unity-design team mailing list archive

[Thorsten Wilms <t_w_@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, 2009-10-03 at 23:30 +0800, Allan Caeg wrote:

> > 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.

Yes, back when I worked on the stuff now in the artwork wiki, I asked
sabdfl about this and he said something that comes down to:
Ideally we aim at everyone, but strategically aim at Young web-savvy
professionals.


> > > 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. 

There's still no need for the term beautiful and nothing to be gained
from it.

> > If you need help in that department, I'm interested in contributing.

Cool, but it's frozen, if not dead. I had to realize that it had almost
no effect on my fellow artwork contributors and once there was a design
team at Canonical in place, I thought it would be up to them.


> > 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.

Depends on the definition of usability. I like one along these lines:
Usability is the combination of effectiveness, efficiency and
satisfaction. Regarding a specific user, context and task.


> > 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.

Just avoid duplication.


> > 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?

Actually difficult to find something exhaustive and precise, outside of
books :/

This is nice, of course, but there are too specific details:
http://developer.apple.com/mac/library/documentation/UserExperience/Conceptual/AppleHIGuidelines/XHIGIntro/XHIGIntro.html

Lost of interesting stuff on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usability
But not quite the right form :)

As long as the Ubuntu desktop is basically Gnome, it has to be
considered to just point to the HIG and to refine it as needed.
http://library.gnome.org/devel/hig-book/stable/


> > 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?

You couldn't be more wrong. I don't even see how you go there.

I expect that the by far largest part of user-experience/usability
guidelines would apply to pretty much all pointer-driven GUI systems.
Another large part would match all Gnome installs. There can only be a
tiny bit specific to Ubuntu, at least unless it gets its own completely
custom desktop environment.

It's kinda sad if people develop application not for Linux or for a
desktop environment (already slightly sad) but one specific distribution
(excluding tools related to a distribution's responsibilities).

Be it generalized or Ubuntu-branded guidelines, I think there are very
few people who can do a good job on them. For me, it's a bit too tough
done as hobby, never knowing if anyone will actually care in the end.


-- 
Thorsten Wilms

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