Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2013 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Hi All, and thanks Björn for your answer.

2013/2/26 Björn Balazs <>

Hi Kévin, all,

Am Donnerstag, 21. Februar 2013, 12:50:37 schrieb Kévin
Then, about the icon guidelines, As I sayed to Mirek, we
choose if we use Gnome ones, Elementary ones, Ubuntu Ones
etc, but let
users choose that by a survey. Because if surveys are
useless for
ergonomy (user always choosing , for pure design it helps to
know what
final user find sexy or not.

I would like to have Bjoern thoughts on this, so I CC him.

Well then, here we go :) - and as Heiko correctly pointed out,
we would be more than happy to support LO by any kind of user-
based decision making.

What we can and should do: User test the quality of each icon
we use in terms of understandability.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but for me this is more about ergonomy than
design, even if design count. It's the same thing than knowing if a
clipboard is better than a glue tube for paste. Then, making the glue
tube/clipboard glossy, flat, tango etc is pure design, and doesn't change
its understandability.

But I am actually skeptical about making DESIGN decisions
based on surveys. At least I would not do it directly, e.g. by
showing three kinds of design and asking 'Which do you like
best?'. I guess indirect methods are superior here.

For this, we need to define our desired target groups first.
Only then we can address anything concerning 'taste'.
Otherwise we will just get a random sample of users in any
survey (which is ok for questions like understandability of
icons) - and with each survey we are in danger of getting a
different subset of users. The result could be that we end up
with a non-consistent design-language, because in one survey
the purists 'won' while in another survey the majority likes
it more 'playful'...

So what we can do, is trying to research who is using LO for
which reasons, doing which tasks - and then trying to identify
primary users (personas), for which we then can try to find a
consistent and appealing design-language.

I agree, we need to define them, but I don't know how we can do this. Then
If I well understood what you mean by non-consitent design language, you
think we would have an incoherent  icon set. I don't agree with that,
because the survey would be done only once, just to decide what design, and
finally what guidelines we should have for all our icons, and all icons
would follow these ==> this will stay consistent.

Then, about identifying our users, as I sayed, I absolutely do not know how
to do that, do you have some methodolgy/advices ? I'm not sure knowing who
are our users will directly help us choosing design language, but it will
tell us who are the users that we need to take more account of the views in
a survey. Then, we do the survey about which guidelines they prefer and we
ask them (indirectly) which type of user they are, and we compare the
results with our known users. I think it's what you meant by indirects
methods, am I wrong ?


Can you follow the thoughts?


Dipl.-Psych. Björn Balazs
Business Management & Research
T +49 30 6098548-21 | M +49 179 4541949

User Prompt GmbH | Psychologic IT Expertise
Grünberger Str. 49, 10245 Berlin |
HRB 142277 | AG Berlin Charlottenburg | Geschäftsführer Björn

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


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.