On Sat, 2009-05-02 at 01:55 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > In the end we still come down to making > decisions based on the opinions of people we deem to be experts in the > field. And if you don't trust the desktop team to make the appropriate > decision in this case then it would be helpful for you to say so > plainly. Well, to put it bluntly, no. We don't trust the desktop team and we *shouldn't* trust the desktop team. So they're "expert in their field". Fine. Cool. We need experts. But the problem with experts is they're totally consumed by their field, and lack the ability to view their piece of the puzzle in the overall picture. There's a reason we have release managers and FESCo. Someone has to manage the Big Picture, and sometimes that requires the "experts" to compromise their Perfect Vision for the good of the overall project. ... And are we seriously designing UI based purely on "the opinions of experts"? Is there any actual end user testing in the loop? Are we honestly expected to trust the desktop team based purely on "We're experts and we say so!" How reasonable is that? No, trusting experts is for sheep. We want to see data. Show us usability studies, or meta-studies of bug reports. *Something* more than "we say so". We trust data, not experts. As it is, the people in the trenches doing QA and user support have way more convincing data than the desktop team. Designing HCI without Humans in the loop is bogus beyond belief.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
