ngraham added a comment.

  In D29501#665639 <https://phabricator.kde.org/D29501#665639>, @filipf wrote:
  
  > If user data would show low vertical panel usage, what are we really fixing 
and for who? Extrapolating from that and presuming that a fair share of them 
are content with the current default, why do we go against that? And if it's 
just a matter of not touching defaults, can you guarantee users are going to be 
equally content with a left panel as a default?
  
  
  Design of software and its default settings is hard because you have to 
anticipate people's needs, not ask them what they want (they don't know what 
they want or their ideas are bad) or reflect what they've already done (most 
people don't know what's possible).
  
  Most users never change more than a small handful of default settings, if 
any. This is practically a universal constant that is borne out by data 
wherever it is collected. So the fraction of users who have changed a default 
setting is rarely a useful metric for determining whether the default setting 
is a good one or not, because even if something is a bad default, most people 
will still not have changed it. The only case where this kind of data can be 
useful if the it shows that, say, 50% of users have changed a default 
setting--this means that it's so catastrophically bad that the system managed 
to overcome the inability or disinterest of most people in changing default 
settings because it was so bad that they went out of their way to seek help in 
changing it. At that point changing the default setting in the next release 
becomes a pants-on-fire emergency to prevent all of these irritated people from 
leaving your platform (if they can) or trashing it in their communications with 
others (if they can't).
  
  > It seems to me this would boil down to touch usage. (My hunch is most 
people don't care too much about saving some vertical pixels). We're still only 
talking about a smaller subset of users, who we could equally benefit by 
finishing D27845 <https://phabricator.kde.org/D27845>, which is less risky.
  
  Not sure I understand the risks involved in this patch. Can you explain?

REPOSITORY
  R119 Plasma Desktop

REVISION DETAIL
  https://phabricator.kde.org/D29501

To: ngraham, #vdg, #plasma, filipf
Cc: davidedmundson, ahiemstra, broulik, filipf, plasma-devel, Orage, LeGast00n, 
The-Feren-OS-Dev, cblack, jraleigh, zachus, fbampaloukas, ragreen, ZrenBot, 
ngraham, himcesjf, lesliezhai, ali-mohamed, jensreuterberg, abetts, sebas, 
apol, mart

Reply via email to