Thank you, that makes a ton of sense. I'll see what I can create for a second draft.
Link On Mon, 2018-04-23 at 09:42 +0100, Allan Day wrote: > Thanks for reaching out about this, Link. I know from experience that > writing about contentious decisions can be tricky to get right. > > Liam R. E. Quin <l...@w3.org> wrote: > ... > > Remember that the only people made happy by removing features > > generally > > are developers... > > I agree with Liam here. Introducing features that users appreciate as > "technical debt" is only going to irritate them. > > My suggestion would be to: > > 1. Start with a more positive, user-centered, narrative: how the > Nautilus developers are working to improve the experience for users. > What they've done recently to do that, what they're planning to do. > 2. The current draft makes the removal sound like an implementation > failure rather than a technical design question. I think it's > important to explain it in terms of the intrinsic nature of icons on > the desktop - it's a very different file browsing experience. > 3. Stress that the Nautilus developers do care about those who use > icons on the desktop. Emphasise that alternatives have been > considered. Argue that the people using those alternatives is a > better > option for them and for everyone as the code base moves forward. > > Allan
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ engagement-list mailing list engagement-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/engagement-list
