On 3/24/06, Joachim Noreiko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- Rodney Dawes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> > > > Consistency is good. > > > > Consistency is good. But what is consistent is arguable, and usability > > should take precedence. > > No, the two must go hand in hand.
Telling developers (Rodney in this case) what they should do with a tone like this really doesn't help your position. ;) Besides, go read the other parts of the thread; there was an either-or decision that had to be made on this particular point for 2.14. You make a nice claim, and I agree that both is better, but it just didn't match reality. > Users are quite capable of getting in a tizzy about > inconsistencies: "why does that pref tool say 'close' > and this one 'finish'? Does that mean they behave > differently?" > > I agree that "Finish" is an improvement over "Close" > with its X icon. > I'm just disappointed that we introduced this > inconsistency when it could have been avoided. > We should have either held back the change on the > background pref tool, or rallied the troops (say at > gnome-love) and got the lot done. > GNOME is meant to be a complete, integrated desktop > environment: that means changes like this *must* > happen in step. Thanks for the opinion. You have made it clear, from your suggestion that the change should have been held back, that you hold consistency (which plays a part as a subset of usability) to be more important than other parts of usability such as having a UI that makes sense. You are not alone (see http://mail.gnome.org/archives/release-team/2006-February/msg00139.html and others). But you aren't law either. ;-) I think it is important to look at it on a case by case basis, and in this particular case, I felt that a UI that made sense was more important than consistency. I still feel that way. Discussing further isn't going to change it either. ;-) _______________________________________________ Usability mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/usability
