[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2006/12/27]
peter@xxxxxxx.xxx (Peter da Silva) writes: >> > I can't parse that sentence. Each part of it makes sense >> > individually, but put together the result is noise. What do you >> > mean by a completely stupid design being sound? > >> Small decisions are often right. Issues which do not touch on >> semantics are often fine. Multi-arch JIT has strong work. > > OK, "Mono contains many sound components, but the design is completely > stupid"? > > So it's like audiofool speaker wires with gold-plated optical connects > and homeopathically aligned oxygen-free copper decals? It seems to me like the GNOME "user friendly" policy: Problem: Users are finding the degree of choice offered intimidating, and what most people want is things that "just work."[1] Solution: Rip out the UI controls every single option you can find, especially if they are software interaction fundamentals. Everyone must interact with the software the same way. You must *not* have a choice about what triggers what, or what reacts how. Then leave all the actual "twiddle X, Y and Z" options that you need to fiddle with in place, but put the settings into the Windows Registry ^W^W gconf database, without documentation, and still depend on people twiddling them. Yay. Thanks team. Your efforts made it much harder and less comprehensible for end users -- unless they have a systems administrator to twiddle things for them. Good plan. Daniel Footnotes: [1] I agree with this sentiment, incidentally. -- Digital Infrastructure Solutions -- making IT simple, stable and secure Phone: 0401 155 707 email: contact@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx http://digital-infrastructure.com.au/There's stuff above here
Generated at 03:02 on 01 Jan 2007 by mariachi 0.52