On 04.01.2011 17:00, peter sikking wrote:
> when making UI, one has to:
>>> 1) identify the issue
>>> 2) find the cause
>>> 3) evaluate everything (including brainstorm ideas)
>>> 4) make a solutions model
>>> 5) design the UI
>>> 6) develop it
>>>
>>> and although things go a bit jumbled every once in a while,
>>> this is what happens here at GIMP.
>> ==snip==
>>> steps 2-5 are what I bring to any project and customer I work with.
>> I agree that these features must be reviewed by many people in
>> official and commercial process,
>> but we also want to have a prototype to get positive feed back.
>>
>> It's very good and superior point of the open source software to
>> implement GUI freely by anyone
>> and have review it by many other people.
>>
>> It's just a patch of the my private work for now, so we can review it
>> and simply ignore many
>> of them. Let's try step 2-5 based on the feedback from existing
>> prototype.
> nice try, but: no.
>
> I tried to show you why in my previous mail.
> I can only add that a developer plunking in a code change at
> users' request and then let users' feedback sort it out
> is the 'armpit of usability' (i.e. the worst possible). see:
>

What is wrong about a high fidelity prototype? It is a central task of 
the usability engineering life cycle [Nielsen]. Adding it to master 
might be wrong but usertesting is not bad.

> <http://blog.mmiworks.net/2008/09/armpit-of-usability_20.html>
>
Improving Flexibility might help...

> so walking through steps 2–5 with me (or soon my team) is
> mandatory. yes, it is a 'UI maintainer' kind of thing.

If you only do steps 2-6 you implement your mental model. Prototyping 
and user testing is not bad at all.

Just my two cents

regards
Bernhard
_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Reply via email to