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

List:       kde-guidelines
Subject:    Re: [kde-guidelines] [kde-promo] [kde-artists] We need a Vision!
From:       Mario Fux KDE ML <kde-ml () unormal ! org>
Date:       2014-03-12 16:06:14
Message-ID: 201403121706.14972.kde-ml () unormal ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

Am Mittwoch, 12. M=E4rz 2014, 11.26:48 schrieb Bj=F6rn Balazs:

Morning guys

Now finally in the train home I found the time to read all (or almost all I =

just didn't fully read the current vision in our wiki but will do it when I=
'm =

home or in the next days).

One of my conclusions of reading this thread, the blog post and its comment=
s =

is that there is (still) a misunderstanding or a slight disagreement. If so=
me =

people talk about "KDE", they mean our software or even "just" our desktop =

environment (which is now called Plasma (by KDE)). If other people then ans=
wer =

they think about "KDE" as the community that we are. So I think and to avoi=
d =

some confusion it's important to underline what meaning of "KDE" one is =

talking about. (At least as long as the meaning of "KDE as the community" i=
s =

not completely absorbed ;-)

[snip]

> > > UX always serves a certain purpose. There is no universal good or bad.
> > > In order to provide consistency and hence a smooth experience for the
> > > user,
> > > the definition of what is desired and what not has to be made on a hi=
gh
> > > level. We call this a Vision.
> > =

> > It would help me to understand how the UX driven by the current vision
> > (altered as suggested above) is different from one that would include
> > the pieces missing in the current vision?
> =

> Most of the time there are different ways to do things. As consistency is
> the by far most important aspect for a good user experience, UX has to
> define which of these possible ways should be taken in which situation. So
> users experience a consistent behaviour across different parts of KDE.
> =

> One example:
> To activate a single setting, you can at least use a check box, a slider =
or
> a toggle button. Each of them has advantages and disadvantages. Currently
> the decision which to use is usually taken by the application developer.
> Consistency across KDE will hence automatically be harmed.
> =

> To be able to formulate rules about the use of 'single settings elements',
> UX needs to know which goals should be reached. A good vision does not
> formulate goals for every interaction element, but should allow us to
> derive the rules out of it.

Thanks for explaining this and writting it down. Although I think our softw=
are =

is already quite consistent I think this is very important and would like a=
nd =

love to see more work on this. And if a vision (of some scope) for this wor=
k =

is useful than we should definitely work on it.

[snip]

> > > Next, within the group of vision-volunteers, we want to create a
> > > suggestion
> > > for the vision. During this process, we plan to also again ask users
> > > about the importance of different aspects if possible. Then we want to
> > > discuss the Vision with you before we start a discussion with the
> > > broader community.
> > > =

> > > Do you have any better suggestion how to proceed?
> > =

> > I am skeptical of the value of asking users about the vision. As Jos
> > wrote, KDE users are a diverse bunch. There are millions of people who
> > use KDE. They like what they've got, or they would tweak a couple of
> > things, or they are looking forward to the next surprises from KDE, or
> > it's better than Brand X, or they like questionnaires and want to be
> > helpful, or (fill in the blank). For the most part, they are not vision
> > people.
> =

> I am a true believer in involving users.

That's great to hear! I think it's very important to involve users (and as =
I =

read in the comments of your blog post I didn't succeed in this in my diplo=
ma =

thesis survey :-(.

> I do not claim to have the final
> answer on excactly how users need to be involved into the vision creation
> process - but I believe they need to be in order to gain final acceptance.
> So we have to try & error it out. And in the end - despite of all the
> diverse wishes - we can only deliver one product.

There I don't agree. As I deeply think (and feel) that "KDE" is the communi=
ty =

I think we (and more so in the future) offer more than one product. in fact =

many quite diverse products (which is absolutely ok).

In the end and what I've read so far this vision we search for seems to be =

mostly for Plasma atm (and I think that's a broad enough scope for the =

moment).

> > Some online equivalent to a walk&talk or get together over a beer with
> > committed talented people would be nice.
> =

> +1
> =

> Bj=F6rn

So I wrote this email just before reading Aarons email which includes a lot=
 of =

the above mentioned and probably even clearer.

Best regards
Mario

_______________________________________________
kde-guidelines mailing list
kde-guidelines@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-guidelines
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]