Tommy27 wrote: > IMHO, Mathias Bauer's was a classic example of politician talk... > a lot of words just to confuse users... > > he pretend we believe that Renaissance is not copyinf Ribbon... > that's simply ridicolous: any man with eyes on this planet sees that the > new GUI is clearly inspired to MS Ribbon. > > OOo is making a dangerous error: you should never copy the enemy's worst GUI > ever... > > Renaissance will be a fiasco... > > keep signing the petition: > http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/stoprenaissance/ > > last count was 194
Just because someone uses a lot of words doesn't mean that he wants to confuse someone. I don't know how information can be given without words. The reason for the misunderstandings about renaissance and the fuss about the prototype is not too many words, it's exactly the opposite. It's rather *your* "contribution" to this discussion what I would call a politician's talk: alleging something without even trying to argue about that and ridiculing replies that ask you to think again. You are appealing to emotions and prejudices and call a try to stick to facts "confusing people". Interesting. Your motto seems to be "please don't confuse me with facts". Sorry for the rant, I usually try to avoid that, but you really exaggerated now. I had expected a constructive reply (or no reply at all), but your reply is an insult against me. I wanted to bring some objectiveness into the discussion, I not even asked people not to sign your (IMHO useless) petition (what a "politician" surely would have done), I just presented some facts and added some personal conclusions (that should be discernible for everybody willing to read and understand). It would be nice if you and others would try to understand what I was explaining (not only alleging): that the "inspiration" for the prototype was not copying anything but an "operating philosophy" that I outlined very detailed so that everybody can see that there is an idea behind that, not only copying a look from something else. That still leaves room for discussions if it is necessary to avoid a look just because "the devil" has used something that looks somewhat similar also, even if the look is just the outcome of the discussion how the wanted operation philosophy can be implemented best. I would call that an overreation, but I can at least understand these feelings. I know that feelings are important, but it's part of our human nature to try to avoid that they become our only guidance. OTOH I can't understand the prevarification that is used to appeal to the negative emotions that the name "ribbon" has in parts of our user base, just to choke a useful discussion about new UI concepts. I assume that it was done unwillingly and in good faith, but that doesn't make the final result so much better. If you think that the context sensitive UI concept is wrong, explain that with facts. If you think that the planned implementation of it is wrong, explain that with facts. But "it must be wrong because it looks like something invented by Microsoft" isn't an argument that can be taken seriously. Sorry again for perhaps too many words, but I don't know how I could explain my plea for more objectiveness with less of them. Maybe I could have used some less if I was a native English speaker, but I am what I am. Regards, Mathias -- Mathias Bauer (mba) - Project Lead OpenOffice.org Writer OpenOffice.org Engineering at Sun: http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS Please don't reply to "nospamfor...@gmx.de". I use it for the OOo lists and only rarely read other mails sent to it. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
