On Tuesday 22 Feb 2011 15:48:31 Gabriel M. Beddingfield wrote: > On Tue, 22 Feb 2011, Dave Neary wrote: > > Gabriel M. Beddingfield wrote: > >> If the community is such a valuable part of shipping > >> products on time... where is the community's tablet UX? > > > > Oh my. What monster topic have I unleashed? > > :-) > : > > My point, I think, is that design can happen in the public eye without > > being design by community. I'm perfectly happy for a designer to say to > > I do not disagree. However, it's not easy to do it this way.
Sure. But, just because it's difficult doesn't mean it's not worth doing ;) > > Re. design in private, the problem is that you're getting all the > > downside of community development (having to deal with the community > > complaining about everything) and none of the upside (because you're not > > giving community members the tools to be productive). > > This makes the community a real drag. It's like working > with Windows users. Well, if you treat people like something, they will start acting like it ;) In other words: If you interact with people in an "us and them" manner, they will treat you the same way. If you interact with people in a "we're all in this together" manner, they will work in the same way too. > Nobody from Intel or Nokia can say a single thing without > "the community" scrutinizing their every word and action. > This is crap. It needs to stop. It does not create a > community that is conducive to open development. That's basically my point - if you actively remove yourself from the community by putting up borders and internally kept procedures, you are inviting scrutiny in the past tense. And then, yes, you are not fostering open development in any way :) -- ..Dan // Leinir.. http://leinir.dk/ Co- existence or no existence - Piet Hein _______________________________________________ MeeGo-community mailing list MeeGo-community@meego.com http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-community http://wiki.meego.com/Mailing_list_guidelines
