Ben Monnahan wrote: > > > If expert functions *HAD* to have a negative impact on user-friendlyness > it wouldn't be worth including the statement because it would never pass > the test. :) That statement is all about wanting to add expert > features, but not at the expense of making it overly complex for the > common user. I like features too. It's really about making basic > usability the top priority.
The statement as it originally wrote sounded like we will compromise expert usage for ease-of-use. I really disagree with that. I think stating explicitly that ease-of-use is a focus is great! I've worked on designing a number of commercial UIs, and I never came across a situation where you couldn't come up with a UI that was both easy to use, and provided all of the functionality that expert users need. > I really believe that f-spot needs to target both naive *AND* expert > users. > > > Wherever possible I agree. But sometimes they may be at odds and I > think its best to make it clear where the priorities are. As I said above - I don't really think they are at odds. I totally agree that it has to be easy to use for both naive *and* expert users. Starting with the explicit statement that we will sacrifice expert users will colour the choices we make all along the line. > I also agree with John that shorter is better than longer. I don't > think words like 'standards' really need to be in a mission statement. > > > I personally like it in there because although its something we probably > all already agree on, its something I'd like to have written just to > make it clear unless there was a disagreement in the future. I wouldn't > fight too much having it removed though, since I'm guessing most people > already take it as a given. well - it's part of ease of use. Playing well with other programs is implicit in 'ease of use' (IMHO anyways). > > > F-Spot helps you manage your digital photos in a powerful yet > > highly-intuitive way. It provides easy ways to perform common tasks > > like finding a certain photo or photos quickly, organizing photos via > > tags, doing minor touchups, and sharing photos with friends and family. > > I'd be OK with this, but it seems a bit weak for my taste. It sounds > more like a marketing campaign than a policy document. I thought mission statements *were* more like marketing campaigns! :-) On a second reading, I think what's missing is more details on the high end / expert usage... If I have time before the meeting this aft, I will try to draft something... > I guess I like > the part about prefering ease of use over expert features. (Again, not > necessarily at the expense of expert features, as you pointed out they > don't always need to contradict each other) Hmm. As I said, I personally prefer both. But to be honest, if I had to choose, would choose expert features *over* ease of use... My primary motivation for getting involved in this project is really kinda greedy - I want to build the best photo management solution *for me*! :-) But I'm also a fan of ease of use... Personally, I'd like to see something in the mission statement like "Appealing to both casual and professional photographers". The workflow required by a pro or semi-pro photographer is really quite different from a casual user. I'm not quite in this category yet - but I hope to be in a year or two. I really *hope* that we are as interested in appealing to the pro/semi pro photographer as the casual user... > Warren: Hope to see you at the meeting tonight to discuss this in real > time. I don't actually think our positions are that far apart. I'll do what I can... as always, I'm limited by work - at the moment I'm free at that time, but who knows... Warren _______________________________________________ F-spot-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/f-spot-list
