On 17 August 2010 02:44, Henri Beauchamp <sl...@free.fr> wrote: > On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 19:27:34 -0700, Yoz Grahame wrote: > > > Linden Lab has the final say in what goes into the Linden Lab viewer. A > > third-party viewer team has the final say in what goes into their viewer. > > Indeed, but if LL is so close-minded as to reject any change to the UI > that would allow v1 lovers to adopt v2, then there is no chance that > any v1 developer will migrate to the v2 code base... >
That's not what I meant, and if I gave that impression, I apologise. Requests for well-specified elements of the v1.x UI, backed up by reasoned arguments, are something we can put in the backlog for discussion. Requests for either reverting the entire v2.x UI to that of v1.x, or keeping both running in parallel, will not make it into the backlog; firstly because neither is feasible for us, and secondly because such a request in no way helps us to focus on what the specific UI problems are. There have been several hundred UI changes between 1.23 and 2.1.1, ranging from the creation of the sidebar to individual checkbox relocation. Many of those came from resident feedback, or from many hours of user experience testing. If you want any of them reversed or changed, it's not unreasonable that we require specifics and reasoning before we commit to the work. Once you supply that, we can weigh up the pros and cons, maybe open the question up to more feedback, and then make a decision. We may, after consideration, ultimately decide against your suggestion. It's our right as the project owners. Some seem to interpret disagreement as ignoring feedback. This is not the case, and our push for a more open development process relies on participants being open to occasionally losing arguments. We have far better things to do than spend weeks on a project that's all about opening ourselves to more feedback purely so we can ignore it. (Some might see it as a demented kind of fun for the first few hours until the beer runs out, but we're not into those kinds of parties.) Certainly, we've already had a large amount of feedback about what users like and dislike. Much of the negative feedback, when reduced to actionable specifics, focuses on a small number of high-profile changes; for example, the sidebar. When examined further, many of the problems are around certain aspects of those changes rather than the changes themselves; for example, the sidebar's modality and non-detachability rather than its entire existence. When focused in this way, the work required to give our mainline viewer far wider approval becomes much more manageable than reverting the entire UI. Some of it may involve bringing back aspects of v1, or coming up with something new, or making certain elements more configurable, or simply choosing better defaults. There's no single answer, but there is a single goal: we want to make something that's better for everyone than anything we've made before. On a related note, Esbee's put up the backlog: https://spreadsheets2.google.com/ccc?key=tCVGlO5ndR_oyrfKEC9CxKA&hl=en#gid=5 If you think we've been ignoring negative feedback, please take a look. And gosh, what's that at the very top? -- Yoz Linden
_______________________________________________ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
