Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 6th Apr 2011 17:50 UTC, submitted by Cytor
Gnome The day is finally here, the day that the GNOME team releases GNOME 3.0, the first major revision of the GNOME project since 2002. Little of GNOME 2.x is left in GNOME 3.0, and as such, you could call it GNOME's KDE4. We're living in fortunate times, what, with two wildly divergent open source desktops.
Thread beginning with comment 469425
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[9]: Sigh...
by Mystilleef on Thu 7th Apr 2011 05:46 UTC in reply to "RE[8]: Sigh..."
Mystilleef
Member since:
2005-06-29

Human preferences are numerous and subjective. I don't think the designers of GNOME Shell, or any good designer for that matter, believes in catering to individual preferences. After everybody's brain is mapped differently, however slight.

The objective of designers and engineers is to create the most efficient and effective way to accomplish a task. How you and I feel about it is absolutely irrelevant. We are just an amalgamation of emotions. And most of the time our emotions trump our rationality.

Mind you I don't agree with all the design choices in GNOME Shell. But I also vehemently disagree with the idea that the whole objective of software design is cater to individual preferences, yours and mine included. It isn't.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[10]: Sigh...
by sdeber on Thu 7th Apr 2011 06:09 in reply to "RE[9]: Sigh..."
sdeber Member since:
2005-07-06

Human preferences are numerous and subjective. I don't think the designers of GNOME Shell, or any good designer for that matter, believes in catering to individual preferences. After everybody's brain is mapped differently, however slight.


That is why I say they have to offer more PRIMITIVE tools. They are not supposed to act like a babysitter, and we are not babies.

The objective of designers and engineers is to create the most efficient and effective way to accomplish a task.

This is not going to happen, because the nature of different tasks diverges so large that no static policy can ever be efficient. Policies for tasks have to change to fit different tasks, which is something they can never do. It is not even their business, it is the user's business.

Mind you I don't agree with all the design choices in GNOME Shell. But I also vehemently disagree with the idea that the whole objective of software design is cater to individual preferences, yours and mine included. It isn't.

Perfect! Disagreement is an extreme case of individual preference ;)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[11]: Sigh...
by Mystilleef on Thu 7th Apr 2011 06:56 in reply to "RE[10]: Sigh..."
Mystilleef Member since:
2005-06-29

This is not going to happen, because the nature of different tasks diverges so large that no static policy can ever be efficient. Policies for tasks have to change to fit different tasks, which is something they can never do.



Software design is not purely art. There's a science to it.


It is not even their business, it is the user's business.



It's not only their business, it's their job. :-) There's absolutely no way a random user can design a software experience better than a well trained designer with years of experience in the field. The exception of course is our venerable osnew readers. We all know osnews readers are self acclaimed experts in software and user experience design with more than 50 years of experience. And we all know they know more than this stupid designers who sit in their ivory towers designing rubbish. :-)

Of course, designers make mistakes. But even on a bad day, they've thought more about the problem space than a random user would ever conceive. Why? It's their job to do that, not the users.

Reply Parent Score: 2