> the idea isn't to hunt until you find a place you don't get kicked in the > face, but to ask why you got kicked in the face in the first place. you can > convince everyone you want here or elsewhere, but if it isn't an idea that a > good number of the developers can agree with it won't happen. and you may > want to ask yourself WHY these people who tend to be pretty sharp are not > convinced. 0. People snapped at me when I wrote my first proposal. The degree of respect and tolerance in kde-devel is outrageously low. For the first batch of responses, I wondered "what, did I just suggest that KDE developers commit mass suicide?", judging from the caliper of the responses. 1. I submitted my first proposal to kde-devel for usability. kde-devel is not the right place to discuss usability. It's kde-usability. 2. I really understand KDE (as many other FLOSS projects) is developer driven. But, let's face it, developers are hard to convince. I tried to persuade them at best. Somebody else posted it as a bug. It didn't last open for *miserable* 5 minutes. Someone in charge should at least have checked how it would be like, instead of closing it "just because I don't like it", damn the users. 3. Don't assume that because these people are sharp at programming, they are sharp at understanding people (users). Intelligence is divided in several spheres, and people tend to have intelligence areas which are sharper than others. In fact, most developers tend to be rather dumb at interacting with people. 4. Just because they *want* one thing, that doesn't mean it's the best/fastest/fundamentally correct way. Studies show otherwise. What I do accept is that if they want it, they *will* get it, whatever the users say. After all, they're the developers, and they aren't contractually bound by what the user wants. But it still doesn't mean that what they want is better. Developers comprise only the 5% or less of the total target user base. Or you might change the mission statement in KDE.org to say "We build a desktop for us, damn the others". 5. I think I will drop the subject. I really wanted to contribute to the KDE project. I was thinking, the technology is great, why don't I code the next version of my application to the KDE API. Well, now I think that really sharp developers will end up doing really sharp wrong UI decisions and affecting the general outlook of my application working on KDE. No thanks. See? Good technology isn't at all the decision factor for most of the people (CEOs, etc.). It's human factors (will my users gain in usability? will I, as a consequence, earn more money?). 6. Why conduct usability research when people aren't even committed to fix what usability finds flawed? FIVE minutes. 7. Don't suggest I got kicked in the face. The whole KDE project lost with this futile discussion. > > as far as i'm concerned, the bottom line is this: > > you list many valid objections to your idea in your latest email and answer > each one with what amounts to: "well, change the way you work, the way your > sys admin works and the way your applications work." for what? a marginal > improvement at BEST (and i don't think even that). That's a plain lie. Reread. What I proposed generates minimal impact. The other proposal (really stupid IMHO), about changing app working directories, requires much more developer and integrator work. Plus, it won't work with many apps (pine, e.g. Press Ctrl-T in pine to attach a file and see where it goes). Really dumb. NO one here or on kde-devel did: * impact/risk analysis * conclusive tests * even think how it would be like to accept the proposal There's no quality process. And KDE developers have a tradition of investing time in building workarounds to structural problems, instead of contributing to fixing the structural problems. Talk about NIH syndrome. "want floppy access? Use floppy:/, damn legacy apps" "want apps that save to the desktop? change current wd! app doesn't use cwd? damn the app" "want the desktop to look tidy? tug away the mess into $HOME, damn the mess in $HOME" KDE developers live in a crystal bubble (no pun intended). I proposed a single change which doesn't impact already existing users and which can be reverted by mkdir'ing a single directory (not even changing a configuration file). No end-user application changes were required. > > you are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. for those who prefer it > where HOME == DESKTOP, they can set it (including system wide as you note). Yes. The default is insane. It goes against research and practical studies. It goes against usability. That's why I proposed the change. There are problems. I pointed out the thing about users not being able to find files, about legacy apps saving to $HOME, about duplicity of locations to store files, about the absurdity and illogicality of hierarchically having a Desktop contained into the $HOME. > > but trying to make this the default is IMO impossible to justify against all > the rearrangements and readjustments that will be required (not all of which > are within KDE's realm, FYI) just to address a problem that isn't a problem. Which rearrangements/readjustments? Can you list 5? That evolution has to move its data folder (listed now as a bug and being fixed) is incorrect? That you'll have to bear perhaps a bin/ and a tmp/ in your desktop is aberrant? That perhaps the developer uses his computer as a developer, and watching a bomb icon appear on the desktop freaks him out? AFAIK even KDE apps save directly to the $HOME (or Documents dir, which by default seems to be the same folder). Three KDE-mandated places to store files! INSANE! Documents, Desktop, $HOME! A support nightmare! Simplifying it down to one would bring great improvements in human-KDE interaction. Especially considering that the great majority of apps save to $HOME and open from $HOME. I don't understand. All arguments against it have been "looks ugly" (lie) "I'll have to change the way I work" (lie). I'm really tired of the party line. Good bye >> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<