On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Orcan Ogetbil (oget.fedora@xxxxxxxxx) said: >> What I am trying to say is, a redesign of an interface _usually_ have >> valid reasons. Those users who don't want their menu items moving >> around want to live like automated machines. Forbidding such changes >> promotes lazyness. >> >> If the update removes features that existed in previous version, that >> is another story. I support you forbidding this type of change. >> >> But I really don't buy this "users shouldn't be disturbed by moving a >> button from left to right". If the user is disrupted to what they are >> used to, he needs to learn not to (be disrupted). Do we really want to >> serve a closed-for-learning community? :( > > It's restricting the arbitrary application of change to the user to > times when they are well able to deal with it. If I'm running F-13 > and trying to create a slide deck, and run into a crash, I want the > update for the crash to just fix that crash. Not fix that crash and > reorganize the slide interface so I need to relearn it for the slides > I'm in the middle of. If this change is restricted to the next > major release, I'm expecting some amount of change, and therefore are > better able to process it, we're better able to document it, and so > on. > > Taking your suggestion to its extreme, we should promote learning and > resist automaton behavior by randomizing the menus at each click, changing > the default MTA once per release, and so on. > Random changes are different than planned-by-upstream changes. I don't think I would like to have randomized changes. But I am all in for planned changes that people thought about. Our views are very very different. But I don't need to reiterate my opinions. I am sure you got them. Orcan -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
