Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2011 Archives by date, by thread · List index


I fully agree with the gallery idea, this is the best solution, because with
that actually can see what is best, but as it is debated whether Microsoft
is losing customers, and he knows how they will be returned because there
designers decide how the program looks, rather than developers, who are paid
to do as they are told, they do not care if toolbar does not fit the
windows, MS is extra just because, and here the main problem is just that,
so much debate about whether this bar that stands out from the system.
And to ask customers taht say what it is better,  They do not care if ribbon
deviate from the system, it is important that the program is good and
special for us because nobody will be offended if on the new version ubuntu
found a single program that sow their face with opportunities. After all,
all is a habit.

I fully agree with the gallery idea.

2011/6/20 Björn Balazs <b@lazs.de>

Hi all,

I am a little unsatisfied with the amount of individual threads going into
the direction of: "We need a new interface for LibreOffice - and it needs
to
look linke this...".

This is a Free Software Project. As a design team, we will not need to
convince ourselves about this need to change the GUI (we all agree on
that),
we will need to convince the people actually doing (and financing) it - the
developers and the companies paying them.

We will obviously not be able to do this by starting the same discussion
all
over and over again (e.g. Ribbon discussion). To convince the sponsors of
new
software code, we should never argue about personal opinions. A conflict in
personal opinion is not solvable. And developers and managers of sponsoring
companies willl have personal opinions as well. These kind of conflicts
will
predicitably end with those parts of the suggestions beeing realised that
the
sponsors like. This again will not satisfy anyone in the end (not us, not
the
users and not the sponsors).

So, how can we make this more productive?

Ideas are good, visualisations are even better. So let us find a way to not
comment on these, but to collect them with the goal of easy comparision
with
eachother. A gallary of ideas and visualisations of the future LibO.

We should then try to extract the dimensions these ideas differ on. Knowing
these we can then again use user-centric methodologies to have the users
decide about what they like.

With this data we will have much less trouble to convince the code-sponsors
to go into a certain direction.

So - the main point I am argueing for is a gallery of interface ideas. Easy
to compare and on one spot. What do you think about this?

Best,
Björn

--
Voluntary Open Source Usability: http://www.OpenUsability.org
Commercial Open Source Usability: http://www.OpenSource-Usability-Labs.com


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to design+help@global.libreoffice.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/design/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be
deleted




-- 
Regards,
Budislav

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to design+help@global.libreoffice.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/design/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Context


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.