On Friday, October 05, 2012 11:54:01 AM John Lea wrote: > Forwarding to ubuntu-release,ubuntu-doc,and ubuntu-translators at Iain > Lane's suggestion. > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Application of UIFEs > Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2012 11:28:19 +0100 > From: John Lea <john....@canonical.com> > To: product-strat...@lists.canonical.com > CC: Sebastien Bacher <sebastien.bac...@canonical.com>, Didier Roche > <didier.ro...@canonical.com>, Jason Warner <jason.war...@canonical.com>, > iain.l...@canonical.com, kate.stew...@canonical.com, Cristian Parrino > <cristian.parr...@canonical.com> > > > > Hi All, > > Over the past week there have been a couple of cases where bug fixes > have been IMHO incorrectly marked as requiring UIFEs. > > UIFEs are an important process step to make sure that string changes are > translated and that users reading documentation are not confused. > However visual bug fixes that do not involve string changes or bug fixes > will not cause any user confusion if the documentation is not updated > should not require a UIFE. > > Two of the examples from last week are: > > #1043808 - Preview activation doesn't have instant feedback > > #1052513 - 'More suggestions' icons in App Lens are too large > > In the case of the first bug, although adding a loading spinner is a > visual change, if the documentation is not updated users will not be > confused. This change also has no translation impact. > > In the case of the second bug, making the 'More Suggestions' app icons > in the App Lens the correct size and thus fixing the bad pixelation will > again not confuse users even if the documentation is not updated, and > also this bug fix has no translation impact. > > Over zealous application of the UIFE rules increases the likelihood that > fixes to bugs like these will not land in Quantal. I hope that we can > take a more pragmatic approach when considering which bugs do or do not > require a UIFE, and consider the total impact on all Ubuntu users of > landing or not landing a bug fix, and not just the documentation impact. > > For example should we choose: > > a) perfectly consistent documentation with badly pixelated app icons in > both the documentation and the App Lens for the Quantal cycle. > > b) to fix this bug in the App Lens even though the documentation would > then become slightly inconsistent with the implementation? > > A yardstick to help make this choice could be "will the user be confused > by this documentation inconsistency". > > Of course the root cause of these problems is how late all the features > have been landing this cycle. Ideally all the features that are > landing into a release should be complete by Feature Freeze; this would > then give us enough time to really reduce the number of bugs we are > seeing at this point in the cycle. However this is a different (and > also very important) discussion.
You misunderstand the purpose of UIF and there is time between feature freeze and UI freeze precisely to work out UI affecting bugs. I believe you are trying to solve the wrong problem. I agree it is a problem that so many bugs needed review for a UIFe, but I think the root of that problem is that PS landed so much, so late. The bureaucracy is much easier if you get your stuff in on time. Scott K -- ubuntu-translators mailing list ubuntu-translators@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-translators
