On Thu, 2010-04-29 at 19:40 -0400, Martin Owens wrote: > On Thu, 2010-04-29 at 11:19 +0100, Mark Shuttleworth wrote: > > and yet everyone will have their > > idea of what piece is the most valuable to the most people. The > > specification describes the things that we believe are the most > > important for the most people. Those pieces are not revealed as > > tooltips, but they are more easily accessible. > > Is this not the kind of attitude I was talking about? > > Everyone will have ideas and will have valuations, but instead of > combining intelligently an amalgamation between positions you've jumped > right into defining a group of people who are not everyone and that > we're destined to have insoluble ideas. > > Ironic is that you could somehow ignore "everyone" and yet be claiming > to serve "most people's" needs. This sort of logic is obviously false, > if your not ignoring everyone then you must see value in it and should > praise it more in the language, if your ignoring it then your not > serving most people, only your own perception of most people. > > This language to me is combustable in the community, we gotta all get > better at avoiding this sort of thing to better avoid rocking the > community boat. > > Martin,
+1 , this is surely combustible .. folks think some decisions are being truly dictatorial. The problem here is there is *no* defined user group[s]/persona[s] that Ubuntu is being designed for. Basing designs on "most people", "new user" is not the right way. If we dont define a group or persona and just keep trying to hypothesize a user, we will just end up being biased by our personal opinions. Saying most users dont care , would be a wrong assumption, obviously there are users who care. It just seems that we dont care for those scenarios.. First we need to layout who we are trying to care for: Who is the OS being designed for? What issue has been addressed here? If every decision is being made to address a user group , we wont have such issues. Decisions/changes need to be made for a reason , to either address a problem or to improve a behavior. We need to lay it out and say , we will focus attention to get it right for the N user groups first and then try to get it reasonably good for the N groups. We could disown a few user groups too ;) [j/k] For the power users/tweakers who desire the features we could define an acceptable path-to-inclusion-to-main of how to include them too, rather than "wont fix"ing bugs. [Similar to how there was the mention of merging the colors gconf for notify-osd.] For all this we need groups/personas first :) Also an interesting read: http://blog.mozilla.com/faaborg/2010/04/22/dont-talk-about-users/ -- Cheers, Vish _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
