On 27 April 2010 16:22, Martin Owens wrote: > Some of that good dialectic goes on here in this mailing list, but > that's not communicated much outside where it would do good to calm > people. I believe some of the problems stem from language of outside > publishings, e.g: "We've made this choice because we believe it's better > for normal users, there are no options and if your an advanced user, > we're not really thinking of you when we made this choice so please > don't ask for us to add options." (hyperbole, but you get the point)
In the cases I've witnessed, the hyperbole works more like "we've broken the current workflow for some real existing users in benefit of some hypothetical newcomers that could or could not use the new feature. And we don't provide a way for advanced users to restore their previously used workflow because, well, options are always bad". You won't overcome this perception with better language, because users in this situation have a valid concern that won't go away with an explanation. I'm the first one to defend a simplified design for entry-level to average users even if it doesn't support expert features. But this kind of design should be only for new features and never, ever be put in place of a previous design already in use. This is the golden rule of computing - if ain't broke, don't fix it. > A few of my community circles react to Design Team news with a *sigh* > and "Oh god what have they done now". The teams reputation is low and > it's over shadowing the really great work that's going on. How can I > convince people to trust decisions or even get involved if they don't > trust that the discussions are fair, balanced and considered? You can't. You can only hope that your project is followed by those who are willing to trust you, and ignored by those who don't. This way nobody will feel betrayed. People have resistance to change because they see it as a threat. In order to overcome it, be sure you're actually not threatening anybody. It doesn't suffice explaining your reasons for change, you must also be sure you understand the needs of everyone that can be affected by the change to assure you aren't treating them in a negative manner. The best course of action IMHO is to set it crystal clear who are the intended audience for your designs, so those outside the target can learn to avoid it or at least understand they shouldn't complain for not being addressed. Of course, that's really difficult or impossible if your target audience is 'everybody'. If that's the case, you should never favor one kind of users in spite of the others. But doing that will severely limit your options available. If you want to create more radical redesigns, then limit the range of users intended to benefit from them. *This* is where better communication would help, letting people know when and why the design decisions excluded their needs thus helping them step aside. > So I'd > like to be able to build up social relations so that we're not just on > par with other teams, but surpass their ability to bring people in and > form their world view into solid multi-consideration design. Ubuntu set the stakes high with the "Linux for human beings" motto. The awesome initial work has brought in many users, but that only makes it harder to accommodate all them. Are you willing to compromise the design decisions and adapt to those multiple considerations, or are you going to push one "pure" solution for its expected benefit in some specific cases? It's hard to balance both ways, and in many cases one will need to be preferred over the other. Neither option is a priori better than the other one, but people should know in advance which one is the editorial line. All these are my personal views on the subject, so feel free to disagree with anything in my advice. _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
