On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Jacob Peck <[email protected]> wrote:
"Whatever programmers think about themselves and these towering > logic-engines we’ve erected, we’re a lot more superstitious than we > realize. > [snip] > I think this speaks volumes for why people are so resistant to change, even > users... Leo does things just a bit *differently*, and people ignore it or > avoid it for fear of breaking these inalienable 'laws' they subscribe to. > On the contrary, I think there are good reasons to resist change. We all try to drink from fire hose, and we all have big investments in present work flows. I think Andrew Price came closer to the mark in his thoughts about familiarity: If you're not going to use an existing convention, you need to be sure that what you're replacing it with either a) is so clear and self explanatory that there's no learning curve (so it's as good as a convention) or b) adds so much value that it's worth the small learning curve. Rather than blaming people who don't use Leo, it's important to explain clearly why Leo is worth investigating. I haven't done a good job of this in the past. As I've been working on this series, it seems that "recognition over recall" may be a key point: I can navigate to any one of a huge number of lines easily, using the shape of outlines. Of course, I think there are other "killer" reasons to use Leo, but the responsibilities is *ours* to show others why they might profit from using Leo. Edward -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
