why must you insult me? that was completely uncalled for. Good day.
Jeff On Mon, 2004-04-19 at 21:31, Tristan O'Tierney wrote: > i know i've kind of started a flamewar here and that > wasn't my intention. > > i'm a developer, a computer scientist, as a matter of > fact. i'm deeply interested in usability. it had been > a long time before i got a mac, and the only real push > i had was os x (because the linux->os x transition was > pretty painless since i can keep all my unix goodies). > what i learned along the path is how sad a state of > afairs the usability of computer software is, and just > how much time and money apple puts into usability that > so many other companies/groups/developers disregard. > > just as i don't care what an actor has to say about > anything but acting, i should not care about what a > developer has to say about anything other than > developing. i'm not saying your opinion doesn't > matter, but what i am saying is you're not qualified > to argue usability when you are not the type of user > gnome is trying to target. gnome is targeting the > lowest common denominator -- the "i just want it to > work" group. the ones who think of a computer as like > a car. it's a black box that gets them from point a to > point b. > > what you fail to realize is by targeting this group, > everyone benefits. even the people with tons of prior > knowledge about computers. even the developers benefit > when you target this group, because the end usability > improvements trickle down to how much work you can get > done per day, or at the very least, it reduces the > amount of per-domain knowledge you need to accomplish > a set of goals. > > just because microsoft commits usability atrocities > (like outlook) does not mean they should propogate to > the OSS world. we have a chance to do things right, > why not get it done the first time? i've seen outlook > used in the corporate world. 99% of people don't know > how to use it beyond very simple email functions, and > even then outlook displays about 15 more options at > any given time that the user will simply never use. > that's the beauty of apple's design is that all these > PIM applications integrate so well, and yet are > separate from each other. this allows each application > to focus on it's given function. evolution is not a > email program. it's a calendar/email/contacts program. > this is too much functionality to put into one piece > of software for the average gnome user. that is all i > am saying. that is why it should be split up by > default into individual focused apps. > > --- Jeffrey Stedfast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sun, 2004-04-18 at 05:03, Tristan O'Tierney > > wrote: > > > > the mailer will always depend on the addressbook > > and > > > > calendar, so > > > > whether you load them into the window or not is > > > > irrelevant. > > > > > > > > in fact, I don't see why you wouldn't just load > > them > > > > into the main shell > > > > window anyway, they're loaded! > > > > > > > > no sense making the user run 3 apps having each > > > > component loaded into > > > > each of them. it just wastes more resources. > > > > > > > > > > the GUI wastes far more resources than a command > > line, > > > yet the GUI is far more usable. resources are > > > irrelevant here, especially when 128 megs of ram > > or > > > more these days for a simple PIM suite. they > > should > > > be split up because they are different functions. > > not > > > because they aren't related. you simply aren't > > > understanding this. mail != contacts != calendar. > > yes > > > they are all INTERDEPENDENT. they are even > > related. > > > but they are not the same function, it's just that > > > simple. if you try and cram too much > > functionality > > > into one interface it's incohesive to the average > > > user. > > > > doesn't seem to bother the average user, if it > > did... there wouldn't be > > Outlook or GroupWise or Lotus Notes or... a zillion > > other groupware > > suites. > > > > in fact, you seem to be the only one (or, at best, > > one of a handful) > > bothered by this. > > > > > it's a linear function. the more options a user > > > has to choose, the more chance of failure to find > > the > > > option they want and the increased time to find > > said > > > option. > > > > how hard is it, really, to say "I want to make an > > appointment. I need to > > switch to calendar because obviously mail doesn't do > > that" > > > > you're saying the average user can't handle that, > > yet you want to split > > the applications which forces these users to have to > > know which > > application does what? it's the same bloody > > decision. > > > > > > > it makes interfaces scary and bloated. > > > > ah, bloated. the most overused and least understood > > word used when > > describing software. > > > > > i'm > > > not sure why you can't understand this. > > > > I'm not sure why *you* can't understand this. > > > > > the key to a > > > good application is focus. > > > > there is focus. where is there not focus? how is > > there not focus? > > > > > there's something to be > > > said about an app that does ONE thing well, and > > > strives only to do that one thing. > > > > ah, the good ol' "do one thing, and do it well" > > argument. the most > > widely used and yet least understood statement used > > by non software > > developers when trying to argue something. > > > > for a loose definition of "ONE", everything does ONE > > thing well and > > strives to only do one thing. > > > > if we split out the mailer, for example, would it > > really only be doing > > "ONE" thing? depends on how you define "ONE", > > obviously. It replies to > > mail, it composes mail, it forwards mail, it filters > > mail, it fetches > > mail, it sends mail, it displays mail, as well as > > numerous other things. > > That's not one thing... so I guess by your > > definition each of these > > functions should be a separate application too? :-) > > > > > this doesn't mean > > > this independent app can't fully integrate with > > other > > > related applications (like a calendar or contacts > > > program integrating with a mail app). > > > > if you completely split them, then yes, it would > > mean that. > > > > > > > > > evolution --component=contacts > > > then this should be the default > > > > no, I disagree. > > > > > , and there should be > > > several evolution-pim scripts installed by default > > as > > > evolution-contacts, evolution-calendar, and > > > evolution-mail. > > > > no, if a distributor wanted this, then they could > > make separate menu > > entries - one to launch each of the components. that > > would be the proper > > way to do it, not writing shell scripts. average > > users don't use the > > command-line. > > > > Jeff > > > > > > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25 > http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash > _______________________________________________ evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
