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

Hi Mirek,

Le 27/10/2013 02:04, Mirek M. a écrit :
Hi Michel,
This is a meritocracy -- if you're not happy with something, you're
welcome to swoop in and change it. :) (Of course, the community also has
to accept those changes.)

As Cor Nouws already said, it's always more difficult to do something and then modify it again and again than taking time to design it correctly the first time.
I don't even talk about users getting upset by regular changes.

If you'd like to do user studies, please be my guest. Right now, designs
are based on heuristics [1],

Too much abstract.

guidelines [2],

It would be ok, but here is only one (unimplemented ?) widget...

and discussions,

That's the problem in the design team : too much unstructured discussions !
You should spend your time on making prototypes and user testing in a scientific way.

but of
course it'd be great if they were validated by other means as well.

Till today, the validation is done only with "I like", "I don't like", "I'd prefer" from the design lead/team. Creating a validation process means having a global vision, and precise goals with metrics (goals that can be measured ; ex: nb of clicks to perform a specific action, or mouse move distance).

(I don't have the time and energy to invest in user studies or user
testing right now, which is why they aren't being done. It'd be great if
you could help there.)

The color picker experience was very interesting :
- in mailing list or in chat, design team spent endless hours trying to imagine/guess what would be better, based on only one screenshot - in few hours, I made some html prototypes that allowed to reveal immediately some important question (live preview or not ?)

And Jacob Nielsen showed that with just 5 users, you find nearly 80% of UX problems.

So I repeat : less discussions, more prototypes & user testing.

I understand you're not happy with the Start Center, and it would've
been ideal if you could have chimed in after the inital call for

When was it done ?
I searched both mailing lists (design and ux-advise) and found nothing about preparation of Gsoc. It seems that all subjects related to design were proposed without any preparation in the mailing lists.

The whiteboard for StartCenter was created on 24/07/2013, when GSoc was half time. And the first official mail was created by Krisztian Pinter also on 24/07/2013.

==> Design team should already work on subjects and prototypes for Gsoc'14. And same idea for LO4.4 (it's already too late to make proposals for LO4.3).

Just read my advise for planning :

but now you can still chime in with suggestions for
improvement, user research, user testing, or propose patches.

Even if the design team creates a professional proposal based on user testing, it would be dependent on dev kindness to implement it. It looks more politically/diplomatic than meritocracy : it's much easier to get your proposal implemented if you're friend with one dev. It's not an offense against devs or design team : it's just the only human way of doing when there is no official rule. So, as I said to Charles, it's better for me to stop making proposals for LibreOffice for now.

BTW, few days ago, I met some people who might be interested by LibreOffice UX. I hope we can work together and maybe contribute.



To unsubscribe 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.