On 04.01.2011 17:00, peter sikking wrote: > when making UI, one has to: >>> 1) identify the issue >>> 2) find the cause >>> 3) evaluate everything (including brainstorm ideas) >>> 4) make a solutions model >>> 5) design the UI >>> 6) develop it >>> >>> and although things go a bit jumbled every once in a while, >>> this is what happens here at GIMP. >> ==snip== >>> steps 2-5 are what I bring to any project and customer I work with. >> I agree that these features must be reviewed by many people in >> official and commercial process, >> but we also want to have a prototype to get positive feed back. >> >> It's very good and superior point of the open source software to >> implement GUI freely by anyone >> and have review it by many other people. >> >> It's just a patch of the my private work for now, so we can review it >> and simply ignore many >> of them. Let's try step 2-5 based on the feedback from existing >> prototype. > nice try, but: no. > > I tried to show you why in my previous mail. > I can only add that a developer plunking in a code change at > users' request and then let users' feedback sort it out > is the 'armpit of usability' (i.e. the worst possible). see: > What is wrong about a high fidelity prototype? It is a central task of the usability engineering life cycle [Nielsen]. Adding it to master might be wrong but usertesting is not bad. > <http://blog.mmiworks.net/2008/09/armpit-of-usability_20.html> > Improving Flexibility might help... > so walking through steps 2â5 with me (or soon my team) is > mandatory. yes, it is a 'UI maintainer' kind of thing. If you only do steps 2-6 you implement your mental model. Prototyping and user testing is not bad at all. Just my two cents regards Bernhard _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
