Thomas Ward:
BUT they do not add fluff images or unnecessary images. They add
what's necessary.
Not true. Check that they purposely add images that have no explanatory
intention. I have already done, just in case I was mistaken.
In fact my inspiration had been those books, not the Internet. And
lately confirmed by common social media advice.
Alberto Salvia Novella:
> This is a topic I have been thinking for a while, and concluded I had
> some vices. Probably Elfy has thought that we were about to fall in
> those again, but I have at present abandoned the ideas that let to
> them.
Thomas Ward:
> Apparently you haven't. To quote you in your prior email in which i
> said that...
Elfy:
> All it says to me is that Alberto has stopped littering mailing list
> posts with emojii's and is now littering wiki pages with images.
Alberto Salvia Novella:
> Non-logic, evasive and manipulative speaking.
The answer is this emotional manipulation was very dangerous to the
conversation and needed to be spotted. Since the language was very
inappropriate I chose clarity over diplomacy, as anything else would had
made the conversation to fall into the manipulation; or worse, into the
idea I deserve being treated like that.
Thomas Ward:
> NOBODY likes public threads getting dirty and attacking of others.
> This isn't the first time I've observed this coming from you two, and
> it's likely to not be the last.
As I said, I'm over getting that personal.
Thomas Ward:
> You've made the decision yourself on your own to improve the
> documentation, and that's fine.
No, the decisions I have made had been over a proposal; and they are
only meant to go into the documentation after there's polishing and
consensus over them. The goal had been to have a prototype, where
approaches could be tested just in time.
Thomas Ward:
> You may be trying to 'improve' it, but you're not accepting the
> criticism that you're asking for from the community, NOR are you
> understanding the points I'm trying to make with regards to visual
> engagement in posts (whether it be wikis, or anything else).
So why I'm writing now in plain text only?
The only two suggestions that I have not implemented from all the amount
I have received had been:
- Not using pictographs in wiki-pages, just because I have not decided
on it yet; as probably would be a better moment to do when Utopic is
released and pictographs are supported by default in Ubuntu.
- Not using some kinds of images in wiki-pages, as we have just
started the conversation!
Even the redaction style in wiki-pages is the way people asked to be.
Thomas Ward:
> To that end, you're not accepting the criticism that multiple users
> currently do not agree with some of the images used - mainly that
> you're adding fluff.
Converting documentation into a playground is a sift, and people can be
resistant to that. So specifically in this regard I want to make sure
points of view are based on deliberation rather than rejection by
default of unknown approaches.
If you want to know, I have no special faith on using images at the
bottom of pages. What I'm mostly cautious is that small decision being
taken away by the status quo, as it defines a style of decision talking
itself.
The status quo of learning is text, the same as the status quo of Unix
is "man". It doesn't mean these are bad, but they are the default.
Thomas Ward:
> Why are you posting this on the QA list instead of the bugsquad list?
Because I thought the Bug-Squad team had joined the Quality team a long
time ago, and was listed in Launchpad just for historical reasons. So is
this a mistake?
Good night.
--
Ubuntu-quality mailing list
Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality
