--- Begin Message ---
On Sat, 2009-10-03 at 16:11 +0200, Thorsten Wilms wrote:
> Actually, I don't think so. Except if you mean "everyone". That would be
> a target audience that is no target at all. No base for decisions
> especially regarding aesthetics. A nightmare in the realm of interaction
> design.
I think, there should always be a target market. The last time I
checked, the website said that it was for "human beings." However, as
you said, it could cause problems for IxD. If so, defining Ubuntu's
target market needs more attention than the set of UX princples because
it is the first thing that should be set.
>
> "Beautiful" is about as helpful as specifying that Ubuntu should be
> "good". Instead, it should be about what the presentation (mainly
> visual) should communicate.
>
> Please have a look at:
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Artwork/Documentation/Briefing
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Artwork/Documentation/Message
You put interesting stuff in the artwork wikis. I think, that affirms
the inclusion of "beautiful" to the set of UX princples.
If you need help in that department, I'm interested in contributing.
> Drop them, define context/boundaries or best: go back to the underlying
> goal. I think this would be along the lines of: Minimize the complexity
> of the mental model a user needs to accomplish their tasks, without
> reducing efficiency. Where tasks need to be defined: where does Ubuntu
> end and applications start? Efficiency is not a simple, flat thing, as
> you have to look at the specifics of users and their context, including
> duration of use.
I think, the alternative for "simple and consistent" could be "Minimize
the complexity of the mental model a user needs to accomplish their
tasks, without reducing efficiency" as you suggested. Feedback from
others regarding this would be very much appreciated.
> Guidelines makes me expect something I can work through, that might be
> used as check-list. Something rather dry, rational.
>
> With a manifest, I expect something emotional, setting the right mood,
> but also defining the cornerstones of a philosophy.
>
> There's already
> http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/philosophy
> http://www.ubuntu.com/community/conduct
>
> There's a large area concerned with basic interaction and interface
> design that simply can't be specific to Ubuntu. It should be handled
> independently. However, I doubt you can come up with something that is
> notably different from several collections of principals/guidelines that
> are already out there.
>
> It could be good for the reputation of Ubuntu to have such general
> guidelines tied to the brand, but it could keep others from perusing it
> and hence hurt the wider community.
>
I think, the emotional factors that you found on the list would fit the
UX principles very well. Human Factors International is preaching that
usability is not enough and that we should consider persuasion, emotion,
and trust as well. The list I suggested included those three factors and
they seem to be fit as far as I am concerned.
I don't think that Ubuntu's philosophy and code of conduct can
substitute UX guidelines. They are enough to define what the community
is all about but the product (the operating system) needs a set of UX
guidelines so the Ubuntu philosophy and code of conduct are translated
into how they would manifest in the product.
Can you suggest a list of UX principles already out there that can serve
as substitute for a unique set of UX principles for Ubuntu?
You seem to be concerned about being constrained to a defined set of
principles for Ubuntu and how it would hinder developers to be more
creative. Am I correct? If so, I don't think it's something to worry
about because the Ubuntu way doesn't stop people from suggesting changes
to the set of UX principles.
If there's a good enough list of UX principles already out there that
can serve as reference for everyone developing Ubuntu, it would be nice
if we can post it where the community can see so everyone is guided by a
common vision.
Thanks.
--- End Message ---