unity-design team mailing list archive

[Allan Caeg <allancaeg@xxxxxxxxx>]

A team with a clear common goal is needed. I was trying to help define that
common goal by proposing having a list of UX principles for
Ubuntu<http://www.mail-archive.com/ayatana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg00640.html>.
As Thorsten mentioned, there are people who wouldn't want to comply because
they are doing what is in accordance to their tastes and preferences during
their free time. However, a distro shouldn't be a product of different
pieces of software that are aiming to satisfy different visions. Apple,
Google, Microsoft and other big software companies have clearly defined UX
goals. I think, that is what open source needs now.
I think, the hard part in the invitation-only list could be the validity of
decisions in knowing who to include. Losing good people is a sad thing for
development.

Good UX job. I'm looking forward to a smoother Ubuntu.

Best Regards,
Allan Caeg
https://launchpad.net/~wersdaluv
http://twitter.com/AllanCaeg

On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Mark Shuttleworth <mark@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> This will be a controversial mail, so I'll ask in advance that we not let
> it get heated.
>
> I don't think we can succeed if we work on a list that is free for everyone
> to throw their ideas onto. I'm thinking that we need to create an
> invitation-only list (which is publicly archived) alongside this one.
>
> Here's why.
>
> I'm interested in the challenge of producing a free software desktop that's
> delightful to use, and convinced that good design has to be at the heart of
> that. I'm also certain that the design conversation and collaboration has to
> be open - at least about the pieces which are already in public play (in our
> case, for example, the Messaging Indicator, Notifications, and the Ubuntu
> Netbook Remix launcher (unity).
>
> At Canonical, we've started growing a really good team to lead this work.
> There are now more than 10 folks at Canonical who's sole focus is design,
> art, and user experience, across the full range of Canonical products (web -
> Launchpad and Landscape, desktop - GNOME and UNR). To match that we have a
> team of developers that is implementing various bits and pieces that don't
> already exist, or don't already exist in the form that they need to in order
> to deliver the experience we want.
>
> So I'm putting my money where my mouth is, in other words.
>
> Figuring out how to shape the relationship between that company team, which
> works on public elements as well as things which are being designed for
> netbooks that aren't yet shipping and hence which have to be confidential,
> is challenging. The team is stretched, I don't think they can participate in
> a large public freeform mailing list discussion in the same leisurely way
> that many members of the community can do. That will create the impression
> that the Canonical team doesn't care, or isn't interested in the feedback.
>
> The real challenge is that emails on this list can vary widely in how "hard
> they are to respond to". For example, an email on a specific design issue is
> easy to fit into a work day. There's a person who is responsible for taking
> the final decision on that piece, and they can participate in that thread
> and then communicate the decision.
>
> Much harder is a broadbased thread like "high level goals" or "what is
> beautiful". I just don't see any way to have the full time team engage in
> long threads like that.
>
> My current view is that we need a core team that meets in person fairly
> regularly and has a shared set of language and tools. That team needs to be
> open to participation from the community, but it also needs to have a shared
> set of values, so it frankly would not be open to folks who have a
> completely different vision of the future. That core team can collaborate
> with the goal of producing final specifications for Ubuntu. The team should
> all be at UDS, for example. It should not be a team that fights with itself
> - it needs to be made up of people who trust each other and work well
> together. And they should not have to defend every single decision against a
> flood from folks who are not part of the team.
>
> That means that the design process would contain explicit separation
> between folks on that core team, and others who express interest in a more
> casual fashion, or who have not yet bought into the core design ideas and
> process of the core team.
>
> I'm aware this proposal could result in outrage over barriers to
> participation. But I think it will be more effective if we try to build a
> core team that knows each other well and can establish norms and
> relationships.
>
> Besides, I don't think effective design would come from purely freeform
> participation. At the moment, I have final signoff of specifications coming
> from the design team into Ubuntu. In due course, that responsibility will be
> assumed by someone in the Canonical design team. There is collaboration and
> consensus in many elements of the work, but to the extent that decisions are
> taken in that final signoff they are final and binding. And that will remain
> true even when someone else takes over from me.
>
> Thoughts?
> Mark
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
> Post to     : ayatana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>