--- Erik Hofman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
> Well, at least it points out to the user that the
> user interface isn't 
> necessarily a high priority. For now FlightGear has
> been used and 
> improved by research projects and certified
> simulator developers.
> So far we have been able to satisfy every one to
> some degree, but (and I 
> sure hope not) there might be a time that both user
> bases start to 
> conflict in the code.
It seems slightly odd to me to feel that 'serious'
users don't want/need a decent user interface, while
gamers do. As a Linux user, and a developer who is
happy to use command line tools, I'm certainly not
afraid of not having a GUI available. But if someone
wants to provide something to make my life easier
(like allowing me to browse through a list of airports
rather than having to remember the codes for example),
then I'm not going to turn my nose up at it. The
important thing, I feel, is that any user interface
should be carefully designed so that it makes the
user's experience of the program easier, and more
intuitive. Too often the interface just gets in the
way and makes things worse.

Certainly keep the command line options - they are
extremely useful for those who understand them. Even
make the program start without a UI by default. But
don't ignore the idea of a user interface purely
because FlightGear is a 'serious' application.

Just my opinion, of course.



Win a castle for NYE with your mates and Yahoo! Messenger 

Flightgear-devel mailing list

Reply via email to