Hello Michael and all,
wow! At least! Some *precise* and to the point answers! Thanks!
Le 18/02/2012 09:21, Michael Meeks a écrit :
On Sat, 2012-02-18 at 08:50 +0100, Jean-Francois Nifenecker wrote:
As I understand (correct me if necessary) this list goal -- which I find
excellent -- is to narrow the topic to actual user experience
enhancements
Well - the idea is that this is a place that hackers can get advice
from user experience experts. ie. "I want to do XYZ change, I have a
patch to do it - first let me check with some UX experts". It is
intended to try to build good relationships between designers and those
who actually implement their designs, thus far it seems to be working.
Ah! Ah! I'm starting to get the real thing which has nothing to see with
what I was presented at first: this list is in *no* way for users to ask
for a change/enhancement to the devs! It is all the way around: the devs
are those asking for advice to the world.
So, if this is the actual goal, telling people in the users' discussion
lists to come here is plain *wrong*.
-> The list to go is *[design]* isn't it?
My feeling, at this first participation, is that apparently
it's quite difficult to make ideas flow here when one's not from the
happy few.
The design list is a great place for this 'flowing' of ideas.
uh uh...
So here are a few questions of mine that will help me understand the
nuts and bolts of this list: Where do the discussions lead ? Who decides
to (not) implement a change discussed here ? When is a consensus
considered valid ? Who decides that ?
So in all of these cases, the discussions produce advice to a developer
who asked for advice. It is fairly useless having a consensus solely of
people who are unable to make any real change in the code :-) As such,
pissing off the developers by immoderate criticism is a highly
ineffective way to achieve any change, instead it is likely to solidify
opposition.
Now I have a much clearer view of this list usage. It seems I goofed and
pissed people off without even knowing I did so. Sorry for that.
-> I guess TDF should make things clearer to the outer world and
internally. *Much* clearer. This would be a service to all: the devs who
wouldn't be bothered by some "whingers" (like myself, though I wouldn't
classify me as such) and users like myself who wouldn't spoil their time
sending hopeful messages to some inappropriate place.
As I wish to post a few new messages wrt various UX topics I'm
considering important, I'd better know how things are held so that the
threads don't go wild because of respective ignorance.
If this is initiated by you, and you have no intention of doing any
coding on the topic, this is the wrong place - please try the 'design'
list.
*Now* I understand that. Thanks again for clarifying.
-> don't you think it would be *very* beneficial to all to make things
*very* *very* *VERY* clear about what each list is meant for? Who's
asking what to whom?
Thanks again for answering and giving me a clearer view about UX. It's a
shame that those who participate (hey, Cedric!) are themselves directing
people here while we (I) should go elsewhere (ie, [design]). Then they
feel pissed off... Doh!
So I see that my place is not here. I'll un-subscribe when this thread
is over and leave you in peace. Accept my apologies for my dumb
questions. I'll go the [design] route. Hopefully my messages will find
their way there.
PS: wrt the text boundaries thingy, do you know if that feature
discussed on [design]? If it was not, then we're in a catch 22.
Best regards,
--
Jean-Francois Nifenecker, Bordeaux
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.