sorry for the delayed reply, I had some deadlines to deal with. Aleksandar Kovac wrote: > On 2013/03/12, at 0:45, peter sikking <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> well, as long as I get shown the middle finger where it comes >> to implementing the control frame of the tool, I think the >> situation is completely out of whack here where it comes to >> interaction design and usability. >> >> remember, it is open source: only successful contribution counts. > > > please don't get me wrong on this one [...] not at all, I appreciate posting on this thread, a lot. > I would like to remind you that open source is not about "only successful contribution counts". We have seen a case or two where initially unsuccessful contribution made all the difference in the long run, when the time was right. That is fine in the open source. i.e. the fact that ideas evolve and flow and can wait for better times and purposes. We have the luxury of not having the strict economic constraints or market competition that commercial projects have, and I think that this is something to embrace. OK, let me explain better: I was trying to say that people who on this mailing list and irc obstinately imply that they also got the interaction design angle somehow covered, should maybe check their contributions, accomplishments and recognition by seasoned peers (all three in interaction design, of course, as should be the seasoned peers). because this is how it works in code in open source and the devs are taking no prisoners in this regard. meritocratic is how it is supposed to work. > But rather, the "open source" is about open access to any development and implementation information for a "final" product. With that in mind, professionally, I am very much interested in your approach to designing interactions. Your work (and that of your students) has been inspiring, but unfortunately has been a bit of a black hole, too. [...] without any cynicism I say that I could use some evaluation and advice here from you Aleksandar, because all pointers say that you are indeed a peer, deep into open source and you are independent of me. without trying to convince you, that design was developed in the open at its wiki page: <http://gui.gimp.org/index.php/Transformation_tool_specification> even earlier sketches were blogged: <http://blog.mmiworks.net/2009/03/working-on-gimp-transformation-tool.html> there were quite few afternoons where I showed the design on irc and adapted it after critique—especially the handle design—until it dealt with the criticism without throwing out the innovation with the bathwater. also I linked to the design in progress on this list, of course looking for attention and feedback. > Either way, that opaqueness of your team's design decision process puts your team undeservedly in a position where you have to announce/defend the solutions in front of the community everytime you "deliver" the solution. well, I would not like to see that this comes to that I have to be more catholic than the pope. developers, open the source for inspection and sharing. but they do not have to justify every micro decision of every line of code, certainly not to non-developers (heh, try...) the code has to work and get past the quality standards and technical architecture requirements of the maintainers. the interaction design has to work and get past the quality standards and interaction architecture requirements of the lead designer. it brings me to the actual point that is so galling for me at the moment. as a designer I have several long-term relationships with clients and partner companies. what I notice about them is the giant trust that comes with them: clients and partners trust that when I lead the design the problems (and they are always big and complex) will be solved and the results will be great; just build it; clients and partners can trust that I never let them down, I am always there for them when they need it. I am now 6 years active at the GIMP project (long term, I call that) and the trust is not there. I really would like to see an explanation for this. > And no matter how smart and informed your solution is, there will always be some middle fingers raised. For various understandable reasons (some might not get it, some might hate it, some are cans, some have different ideas... etc.)... the unworkable thing is that the middle finger comes from the people who are supposed to be partners in this: developers. the implicit agreement—I scratch your back and you scratch mine—has been broken with that. --ps founder + principal interaction architect man + machine interface works http://blog.mmiworks.net: on interaction architecture _______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list gimp-developer-list@xxxxxxxxx https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
