let's see how short I can keep this.
> We also have to be humble and remember that writing down the current
> vision only took us a couple of hours, not 5 years (basically one hour
> of discussion at LGM plus some e-mail exchanges while we were
> polishing the minutes).
Two hours. The vision has been simmering in the back of the minds of
everybody involved for all the years that they have been working on
That is was externalised (written down) in such a short time
is the added value _I_ deliver to my customers.
And let me repeat: if the we had not reached this result in these
few hours, I would have interpreted that as the GIMP team having
no clue about what they are trying to achieve, and I would have
not gotten involved.
No vision (or a constantly disputed vision) == no clue ==
no chance in hell for anybody (including pros like me) to
achieve decent interaction == a project I do not need to ruin
my professional reputation on.
>> Few? there are millions of users within our vision out there.
> Sorry, but I have to disagree here. If you just look at the part of
> the product vision that says "GIMP is ...", then it could apply to a
> large number of GIMP users. But if you look at the context of the
> vision (which is not explicitely written in that section, but is part
> of the "Targeted user base" in the meeting minutes and the "user
> scenarios" + "expert evaluation" on gui.gimp.org), then it is clear
> that the vision is targeted at experienced, professional users.
I take the vision as broad as it can be explained (it was phrased not so
specific for a reason), but not broader.
I actually do not like the word professional, it just means earning
money. To sum it up I like to think of 'intense use', you either put
in a lot of hours with GIMP, or you have paid your dues and know what
you are doing.
> is at best a small percentage of the current GIMP users. [...] But
> we have to acknowledge that the vision (or the way we use it) is
> targeted mainly at a minority of users. This minority is almost
> certainly the most interesting subset o
I do not believe that.
>> And I thought that we all understand that there is a
>> choice of several free software programs out there for
>> users who want to do simple red-eye removal from their
>> holiday jpegs.
> Unfortunately, until that choice really exists this is a moot point.
we agreed at the vision meeting that the choice is there.
And I would let Krita, F-Spot, digikam et al. worry about serving
their market optimally, and actually give them a chance by keeping
GIMP out of their markets. Since we are not in it of the money,
we can actually improve our own situation by letting some room
for other software developers.
>> This is a slippery slope. If anybody can excuse themselves from
>> the vision when they personally do not like the logical outcome
>> of applying it to a hairy UI design question, and bang in their
>> "yeah, but what about me" feature into svn, then we are back at
>> the headless chickens state.
> Unfortunately, you skipped the part of my message in which I wrote:
> "It is always possible for someone to propose someting that goes
> against the current consensus and hopefully convince others that this
> is the right thing to do."
Your wish is my command >^}
Luckily, GIMP has a core and plugins. The core has to be redesigned
according to the product vision. This includes the standard distribution
I will measure anything that has to do with interaction against the
product vision to see if it interferes with it. If it does not bloat
the interface and stays out of the way of achieving the vision then
it is fine with me. See the following frivolous extra:
I did not chop its head off.
Any other counter-vision stuff (example: GIMPressionist) must stay out
of the core (distribution) and live happily as a one-click installation
on a web server (even on gimp.org).
principal user interaction architect
man + machine interface works
http://mmiworks.net/blog : on interaction architecture
Gimp-developer mailing list