Selfish <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_Dictator_For_Life>, yes, or rather self-assured lazy, that is not even possible as you are open source developers that clearly get results
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 15:05, Mark Curtis <merkin...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >I think it is better to say "We are not doing X because we don't like it" > or>"We are not doing X because is is too much work" or "We are not doing > X>because would screw up a lot of other things" > > So you'd rather the developers sound selfish and lazy? > > ------------------------------ > Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2011 17:34:46 +0200 > > Subject: Re: Disliking gnome 3 > From: w.debor...@gmail.com > To: scampa.giova...@gmail.com > CC: gnome-shell-list@gnome.org > > > Dear Giovanni, > > Thank you for your very polite and well formulated answer. > > Your reply makes clear that the patronizing attitude is (as expected) > totally coincidental. > Yet I also share Ben's feelings. > > I think it is a communications problem. To many people, the changes are an > inconvenience. And while most people will learn to live with them, you > should handle everyone with care until they are hooked. I think you should > be very careful never to make statements that imply something about the > user. > When you say "We don't do X it because we want to encourage behavior Y" or > "We don't do X because no one needs it" or "We don't do X because it takes > up screen size" you make a statement that may be untrue or irrelevant for > many users. When they read this, you lose their support. I think it is > better to say "We are not doing X because we don't like it" or "We are not > doing X because is is too much work" or "We are not doing X because would > screw up a lot of other things". Why? Because those statements are about > you. To others they may be unpleasant, but never patronizing. > > > Wouter > > PS: could you provide a reference to the user studies you refer to? > > > > > On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 15:55, Giovanni Campagna <scampa.giova...@gmail.com > > wrote: > > Il giorno gio, 01/09/2011 alle 21.42 +0300, Pasha R ha scritto: > > On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 9:16 PM, Adam Tauno Williams > > <awill...@whitemice.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 18:16 +0300, Pasha R wrote: > > >> My problem is that shell is simply inconvenient to use and insulting > > >> attitude of developers > > > > > > I don't feel insulted at all. > > Good for you. I find an attitude commonly expressed on this and some > > other lists "we know better what you should want" insulting. > > I'm very sorry, and I think I can speak for the whole team when I say > that nobody meant to insult you (the rest of this mail, otoh, is my > personal view). Our attitude is not "we know better", instead it tries > to look at problems of the average computer user (real problems, > reported by years of usability study), and to solve in a different and > innovative way. > By applying fundamental shifts in the workflow (that we acknowledge > require some initial migration cost), we focus on solving the basic > underlying problems, rather than adapt ourselves to the solutions our > users developed by themselves, absent a coherent usability design. > > I concede that our solutions are not meant for everybody, as there may > be people with different conflicting requirements, but we're still > convinced they apply for the vast majority of our target user base. On > the other hand, trying to cater for too many use patterns and workflow > would increase the complexity of the overall system, not just in terms > of code (which is not irrelevant) but also in terms of usability. > Options have a huge cost, because users will either flee, scared by the > the risk of breaking everything, or they will start asking and craving > the documentation, just to find out it was something completely useless > to them, because it broke the basic design pattern. Or even worse, the > option could be exposing what is really an implementation detail (such > as the panel applet configuration in 2.*). > > Nevertheless, as we still want to enlarge our user base and grow our > market share (with the ultimate goal of supplanting proprietary software > around the world), we are providing you with a powerful instrument that > basically allows you to build your own shell: extensions. It's true, the > system was not complete in 3.0, and it required manual interaction as > well as not having a complete repository. On the other hand, in 3.2 > installing extensions will be as simple as going to > extensions.gnome.org, finding what you need and pressing a button. > We already have extensions that restore much of the GNOME 2 > functionality (a dock, an application menu, a workspace switcher, a > window based alt-tab, just to name a few), and we expect the number to > increase release after release. And of course, since you quote Linus, if > you don't find something that suits, you know what to do. > > Hoping this clarified our vision and hoping that there won't be any > further misunderstanding, > > Giovanni Campagna > > _______________________________________________ > gnome-shell-list mailing list > gnome-shell-list@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list > > > > _______________________________________________ gnome-shell-list mailing > list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list >
_______________________________________________ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
