--- Begin Message ---
On Sat, 2009-10-03 at 19:13 +0200, Thorsten Wilms wrote:
> 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.
If that's the case, what Ayatana people suggest to be put on the list of
UX in terms of the target market. I suggest being ambitious and still
aiming to work for everyone. After all, the UX principles should be
guided by long term goals. For the next release, it's strategic to aim
at the young and web-savvy but it doesn't seem ideal to put in the list
something like "Ubuntu is aimed at working for the young web-savvy
professionals" because the public won't appreciate that and I don't
think it's the long term goal. This kind of information has to stay
internal to avoid controversies.
> There's still no need for the term beautiful and nothing to be gained
> from it.
Google's set of UX principles included it. I think, it has been guiding
their devs, artists, and so on very well.
> 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.
If so, something has to be done about this. Ubuntu is a distro, not a
personal OS of any artwork contributor (unless it's sabdfl of course).
They have to follow the "Ubuntu way" that we're trying to clearly define
here.
> 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.
Exactly. That's what we're also trying to define here. First, we
determine what principles are important, then include them in the set of
UX principles. Next, we define them so everyone has a clear
understanding of what we mean. My definition of usability is similar to
yours but some developers or designers may have a different perception
on this so we have to hear it from them so that we can set a common
goal.
> Just avoid duplication.
I don't think there's duplication at all. I'll expound below
> 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/
That's what we're doing here. We're defining what the principles to
include are. Yes, there are books that would guide us but not all of us
are reading the same books, understanding them the same way, or reading
them at all.
You have comments of the Apple HIG and the stuff on wikipedia's article.
Perhaps, we should define a set of principles that we can agree on.
I mentioned the GNOME's HIG and Tango's guidelines but other people
aren't very keen on following them exclusively (see earlier posts here).
It just means that we're not looking at UX with a similar lens. With
different goals, the works of various developers and designers would be
messy.
> 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).
I was trying to rephrase what you meant when you said
> 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.
If developing for a specific DE is saddening to you and making it distro-
specific is even worse, what would you suggest? My understanding of a
distro is that it's a unique operating system following its own principles
so it's just natural that it has unique components that are included based
on a standard. Without a standard of inclusion, the OS would be messy.
If customization worries you, the user can always take stuff out and add
on Ubuntu.
> 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.
It really sounds like a tough job but there's a large community that
dedicated to this in Ubuntu. We have employed people and a lot of
passionate volunteers here. With enough work, we can develop a good enough
set of UX principles.
Based on the replies to this so far, it really seems that people have
different perceptions of what Ubuntu's UX should be. A set of principles
would be necessary so developers and designers can have a common goal.
With that, we'll move forward tremendously.
After coming up with a set of principles approved by sabdfl, I suggest
requiring it to be signed by developers and designers just like the Ubuntu
Code of Conduct. Signing would be like reciting a hippocratic oath
(got the idea from
http://whitneyhess.com/blog/2009/10/02/a-hippocratic-oath-for-user-experience-designers/ )
With its help, UX will get the attention it has always been lacking.
Best Regards,
Allan
--- End Message ---
