* Bob Ham <rah at bash.sh> [2007-05-11 20:57:06]: > On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 18:10 +0200, Florent Daigni?re wrote: > > * Bob Ham <rah at bash.sh> [2007-05-11 16:40:44]: > > > > > On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 15:25 +0200, Florent Daigni?re wrote: > > > > * Bob Ham <rah at bash.sh> [2007-05-11 14:08:32]: > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 12:42 +0200, Florent Daigni?re wrote: > > > > > > * Bob Ham <rah at bash.sh> [2007-05-11 08:19:49]: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 22:47 +0200, Florent Daigni?re wrote: > > > > > > > > * Bob Ham <rah at bash.sh> [2007-05-10 21:45:59]: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a real cognitive problem showing up right there. It > > > > > > > > > isn't your > > > > > > > > > responsibility to second-guess the user. There are valid > > > > > > > > > reasons for > > > > > > > > > the node to have this functionality. The only reason for it > > > > > > > > > not to is > > > > > > > > > to inhibit users. That's what Microsoft do. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Indeed... and experience has shown that it works. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you mean "it works"? What does it work to do? > > > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > You didn't answer the question. What do you mean "it works"? > > > > > > > > I did in the part you've stripped. Inhibiting users seems to be > > > > something that most of them like. > > > > > > I couldn't see anything relating to inhibiting users in the part that I > > > stripped. Also, I'm still not sure what the answer to my question is. > > > > > > Perhaps I'm not making myself clear. There's a goal which you're saying > > > is achieved by inhibiting users (at least that's what I understand by > > > the phrase "it works.") What is the goal? What does inhibiting users > > > achieve? > > > > Improving the usability, providing them an interface like they are used > > to. Not inhibiting them would force us to document what side effects > > changing that setting might have; It's not something we want to dedicate > > ressources on doing. > > Just so you understand, I'm talking generally here, not specifically > about the store split issue (and, reading back, it might not have been > clear but that's what I have been talking about.) >
Indeed it wasn't clear to me... I guess that starting an other thread would have been more appropriated. > It seems you don't want to improve the functionality of the node because > improving the functionality involves communicating to users how to use > the node properly. You don't get the point here : that's only part of the problem; It's not about explaining how to "use" the node but also explaining them how the node/network works. We can't expect the average user to understand it and even if we could we shouldn't assume that he has to get it in order to be able to use it. > Either that, or changing the entire node's UI to be > simpler; to something existing users aren't used to. Users are reluctant to changes, yes. > I can see now what the issue is: the project is more concerned with > forwarding political goals than it is with writing good software. I don't see why nor how having more settings and functionalities is related to writing "good" software. To me, a "good" software is something doing its job and not requiring me to understand how it does it. > That is not something I want to be involved with. I will discontinue my > node's operation and leave you in peace. Your call :) NextGen$ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20070511/fe74951c/attachment.pgp>
