>>> it will not ship like this.
>> I have problem with this attitude. Its not how open-source works. If
>> its stable, you release it and then keep adding design and features
>> the next cycle. 2.8 has already taken too long. People who shoudn't
>> building Gimp from git are doing it. Heaping on "does not match
>> goals exactly" style roadblocks does more harm than helps. If it
>> the basic requirements and is stable, its not a release roadblock. Id
>> like to hear other developers opinions on this.
> I'm a big fan of open source, but I am also a big fan of interaction
> design and usability. For me it is not only software stability that is
> important, I want things to be pleasant to use as well.
well I am happy with Martin's support, because without that
there is no way to achieve results.
what Alexia describes is not typical open source, it is how at
the moment the whole (commercial) software world works:
"when the going gets tough, usability becomes a 'nice to have'"
what is counterproductive is that right at that point the
management and development people stop working with the
interaction design and usability people and start 'going it alone.'
every time a developer stops working with an interaction designer
on some project, a little bit this developer stops working with
this interaction designer forever. this can only be repeated
so many time (a cat has 7 lives) before this interaction designer
stops working with this developer forever.
so the solution is: "when the going gets tough, you keep
working with your interaction designer to achieve good usability"
I pride myself on being an interaction architect who design software
with good usability and who works with engineers on getting it built
in a practical way. I would prefer to do both of these (including
the final call on what is usable) up to the last minute before
founder + principal interaction architect
man + machine interface works
http://mmiworks.net/blog : on interaction architecture
Gimp-developer mailing list