Julian Foad wrote on Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 20:44:08 +0000: > 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.
OK. > 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. +1 with a caveat: User input shouldn't the only factor in our decision of whether to choose the workaround design. It'd be useful information, and it'd _support_ a particular course of action, but it wouldn't _imply_ that particular course of action. Cheers, Daniel
