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

List:       koffice-devel
Subject:    Re: koffice mission statement etc.
From:       Andrew Dorrell <andrew.dorrell () gmail ! com>
Date:       2009-09-01 1:41:37
Message-ID: 200909011141.37356.andrew.dorrell () gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

And to develop some of your specific comments... (day time now)

On Monday 31 August 2009 5:22:22 pm Jos van den Oever wrote:
> > 1.  To produce a comprehensive and integrated suit of tools for open
> > document production that fix rather than emulate the presentation and
> > usability mistakes of popular commercial software.
>
> 'comprehensive': this means it should include everything required. But what
> is that? This is stating the obvious.

It is not really obvious IMHO.  koffice includes in its scope drawing, image 
creation, database, project management.  This makes it far more comprehensive 
than openoffice or MS office (outside of windows context) which aim mainly at 
the big 3: word processor, spreadsheet and presentation.

> 'integrated': also rather vague. What does integrated mean?

Specifically what I see is that the same tools are available across the full 
range of applications.

> 'fix rather than emulate the presentation and usability mistakes of popular
> commercial software': What are these usability mistakes? When we do not
> know what they are how can we fix them? 

For a long time I have felt that OpenOffice took the path of emulating MS 
office.  Thus the horible selection of default text styles, the difficulty in 
cross-referencing, citation and placement of figures within text documents (to 
name a few that bother me) are all reproduced in OOo.  As a result it feels 
like a poor man's MS office (and is - many will prefer to use the MS product 
if they can get it for the right price in my experience).

However what you point out is really important: there should be a clear 
understanding of usability issues within the koffice mission IMHO.  So I guess 
I'm asking: what motivates the usability decisions in the current koffice 
design?  How should I make a decision relating to usability when designing a 
new feature for koffice?

> Also, this is a negative
> requirement. Negative requirements are not needed in such a list, they are
> true by their absence.

This is a very good point.  It would be better framed in a positive way.

> How about: "To produce a collection of software tools for the
> creating,viewing and editing office documents."
> We should then go on to specify which office document formats we support
> and to what extent. Such a detailed list would rendered the initial
> statement redundant though it may make sense as in a summary.

Already commented on...


> > 2.  To provide a powerful and extensible suit of tools for office and
> > creative document production.
>
> This is repetition except for the vague words 'powerful' and 'extensible'.
> What do they mean? When is something powerful? When is it not extensible?

My opinion: powerful is when I can achieve non-trivial tasks easily; 
extensible is when I can add new features and capabilities without having to 
update the entire application and with little or no disruption of existing 
features.

Now non-trivial.  I guess most people's *real* use of office applications is 
non-trivial.  But this could use more clarity.

Does any of this sound consistent with the koffice developers objectives?


> > 3.  To create a compelling suit of office and creative applications that
> > users will find it hard to live without.
>
> Again, you cannot measure this or reason about whether the goals has been
> achieved.

Although I think I'm looking more for a guiding principle rather than a goal 
you are (again) correct.

My opinion: compelling is when people *want* to use the program.  I contrast 
this to the sense of dread I feel whenever I am compelled to do something in 
powerpoint.  How to measure... well there are alternative office applications; 
I think some measure of this can be based on number of downloads, or perhaps 
whether distributors *choose* to provide koffice as the default office suite 
(not a bad goal in its own right).


> > 4.  To create the tools that allow document production to once again be a
> > creative process.
>
> How do you make it so? When is this process creative and when is it not?

My opinion:  when I don't have to struggle to make the program perform tasks.  
Think about getting equation numbering to work in MS word, or getting the page 
layout correct when including figures, or creating an animation that is not a 
simple fly-in or fly-out in powerpoint.  In these cases you have to be 
creative about how to use the application and that takes time and energy away 
from the actual content.  This is related to "powerful" for me.


> > 5.  To provide a better open office suit than OpenOffice.
>
> When is it better? KOffice should be better in every regard?

Perhaps.  Perhaps the developers here only want to compete with openoffice in 
non-core office apps.  Really I was thinking about the svn mission "to replace 
cvs" when writing this.  It is ambitious.


> > 6.  To provide a native office suit for the KDE desktop that fills the
> > gaps left by other office suits and creative applications.
>
> What are those gaps?

My observation: OpenOffice provides WP, spreadsheet and presentation, some 
database.  koffice provides some other apps: drawing, vector graphics, project 
management and in particular krita and kplato seem to be aiming to fill gaps 
in the available free software space.  There may be others?  Filling gaps is a 
very legitimate way of getting people interested in using code from your 
project.  If filling the gaps is a mission then I hope the devs have some idea 
of what they are?



> > 7. To provide a viable alternative to commercial office and creativity
> > applications for the KDE desktop.
>
> This one is the best measurable one yet, albeit indirectly. If we get
> market uptake, we have achieved this goal. It also gives guidance for the
> direction we should take: listen to the people that want to use the office
> suite.

Perhaps a better one might be become the office suite of first choice on KDE 
based systems?


> Requirements that are more specific could be:
> - KOffice should render ODF documents according to the ODF specification.

Does this mean that other apps do not?  If so then an important part of the 
mission for koffice may be to ensure ODF is a good specification by providing 
an independent implementation?

> - Users should be able to edit all aspects of ODF documents with KOffice.

That actually seems like a code requirement... I don't think many users 
actually think about what "ODF aspects" they have in their documents.  Perhaps 
"full support for the official/most recent ODF specification" or "full 
compatability with files created by XYZ" would be more meaningful from a user 
perspective?



> Ideally, we'd make a hierarchical list of requirements that we'd be able to
> link to automated tests.

I actually think a mission statement is much more general than a set of tests.  
But the mission statement should point you in the direction of knowing what 
tests are going to be the most important to put time and effort into.
_______________________________________________
koffice-devel mailing list
koffice-devel@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/koffice-devel
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]