[linux-elitists] Re: GNOME > you
Sat Jan 3 09:31:53 PST 2004
Jeff Waugh <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> <quote who="Jeremy Hankins">
>> I'm perfectly happy with my ratpoison-like sawfish configuration.
>> Clearly the how/what distinction that we were talking about at the
>> start is an article of faith for you, and not something you can
>> defend. Thus there's no hope of ever reaching common ground for
>> discussion. So never-mind.
> Well, that's an easy way to cheat yourself out of the
> discussion. Obviously it's *my* faith that is at fault. Perhaps you
> should restate your 'how/what distinction' in less abstract
> terms. Right now it's voodoo-la-la-land, with very little solid ground
> for argumentation.
Is it just me, or do the above two paragraphs say almost exactly the
same thing (minus the bit about my wm)?
Recap: you defended your usability perspective by claiming that folks
don't care about how, but do care about what. I found that a surprising
argument and explained that I don't see how you can make that
distinction in a way that works for you. I went on to explain that I
see the distinction as a result of choice and context. Choosing the
line to draw between how & what (which is determined in large part by
your choice of idiom) is a very important decision from a usability
perspective. So any viewpoint which simply accepts a given distinction
between how & what is addressing only a small part of the issue.
Short version: I'm asking you to provide a more objective and less
psychological basis for the distinction between how & what than what I
described. Unless you can do that I'm forced to conclude that your
position is circular, because you're defending the choice of idiom by
reference to the choice of idiom.
Jeremy Hankins <email@example.com>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
More information about the linux-elitists