Daniel Shahaf wrote: >Julian Foad wrote: >> It might be *absolutely fine* for the real life users [...] > >So what are you saying? That we should stop doing design discussions >and go talk to users? [...]
Sorry if that came across far too harsh. Looking back I see I phrased it as "What if...?" and your answer could be construed as a literal description of some technical consequences of such a work-around. What I meant was, what would those users feel about modifying their work flow with such a work-around? We don't know if any of those technical consequences would matter to them. We're free to continue design discussions but I've limited time and need to focus. To me it appears we've moved far enough along this path of "some of our users want to do X" leading to "let's see how far we can implement an alternative" and now "let's consider the user's work-around options, and now "but the work-around has these consequences; mightn't that be a problem?". It seems to me we now know what are the two design directions, the original which is sub-optimal but near ready to use, and the alternative, now begun on its own "-issue4892" branch. I want to refrain from further speculation about how willing such a user would be to use the original design with work-arounds, and rather ask them first. - Julian
