Op 1-jun-2006, om 15:04 heeft Julian Oliver het volgende geschreven:
..on Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 02:26:29PM +0200, Michiel Sikma wrote:
I don't think that's a very good idea. We need to select a theme
based on good discussion about the propositions in which we provide
good arguments. We're all graphic designers, so we know what
usability means and what visual identification is all about. At the
risk of sounding elitist, I really don't think it's a good idea to
let the community get that involved in our work.
that's treading down a dangerous and foolish path.
No. Thinking that it's a good idea to listen to people who don't know
anything about designing is a foolish thing. People really don't know
much about that kind of stuff.
You're absolutely right that people know what they do and don't want
to see every day when they use their computer, but we know that as well.
I don't know what else to say that I haven't already said. Just
because users might say that something is good or not good doesn't
make it so.
a designer that doesn't listen to their audience is in danger of
obsolence through self-rarification.
I agree with that, but we're not exactly in danger of obsolence.
There's not a single design team closer to its audience than an open
source team. We do listen to the public a lot, and I do agree that
listening to the public is a very good idea.
There's a difference between asking people to give feedback and
making people vote on whichever theme they like better simply for the
sake of "having the public decide". All decisions should really be
the result of thought and good discussion by knowledgeable designers
based on design principles and guidelines. Decisions should,
ultimately (and typically, since there will always be exceptions), be
made by the art team and not "the people".
Ubuntu and it's software is for the user. therefore, as a
useability target,
their opinions must be configured within the design process; it is
only logical
that they have influence over the end product, if only on the level
they provide
a rich (and potentially diverse) pool of critique.
I agree with that as well.
Apple, for instance, has really messed up there, by coming up with an
Empirical model of Useability that simply doesn't work across the
board.
tooth and nail they fight for that broken helper app called the
Finder yet
their _users_ beg for them to replace it with something that actually
works (ever counted the mouse clicks it takes to perform the
same/similar task across OSX and Ubuntu?).
I don't get it. I've never heard that people are "begging Apple" to
"replace the broken Finder". It seems like that's just weaseling.
Who's saying that, and why do you believe they represent the majority
of developers? I find that the Finder is a very nice file manager and
that the Human Interface Guidelines do represent methods and rules
for making better applications. Panic (http://panic.com/) makes very
good software and follows such guidelines sharply, for example.
I don't intend to start a discussion about that here, though.
All the times I've tried to get people who don't really know much
about designing get involved with any work, whether it's print, web
or art, I've been let down because even though you'd expect those
people to be able to give a fully unbiased review from an outsider's
point of view, they really just will either approve or disprove of
whatever you've made based on ridiculous criteria.
people don't have to know about semiotics and colour theory to know
what
they like to use/look at day in, day out.
Of course they don't.
That doesn't mean that people who really don't know anything about
designing should have the final say.
I've always been disappointed because people who aren't designers
have a tendency to simply give really bad arguments for their
choices, and we can't make decisions based on random input.
--
ubuntu-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
