On 10/24/10, Tomek CEDRO wrote:
>> As for *ists, you got it exactly right: usabilists were involved.
> So, the usability theory now opposes what user think is usable because
> theory knows better..? Are you serious about that?
Jumping at conclusions won't get you anywhere, my friend.
>> In the new UI there is no way the toolbox menu can be useful. Really.
>> It's a dinosaur and it was about time for some meteorite to save human
>> embarassment of dealing with prehistoric creatures -- all claws,
>> fangs, pointy tales and whatnot. Please accept this change.
> Ok then, according to your way of thinking, I could call myself a
> neohuman and kill all other human beings because they are dinosaurs
> and dealing with these prehistoric creatures is embarrasment.
Pushing metaphors won't get you anywhere either.
> I stated clearly that there are more people using this menu and they
> can have their own vision and habits on the usage.
Sure, there are more people who are pissed off. How many? Did you
count them? Did you compare their amount with amount of people who
absolutely love the way things are changing in GIMP's UI? Use facts
for answering that one.
> What "I" told in point 1 is that these changes could have been done
> as an "option" to make both sides happy.
It quite couldn't.
> You all usabilitists
Me? No way :) I'm not usability architect. And that "you all
%usernames%" sounds a bit hysterical.
> say "there is no way" instead searching for a way to make it happen.
Because it was already analyzed?
> If you say that this menu is too wide to work on one column toolbox,
> then make a button that call top of this menu
It seems to me that instead of sitting down for one minute and
actually listening to what people tell you without jumping at
conclusions you go ahead inventing curious ways to support your old
habits. This one, in particular, sounds like the cure being worse than
> Regarding the backward compatilibility, I guess that you do not work
> on x86 machine (or even x86 equipped Mac product) and you have nothing
> to do with backward compatibility in your everyday life - no money, no
> mathematics, no four wheel car, no house with entrance door, no
> applications that were written more than 5 years ago....? Again please
> take a look at the x86 architecture, or Blender file format that
> contains structure definition so the file can be opened with different
> versions of the software.
Just FYI the first Blender Foundation's movie can be rendered only
with Blender's version that is shipped on the DVD. And a little bird
told me that "Sintel" is going to be the same. That makes your choice
of argumentation rather amusing apart from all the other incorrect
assumptions you already made and are probably still going to do.
> I think you try to protect your own truth by all means necessary,
Excuse me, are you quite sure you are not talking about yourself? :)
> Tell me please why didn't you create your own
> fork if you didn't like the GIMP way?
1. Because I quite like the way things are changing.
2. Because I do not code.
Maybe you intended to ask why GIMP developers didn't fork GIMP? I'd
love to hear your own version of that one! :) Say a firm "no" to
Curiously enough, there is a fork of GIMP by a person who just like
you didn't like the changes: http://tinyurl.com/394ggmj
> what is the point, why it cannot happen - because your new bright
> vision is better than others.
You are missing an important bit of information again. Let me
enlighten you. The job of usability architect (and it's not me, by the
way) is to analyze all the different users requirements and come up
with design that will make an application a better experience for most
users in the focus group, even if it means abandoning some minorities.
Therefore a usability architect's vision cannot be better or worse
than someone else's -- it compounds and fuses visions of many people.
I can see how conceiving that might take some time for you. Don't
hesitate to think about it long enough instead of overreacting again.
> OK then, I will wait for 2.8 and see if it is at least as usable for
> me as 2.4 was, because 2.6 is definitely not.
Jolly good :)
Gimp-developer mailing list