[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-devel
Subject:    Re: For whom is KDE designing for?
From:       Holger Macht <holger () homac ! de>
Date:       2007-05-25 11:58:33
Message-ID: 20070525115833.GA4224 () homac ! suse ! de
[Download RAW message or body]

On Fr 25. Mai - 12:55:44, Holger Macht wrote:
> On Fri 25. May - 10:49:00, Anne-Marie Mahfouf wrote:
> > On Friday 25 May 2007 10:39:25 Holger Macht wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > simple question, complicated answer. For whom is KDE designing for?
> > > What's the target group? Maybe someone can help me answering it...
> > >
> > > I think that's the central question when designing graphical user
> > > interfaces. It heavily depends on the point of view. For simplicity, I'm
> > > categorizing possible target people into five major groups. Please don't
> > > argue about the descriptions, you should get the idea...
> > >
> > >   1. Users. The most simplest users you might think of. Browsing,
> > >      writing, playing, chatting, that's it! The experienced GNOME user,
> > >      if you like to call it that way ;-)
> > >
> > >   2. Advanced _users_. Having an idea of what "configuration" is and are
> > >      willing to change something about their graphical user experience to
> > >      fit their personal needs.
> > >
> > >   3. System administrators. Knowing what a terminal is and how to use a
> > >      terminal based editor. Having an idea about what's behind the fancy
> > >      graphics.
> > >
> > >   4. Programmers. Everything has to be so that most productive work can be
> > >      done. "The desktop is some kind of IDE"
> > >
> > >   5. All of the above mentioned, making KDE so heavily configurable that
> > >      every distro and every company is able to customize it in such an
> > >      drastic way that it fits their own personal target group.
> > >
> > > I read several FAQs and papers from KDE usability but couldn't find an
> > > answer to that question. Is there one?
> > 
> > Did you read that one:
> > http://wiki.openusability.org/guidelines/index.php/Introduction:KDE4_Vision
> 
> Yes, that is what I was looking for. So the answer is indeed (5.) ;-)

And with reading a little bit more, summarizing it, it seems that focus in
going towards (3.,4.,5.) without excluding (1.) and (2.) ;-) And that's
also how I currently see KDE development. Thanks!

Regards,
	Holger
 
>> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]