On Mon, 4 Sep 2017 12:27:35 -0500 R0b0t1 <r03...@gmail.com> wrote: > Up until now I had not been sure my messages were readable.
Take it as a compliment, at least 1 of the possible warnock[1] reasons are favourable :) > us·er ex·pe·ri·ence > noun: user experience; plural noun: user experiences > the overall experience of a person using a product such as a > website or computer application, especially in terms of how easy or > pleasing it is to use. > > From this definition, I see no connection to anything graphical. To > the extent that words have meaning I think the selection of "ux-*" > would be a mistake. > > Respectfully, > R0b0t1 Yeah. Prescriptively you are right. "UX" is not "A thing", it is not a piece of software, or even a category of software. "UX" is something software *produces* In truth, it was much more about the "X" in the name as a minor feature, because well, this is geekery, and we do things like this. :) For instance, git master for perl is called "blead" ... And GNU's Not Unix. But yes, I do agree its not ideal still. But I'll try to think of other terms that can sneak an "x" into them ;) 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warnock%27s_dilemma#Original_description
pgpEEDqsshvlW.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
