Mathias Bauer wrote: > Lars Nooden wrote: > >> Mathias Bauer wrote: >> >>> I can even imagine a much simpler approach: just keep the old UI as an >>> option and use usage tracking to find out how many users switch to it. >> Studies for the courts found in 1996 that even back then 60% kept the >> default settings. By now it's close to 100%. I've tried paying people >> to customize Xfce and KDE UIs. It's just not in popular culture anymore >> do to more than whine about defaults. > > Well, we are not talking about whether people use settings, we are > talking about *the* setting.
Yes we are. And nearly 100% won't change the default. > ... If a default setting creates so much pain > as people think, users will want to know how to change it and they will > find out how to change it. No. Only some will. Most will simply look for a different product. I've tried this with several groups of 18-25 year olds. People 40 and up are generally wanting to modify the settings but indoctrinated into a fear of 'breaking' the computer or the belief that modification is somehow against rules or even illegal. Really. So getting useful UI feedback is a trick. > Of course it's necessary to take the facts mentioned by you into account > (and it's backed up by results from the Microsoft research Stop fucking around. If you like them so much go fucking work there and leave this list in peace. The one good thing the brand does is it flags those who praise it as not knowing their own ass from a hole in the ground. > Yes, but if you have to focus your work it's first necessary to get some > numbers about how many people do that at all. Agreed. However, see my original point about the relevance of how many customize. >> 5) Have a taser charged and ready for anyone proposing to copy the >> failure known as "the ribbon". Ditto for vague, nebulous, or diplomatic >> speech that could be interpreted as such. > > Sorry, but that is nonsense. "Could be interpreted as such" is an excuse > to suppress every contribution that you don't like by alleging it falls > into that category. Copying a failure like "the ribbon" is still copying a failure like "the ribbon" no matter what new names it has. > The interesting part is that Microsoft did exactly all that (except no. > 5 of course ;-)). And the result is not what you like and it's also not > what I like. Which goes back to the point that the company fails epically even on mundane tasks. I would posit that there is no competent research there and, again, if you like them so much go fucking work there and leave this list in peace. Seeing the origin of said "research" should be enough to flag it as having been done by those who effectively can't find their own ass with both hands. Going to Microsoft for research on anything is about as clever as going to Phillip-Morris or RJR-Reynolds for lung cancer research. >>> IMHO it is pretty clear that our current UI needs a change, >> Of course. However, survival of the fittest random changes doesn't >> really work in a population of one program. > > Yes, but I can't see where this concept is applied. Collecting feedback > for an applied change isn't "making random changes and see which > survives". It's just the realization that absolute truth can be achieved > rarely (if at all) and that it's never a bad idea to plan for the chance > that you have made a mistake. Which sounds like an approach using random changes and trying to collect the least unfit of each iteration. -Lars --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
