unity-design team mailing list archive

[GonzO <gonzo@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 4:21 AM, James Jenner <james.g.jenner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 9 June 2011 18:22, Adrian Maier <syraxes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> The current incarnation of Unity tries to enforce a simplified environment
>> where the ui designer decides what is useful/appropriate for the user to
>> see
>> on screen.  It has zero configurability compared to gnome2 or xfce4 or
>> kde.
>>
>> There would be no complicated debate about "global menus auto-hiding"  if
>> the users were able to configure that !
>
> Want and need are two seperate things.

Not if you are actually serious about keeping or growing a user base,
they aren't.  All "needs" are, are passionately desired "wants".


> Want can be subjective, can be based on perception and can be based on emotion

And, again, not only is there nothing wrong with that, but that's
exactly the sorts of things we should be paying attention to.

This is the second time in this conversation that you've attempted to
create a line between "subjective" and "objective," and to dismiss
some objections beause they might have some emotion behind them.  I
say, again, that this is the wrong way to go, because human beings are
subjective and emotional creatures, and they *are* the user base.


> When talking about UI's a want for a certain function isn't always the best
> thing for the OS as a whole or for the individual in the task they're trying
> to perform.

What's best for the OS as a whole, is to have a growing user base that
more often than not relates the use of this software as a positive
experience.  And this simply won't happen if a VAST majority of people
using the software _can't do what they *want* to do with it_.


> Not every one switches between applications every single minute, or every
> five minutes or even every 30 minutes.

There is no definite correlative relationship between the importance
of an on-screen widget, and the frequency with which it is used.  An
action may be important enough to keep a widget on the screen at all
times, even if that widget is only used a handful of times per
session.

More to the point: wy can't this situation simply be solved by making
the widget hide-able if that's what you, as a user, decide?


> Just remember that it's
> not enough to prove one person's experience, but to justify their experience
> as being important based on where Canonical wish to go with the OS.

Yeah, see, its exactly that kind of design fail that I'm protesting
against.  That's exactly the sort of thing that causes users to go
elsewhere.


> If anyone knows of a roadmap or any white papers, etc regarding where Canonical
> are heading, then please let me know. I would be very interested.

Well, the slogan is "Linux for Human Beings".

Noticably absent is the additional tagline "...who can successfully
justify their experience as being important."

--G