Sure Doru, as said, I’ll share usability notes with you, we will talk about concrete cases and they are going to be aligned with my non-off-topic general reminder :)
Thanks again for all the effort you are putting on this > On Jan 5, 2015, at 1:28 PM, Tudor Girba <tu...@tudorgirba.com> wrote: > > Hi Sebastian, > > As I said, I do not see how your generic advice applies to the current > situation. We went through concrete cases exactly to elucidate how people > perceived the problems. > > If things would be as obvious as removing a click, we would not have this > conversation, but it is not. That is why we have to talk about concrete > scenarios. > > In the meantime, I addressed the two points raised in the thread: > - adding dynamic variables to the Raw view, and > - adding collection items in the Raw view. > > I will follow up with more details in the following days. > > Cheers, > Doru > > > > On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Sebastian Sastre > <sebast...@flowingconcept.com <mailto:sebast...@flowingconcept.com>> wrote: > since you’re working on this I really wish you could make the links yourself > to get the right inspiration. You are the right guy for that. > > For everybody being critical of your own work is hard but is one of the most > valuable things you can have. The vulgar thing is the opposite (being > defensive) and that’s the road to mediocrity. > > In any case, sure, I can take notes on usability and share it with you. > > As a start and concrete example take anything that now requires one extra > click or keystroke that before was not. > > > >> On Jan 5, 2015, at 12:05 PM, Tudor Girba <tu...@tudorgirba.com >> <mailto:tu...@tudorgirba.com>> wrote: >> >> Hi Sebastian, >> >> I really do not see how your reply applies to the case at hand. >> >> If you have a concrete remark regarding how something is less useful now, >> please feel free to make it. >> >> Cheers, >> Doru >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Sebastian Sastre >> <sebast...@flowingconcept.com <mailto:sebast...@flowingconcept.com>> wrote: >> +1 >> >> Remember that “old” also means that it stands the test of time >> >> We need to be careful while innovating with the basics (workspace, >> inspecting, navigating code and debugging) because that impacts the whole >> economy of using this technology. >> >> Make productivity go up, never down! >> >> One additional click doesn’t sound like a lot but if that happens for >> something that you do 400 times a day is ~8000 times a month or ~60 minutes >> of clicking like crazy with overhead you didn’t have before. >> >> UX is King. >> >> No way back from that, it really rules (the only thing we have in control is >> what kingdom will we invent for it to rule) >> >> >> >> >>> On Dec 26, 2014, at 2:42 PM, stepharo <steph...@free.fr >>> <mailto:steph...@free.fr>> wrote: >>> >>> + 10000 >>> >>> Debugging the rendering loops of Athens was such an example. In Bloc I get >>> some race conditions with MC forked process... another fun one. >>> Let people decide!!! >>> >>> Doru I DO NOT WANT TO LEARN WHAT I DO NOT WANT TO LEARN! >>> I WANT to DECIDE WHEN. I control my agenda and my own schedule and my list >>> is huge. >>> >>> >>> Stef >>>> Doru, >>>> >>>> I think your intention is a good one but slightly misplaced. I really like >>>> the idea of GTInspector. It surely is a great tool and maybe I'll start to >>>> build my own inspector on my kind of things. >>>> To me the difference is between "motivated to do" or "forced to do". Most >>>> of the time we are trying hard to solve our own problems. If in that >>>> progress other problems are forced upon us we get easily distracted and >>>> frustrated. The same goes for new tools. If I'm forced to use these it >>>> just means I have to deal with it first and only then I'm allowed to deal >>>> with my own problem. As it was in that special case the bug in nautilus >>>> and the new inspector made me shy away from developing something in 4.0 >>>> and now I'm back on 3.0. >>>> >>>> So I think the only possibility is to "offer" a new way of doing things >>>> and give people time to adjust. >>>> >>>> Norbert >>>> >>>>> Am 26.12.2014 um 13:18 schrieb Tudor Girba <tu...@tudorgirba.com >>>>> <mailto:tu...@tudorgirba.com>>: >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I think there must be a misunderstanding. >>>>> >>>>> There can be a good reason for having a basic inspector around, but I >>>>> think the reason is not because people cannot choose what to use. >>>>> >>>>> There is a toggle to enable/disable the GTInspector. But, even without >>>>> it, the main feature of the GTInspector is exactly to be extended the way >>>>> people want and not impose a fixed way. This is completely different from >>>>> what existed before. In fact, half a year ago there was no problem that >>>>> people could neither choose nor extend anything. In the meantime, we can >>>>> extend our workflows significantly. Adding the various flavors of >>>>> browsing objects is perhaps a couple of lines long and each of us can >>>>> tweak it because there is no higher entity that should decide anymore. >>>>> >>>>> What I cannot quite grasp is that while we pride ourselves with working >>>>> on a reflective language, when we have reflective tools, we seem to not >>>>> be able to take half an hour to build the tool that fits our needs. I am >>>>> still wondering what is needed to improve this. I think that it's a >>>>> problem of exercise or of communication, but it seems that just providing >>>>> the examples that I linked before is not enough and most people look at >>>>> the inspector still as a black box tool. I will try to work on a tutorial >>>>> to see if it gets better, but do you find the moldability proposition not >>>>> valuable or just unclear? >>>>> >>>>> But, as I said, there can still be a valid reason to enable a basic >>>>> inspector that relies on a minimal of libraries (so, definitely not the >>>>> Spec one) for the same reason we have an emergency debugger. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Doru >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 11:43 AM, stepharo <steph...@free.fr >>>>> <mailto:steph...@free.fr>> wrote: >>>>> I will add basicInspect in Object so that we can get access to the old >>>>> inspector. >>>>> I like that people can choose their tools! >>>>> I mentioned that 20 times but people do not care apparently. >>>>> >>>>> Stef >>>>> >>>>> Le 23/12/14 11:50, Norbert Hartl a écrit : >>>>> >>>>> Is there a way to get the old tools via shortcut? >>>>> >>>>> I started something new with pharo 4.0 today. I discovered a bug in >>>>> Nautilus where every rename or deletion of a method raises a debugger. I >>>>> tried finding the bug but struggled because to me the new inspector is >>>>> really confusing. If I "just" want to unfold a few levels of references >>>>> to get a glimpse of the structure the new tool prevents me from doing >>>>> that. There is just to much information in this window and too much >>>>> happening to me. >>>>> To me it looks like a power tool you need to get used to. So it is >>>>> probably not the best tool for simple tasks and people new to this >>>>> environment might be overwhelmed. At least I would like to be able to use >>>>> the old tools. >>>>> >>>>> Norbert >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> www.tudorgirba.com <http://www.tudorgirba.com/> >>>>> >>>>> "Every thing has its own flow" >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> www.tudorgirba.com <http://www.tudorgirba.com/> >> >> "Every thing has its own flow" > > > > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com <http://www.tudorgirba.com/> > > "Every thing has its own flow"
