Re: [Sugar-devel] Testing changes (was Re: RFC: Kill the delayed menus for good)
2009/11/5 Edward Cherlin : > We need at least one more hat (in addition to those described below), > which I am willing to put on. Somebody needs to coordinate field > testing and feedback, so that we have data to make decisions from, or > we can get appropriate data when they are not yet available. > > It is not enough to have a coordinator, of course. We must have > populations of users (various ages, various countries, in some cases > various disabilities) approved for testing (at least by themselves, by > their teachers, and by any administrators with responsibility for > them). We must have people willing and able to install, de-install, > and monitor changes. We must have a place to put raw data and results. > We may occasionally need a tool built. We seem to have no shortage of > ideas, or even patches, but I am willing to hear more on that point. > There is more, but that would be sufficient for getting started. > > If the developers are willing to get their part organized, I will take > this question to iaep and grassroots, and to management, and see > whether we can get covered at the user end or anything else that > people think of. Oh, yes. Experiment designers and the like from Ed > schools. Having someone coordinating this area would be of great help, but I'm worried about forgetting that perfect is the enemy of good. As starters, I think we just need to get some opinions from deployers, developers, testers and UI designers and make sure that any technical decision (such as pushing code) is made after taking into account that feedback. Once we have this working, we can start thinking about how to make the feedback we get from those groups more relevant and of more quality. Regards, Tomeu > I'm delighted to see these discussions making progress. I have long > detested the unfolding hover menus. Keep it up, but please don't take > any of it personally. > > On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 10:44, C. Scott Ananian wrote: >> On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Michael Stone wrote: ps. I've found the discussion of ideas here much more interesting than the finger-pointing. >>> >>> Understandable; thanks for providing this feedback. Are there specific >>> ideas that have come up in this thread other than the one that Wade >>> supplied that you have found particularly thought-provoking? >> >> In general, revisiting the "why" and attempts to discover different >> solutions which achieve the original goals. Like Martin Dengler, I >> find myself convinced all over again when I revisit the original >> motivation. Real world feedback indicates, however, that the current >> behavior frustrates some users, despite "best laid plans". It's >> obviously time to return to the "why" and come up with different ways >> to accomplish those goals. (Discussion which is simply "I want X" >> without a consideration of how this relates to the design goals is >> much less interesting -- I won't say useless, but it begs for someone >> to contextualize it and provide the missing rationale before it fits >> well into the conversation I would like to be having.) >> Attempts to shift responsibility (it's my patch, YOU have to prove that it's wrong -vs- it's my design, YOU have to prove that it's wrong) are productive/necessary to some degree, but a family matter you guys should take out back somewhere to hash out. >>> >>> Do you have a recommendation on where "out back" would be? Some other >>> mailing list? Private conversation? >> >> If it's a truely personal matter, private email (or some physical >> location where you can sit down together for a beer). If it's about >> hashing out a philosophy of participation, then mixing it together >> with discussion of UI changes is not helping either conversation >> progress. Sometimes you can't do two things at once, but you can do >> them separately. >> >>> I understand you to be saying that we should be listening to people with >>> the experience necessary to have informed opinions. Is this a fair >>> summary of your position? >> >> Not necessarily. My position is that there's an interesting UI >> discussion largely buried in this thread. There's also a >> community/contribution/patch-approval conversation which I don't have >> any strong opinion on. Finally, there's a meta-topic revealing some >> splits within the community which I do have some thoughts on. >> >> I am currently working on a(nother) strongly design-oriented >> "bottom-up" UI, and it has reminded me that such development *can* >> work. Having a strongly coherent "user story" and regular feedback >> from those users *is* really important. That said, unfiltered user >> opinions are often short-sighted. You really do need a "designer" >> role: some group of people who can keep the overall goals in mind and >> maintain overall direction. Some problems need evangelism, some >> problems need design fixes, some problems are unexpected/unresolved, >> some problems are "won't fix" (propo
Re: [Sugar-devel] Testing changes (was Re: RFC: Kill the delayed menus for good)
Nobody has taken up my offer, so it is now dormant until I hear otherwise. I did not intend my suggestions to replace whatever is needed in the meantime. As I said, don't take anything personally. On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 10:14, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > 2009/11/5 Edward Cherlin : >> We need at least one more hat (in addition to those described below), >> which I am willing to put on. Somebody needs to coordinate field >> testing and feedback, so that we have data to make decisions from, or >> we can get appropriate data when they are not yet available. >> >> It is not enough to have a coordinator, of course. We must have >> populations of users (various ages, various countries, in some cases >> various disabilities) approved for testing (at least by themselves, by >> their teachers, and by any administrators with responsibility for >> them). We must have people willing and able to install, de-install, >> and monitor changes. We must have a place to put raw data and results. >> We may occasionally need a tool built. We seem to have no shortage of >> ideas, or even patches, but I am willing to hear more on that point. >> There is more, but that would be sufficient for getting started. >> >> If the developers are willing to get their part organized, I will take >> this question to iaep and grassroots, and to management, and see >> whether we can get covered at the user end or anything else that >> people think of. Oh, yes. Experiment designers and the like from Ed >> schools. > > Having someone coordinating this area would be of great help, but I'm > worried about forgetting that perfect is the enemy of good. As > starters, I think we just need to get some opinions from deployers, > developers, testers and UI designers and make sure that any technical > decision (such as pushing code) is made after taking into account that > feedback. > > Once we have this working, we can start thinking about how to make the > feedback we get from those groups more relevant and of more quality. > > Regards, > > Tomeu > >> I'm delighted to see these discussions making progress. I have long >> detested the unfolding hover menus. Keep it up, but please don't take >> any of it personally. >> >> On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 10:44, C. Scott Ananian wrote: >>> On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Michael Stone wrote: > ps. I've found the discussion of ideas here much more interesting than > the finger-pointing. Understandable; thanks for providing this feedback. Are there specific ideas that have come up in this thread other than the one that Wade supplied that you have found particularly thought-provoking? >>> >>> In general, revisiting the "why" and attempts to discover different >>> solutions which achieve the original goals. Like Martin Dengler, I >>> find myself convinced all over again when I revisit the original >>> motivation. Real world feedback indicates, however, that the current >>> behavior frustrates some users, despite "best laid plans". It's >>> obviously time to return to the "why" and come up with different ways >>> to accomplish those goals. (Discussion which is simply "I want X" >>> without a consideration of how this relates to the design goals is >>> much less interesting -- I won't say useless, but it begs for someone >>> to contextualize it and provide the missing rationale before it fits >>> well into the conversation I would like to be having.) >>> > Attempts to shift responsibility (it's my patch, > YOU have to prove that it's wrong -vs- it's my design, YOU have to > prove that it's wrong) are productive/necessary to some degree, but a > family matter you guys should take out back somewhere to hash out. Do you have a recommendation on where "out back" would be? Some other mailing list? Private conversation? >>> >>> If it's a truely personal matter, private email (or some physical >>> location where you can sit down together for a beer). If it's about >>> hashing out a philosophy of participation, then mixing it together >>> with discussion of UI changes is not helping either conversation >>> progress. Sometimes you can't do two things at once, but you can do >>> them separately. >>> I understand you to be saying that we should be listening to people with the experience necessary to have informed opinions. Is this a fair summary of your position? >>> >>> Not necessarily. My position is that there's an interesting UI >>> discussion largely buried in this thread. There's also a >>> community/contribution/patch-approval conversation which I don't have >>> any strong opinion on. Finally, there's a meta-topic revealing some >>> splits within the community which I do have some thoughts on. >>> >>> I am currently working on a(nother) strongly design-oriented >>> "bottom-up" UI, and it has reminded me that such development *can* >>> work. Having a strongly coherent "user story" and regular feedback >>> from those users *is* really important
