[linux-elitists] Re: Yet another mozilla atrocity

Greg Folkert greg@gregfolkert.net
Tue Oct 14 09:24:30 PDT 2003

On Tue, 2003-10-14 at 08:03, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> <quote who="Greg Folkert">
> > <scott> "I read a paper by Havoc on HCI, you should too! All will be
> > revealed!"
> > 
> > <scott> er, dude... I read it. Havoc is right about some things, and
> > wrong about others. Manifestos are usually a bad thing. Havoc's paper is
> > being treated as a manifesto by some people
> > 
> > <greg> He is not the end-all be-all he is being made up to be...
> Oh man... Havoc's essays describe the perspective of the project, not the
> other way around. It's learned wisdom, written down. Not a manifesto. I
> agree with it, and pimp it, merely because it is a good expression of what
> we learned post-1.x.

Perspective of the Project... Ok. Learned wisdom, by whose standards? 

> > <scott> the point I would like to make on the list: complexity is
> > manageable. It should not be discarded simply to eschew complexity.
> > Gnome is inherently complex. WRT preferences: novice, intermediate, and
> > expert toggles go a loooong way.
> Well, this basically ruins your friend's credibility. Sorry, but we've done
> this. Early Nautilus 1.0.x and Sawfish had these kinds of meta settings for
> a long time, and it was a hideous disaster. Not in implementation terms - in
> cognition terms. We won't be doing this again.

Ruins? no. Just bringing your attention that there are a lot of people
that did indeed treasure those meta-settings. Not to re-hash old
things... but exactly *WHAT* Hideous nightmare are you referring to?
Please point me to those places I can get clue.

But, I valued those things as well. Cognition, screw the power users
then huh? It's all about Mirroring the Windoze/MAC interface. How
average of you.

> > There is no such thing as a "sane
> > default" when it comes to user interfaces... people aren't the same.
> This shows a misunderstanding of the 'sane default' goal. Sure, people
> aren't the same. That's why you have preferences. It's not a reason for not
> having a sane default. :-) Big difference between things that are actually
> preferential (which we do care about, despite some crazy rantings disputing
> it) and choosing 'the right thing' when it comes to *behaviour*.

'sane default' explain that to me. I have a set of defaults I wish were
used rather than _many_ that have chosen as of right now. Some of those
default make the GNOME Environment extremely hostile to me. But less
hostile than KDE. I prefer to be able to control each and every widget
action placement of said widgets, button actions, key-bindings, Disable
closing some things, make actions commence on event (in the GUI). Window
matching, windows preferences, etc... Basically I want, what I want
without having to use the the "editing tool" because otherwise it is so
cryptic (Binary data in the gconf db is insane).

I do also want to be able to edit my "saved-session" file with resorting
to voodoo. I like to be able to schedule my default session to be
started at the same time rather than serially...

I guess this falls on deaf ears.

> > And there in lies the problem.
> I think the problem is underanalysis and lack of information on your
> friend's part. :-)

Trust me Jeff, Scott is NOT a new-comer to GNOME. He has been a devoted
Longtime user of it and was saddened when the "Meta" settings
disappeared. He is also a very good interface designer. 
greg, greg@gregfolkert.net
REMEMBER ED CURRY! http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry

Thine right eye so plitherates that thine left eye doth graze uopn it.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://allium.zgp.org/pipermail/linux-elitists/attachments/20031014/422141d3/attachment.pgp 

More information about the linux-elitists mailing list