unity-design team mailing list archive

[Thorsten Wilms <t_w_@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, 2009-10-03 at 21:19 +0800, Allan Caeg wrote:

> Usable by Ubuntu's target audience. I think, we know who the target
> audience is ;)

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.

> > Beautiful? While you might sometimes see a majority of people agreeing
> > regarding beauty, especially on a more general level, opinions tend to
> > vary a lot. "Beautiful" lacks any kind of definition that would allow
> > one to act based on it.
> > 
> It doesn't mean that we shouldn't value it, right? Again, determining
> the standards to measure it and working to achieve it is the next action
> once we agree that it should be included in the set of principles or
> manifest (in case it hasn't been done yet, which I doubt again)

"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



> > Simple and consistent are not always good. They sometimes have a cost.
> > 
> What do you suggest, then?

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.


> > This reads more like a manifest, not guidelines. It's overly idealistic
> > and vague. I don't see anything that would cause anyone to act
> > differently, as the underlying ideals/goals are already known.
> > 
> > 
> How would it be better if it is called a "manifest" instead of a set of
> principles? If it is more fit, let's call it a manifest. As for
> idealism, I think, sabdfl is looking at the same height. What more
> realistic goals can you suggest? 

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


> I think, defining a set of UX principles would be very beneficial for
> developers, designers, and other members of the community.

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.


-- 
Thorsten Wilms

thorwil's design for free software:
http://thorwil.wordpress.com/