A team with a clear common goal is needed. I was trying to help define that common goal by proposing having a list of UX principles for Ubuntu<http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00640.html>. As Thorsten mentioned, there are people who wouldn't want to comply because they are doing what is in accordance to their tastes and preferences during their free time. However, a distro shouldn't be a product of different pieces of software that are aiming to satisfy different visions. Apple, Google, Microsoft and other big software companies have clearly defined UX goals. I think, that is what open source needs now. I think, the hard part in the invitation-only list could be the validity of decisions in knowing who to include. Losing good people is a sad thing for development.
Good UX job. I'm looking forward to a smoother Ubuntu. Best Regards, Allan Caeg https://launchpad.net/~wersdaluv http://twitter.com/AllanCaeg On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Mark Shuttleworth <[email protected]> wrote: > > This will be a controversial mail, so I'll ask in advance that we not let > it get heated. > > I don't think we can succeed if we work on a list that is free for everyone > to throw their ideas onto. I'm thinking that we need to create an > invitation-only list (which is publicly archived) alongside this one. > > Here's why. > > I'm interested in the challenge of producing a free software desktop that's > delightful to use, and convinced that good design has to be at the heart of > that. I'm also certain that the design conversation and collaboration has to > be open - at least about the pieces which are already in public play (in our > case, for example, the Messaging Indicator, Notifications, and the Ubuntu > Netbook Remix launcher (unity). > > At Canonical, we've started growing a really good team to lead this work. > There are now more than 10 folks at Canonical who's sole focus is design, > art, and user experience, across the full range of Canonical products (web - > Launchpad and Landscape, desktop - GNOME and UNR). To match that we have a > team of developers that is implementing various bits and pieces that don't > already exist, or don't already exist in the form that they need to in order > to deliver the experience we want. > > So I'm putting my money where my mouth is, in other words. > > Figuring out how to shape the relationship between that company team, which > works on public elements as well as things which are being designed for > netbooks that aren't yet shipping and hence which have to be confidential, > is challenging. The team is stretched, I don't think they can participate in > a large public freeform mailing list discussion in the same leisurely way > that many members of the community can do. That will create the impression > that the Canonical team doesn't care, or isn't interested in the feedback. > > The real challenge is that emails on this list can vary widely in how "hard > they are to respond to". For example, an email on a specific design issue is > easy to fit into a work day. There's a person who is responsible for taking > the final decision on that piece, and they can participate in that thread > and then communicate the decision. > > Much harder is a broadbased thread like "high level goals" or "what is > beautiful". I just don't see any way to have the full time team engage in > long threads like that. > > My current view is that we need a core team that meets in person fairly > regularly and has a shared set of language and tools. That team needs to be > open to participation from the community, but it also needs to have a shared > set of values, so it frankly would not be open to folks who have a > completely different vision of the future. That core team can collaborate > with the goal of producing final specifications for Ubuntu. The team should > all be at UDS, for example. It should not be a team that fights with itself > - it needs to be made up of people who trust each other and work well > together. And they should not have to defend every single decision against a > flood from folks who are not part of the team. > > That means that the design process would contain explicit separation > between folks on that core team, and others who express interest in a more > casual fashion, or who have not yet bought into the core design ideas and > process of the core team. > > I'm aware this proposal could result in outrage over barriers to > participation. But I think it will be more effective if we try to build a > core team that knows each other well and can establish norms and > relationships. > > Besides, I don't think effective design would come from purely freeform > participation. At the moment, I have final signoff of specifications coming > from the design team into Ubuntu. In due course, that responsibility will be > assumed by someone in the Canonical design team. There is collaboration and > consensus in many elements of the work, but to the extent that decisions are > taken in that final signoff they are final and binding. And that will remain > true even when someone else takes over from me. > > Thoughts? > Mark > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana > Post to : [email protected] > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > >
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
