[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bugs in default GNOME etch?

On Tue, 2007-01-16 at 20:22 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 05:55:53PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 05:22:51PM +0100, Tim Dijkstra wrote:
> > > On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 17:03:15 +0100
> > > Loïc Minier <lool+debian@via.ecp.fr> wrote:
> > > >  Just FYI, I *personally* would prefer an evince entry in the menu as
> > > >  well, but I prefer keeping close to the usability policy defined by
> > > >  upstream.
> > > Well we shouldn't keep ourselves hostage of stupid upstream behaviour,
> > > should we?
> > Contrary to us, GNOME (in this case RedHat) actually employs usability
> > experts.  Who are we to think we know better?
> Real users with brains, instead of the idealized "ooh I'm afraid of
> computers eek a mouse kill it kill it!!!" novice idiots who are the
> exclusive target of all modern usability testing?

How dare you spake badly of the glorious teachings of the exalted Havoc
Pennington. SANE DEFAULTS!

> All computer usability studies I've seen in the past 4 or so years have
> focused entirely on how a user who has never seen the interface before is
> able to accomplish tasks, with no consideration given to the long-term
> efficiency of the interfaces that happen to have the lowest initial learning
> curve.  Thus their goal is to help win market share, not to help make users
> more productive, and should be shunned as the near-sighted marketing crap
> they really are.

Praise $YOUR_DEITY! There is another that feels this way. It is also
evident others do as well, because of much the customization stuff that
used to be in Gnome 1.4, is being brought back using all these new
add-ons, being window managers and effects adders, coloring styles
controls, window placement based on what they do... etc.

> Cheers :),

Indeed. Cheers!
greg, greg@gregfolkert.net

The technology that is
Stronger, better, faster:  Linux

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: