >>>>> Juergen for >>>>> reading to much between the lines. What timeframe were you considering >>>>> for a 4.0 release Juergan? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Well I had indeed not February in mind but when we targeting on end of >>>> March or April we will have more time. >>>> >>>> Maybe we can take first a look on what others have in mind to put in >>>> the >>>> next release. >>>> >>>> Juergen >>>> >>> This sounds like a good idea. My concern is that we have enough time to >>> adequately the changes, especially the potential UI changes, and that we >>> address the end of life issues with the 3.x.x line. We do not want to >>> spring >>> possibly major UI changes on end users without adequate warning. >>> >> >> Is there something users need to do to prepare for UI changes ? ;-) >> > Rob, have you ever been involved in direct user support? When you make > major UI changes your support structure is going to be inundated with > questions under the best of situations. When you spring them on users > unawares you unleash the tirade of "change for the sake of change" > potentially getting bad publicity for the product. > > While it is true that an amount of this is inevitable, a good marketing > and communication campaign can go a long way towards minimizing it. We > cannot loose sight of the act that we are an end user project and not > just for the techie types. > >> IMHO, if the changes are a bad idea we should never do them. But if >> the changes are a good idea then let's get them done, tested and >> released without delay. Yes, it will be a surprise for many end >> users. As far as I can tell most users still don't know we've moved >> to Apache either. > > Whether we have moved to Apache or not is of little concern to the > general user. Changing the look and feel of the product he or she is > familiar and comfortable with is. > > Do not get me wrong, I am not against change. I am simply adding a voice > of caution that we not inadvertently shoot ourselves in the foot > (figuratively to be sure). The UX work that Kevin and others are going > and the push by you and others for greater marketing presence are all > good things and need to be given sufficient time to have a good impact. > > If in the considered judgement of the community the March/April > timeframe is sufficient that is great and we should do it. All I am > doing is raising some considerations that may not always be thought of. >
Before we go in endless discussion here about UI changes I would recommend that people who are interested join the related discussion in time, give their input or raise their concerns. What I don't want to see is that people speak up when everything is implemented and final ;-) Now it's not the time to discuss it. We all agree that UI changes have to made careful and need intensive testing. We are trying to do our best, a good implementation, good testing and a smooth transition to the new UI. We are talking here about the sidebar where the main concept is already known from Symphony and where the interface was awarded already. We don't talk about something completely new and we will do it step by step. The toolbars will be still available and the sidebar can be hidden. The concept will evolve over time and I am very confident that our users will like it. Furthermore I would like to ask all of you to think about features that are not easy to use today but very common for many users. Useful features that are not easy to find or where the usage is unintuitive. Let us think how we can make it better and easier to use. Let us improve what we already have step by step. I learn always new things and I am most often impressed what we already can today and where I am not aware of these features. Juergen > Regards > Keth > >> >> -Rob >> >>> Regards >>> Keith >>> >> > >
