As far as I can see, a "paper cut" meets 2 criteria: 1. It is easily repaired, devs will know this, users may not.
2. New users tend to bump into it while learning the interface. New users will know this but devs may not. Devs will be very adept at navigating the system and will be able to (without noticing) avoid issues which will cause trouble for new users. If I were naming them I would call #1 trivial issues, and #2 "sharp edges". To satisfy criteria 2 an issue doesn't even need to be a bug, it could just be a UX idiosyncrasy. I have reported a few bugs which are trivial to repair, but very difficult to detect, definitely not in the first day :) Those are my thoughts. Caleb James DeLisle Vincent Massol wrote: > On Sep 19, 2009, at 11:25 PM, Ecaterina Valica wrote: > >> The "original" Ubuntu paper cut definition >> >>> Put briefly, *a paper cut is* *a trivially fixable usability bug >>> that the >>> average user would encounter on his/her first day of using a brand >>> new >>> installation of Ubuntu Desktop Edition* >>> >> so the papercut is so much trivial than it is an usability bug. >> >> How can he tag with papercut if he doesn't know if it's a trivial >>> issue (since the definition of a paper cut is that it's a trivial >>> issue)! :) >>> >>>> If the >>>> developer comes and marks it difficult, we still know that the user >>>> though >>>> that the issue needed attention and raises an usability problem. >>> I don't think papercut == usability issue. For usability issues we >>> should tag them with "usability" IMO since the need is more general >>> than just for papercuts. >>> >>> Thanks >>> -Vincent >>> >> IMO if we want to make this initiative an user reporting process, it's >> easier and more intuitive to mark the reported issues with a tag >> that states >> the paperCut concept, than to mark it with a difficulty level. > > But we also need to know usability issues so we need that usability > tag + we already have the notion of difficulty. It's all about the > amount of work to do. Proposing ideas is easy but following them up is > hard to the less new concepts introduced the easiest it is. > > Anyway provided you tag with usability and the difficult level you can > also tag with whatever else you want but you should tag at least with > difficulty and usability, that's my point since otherwise we'd be > dropping what we've already started which is bad and not consistent > and then it'll all be a mess. > > Thanks > -Vincent > _______________________________________________ > users mailing list > users@xwiki.org > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users > _______________________________________________ users mailing list users@xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users
