22 Aug
2004
22 Aug
'04
4:33 p.m.
On Sunday 22 August 2004 09:18 am, Artem Baguinski wrote:
John Check wrote:
no we don't ;)
on any system where one can install components there will allways be
inconsistency. mutations make sure the species... sorry interfaces evolve.
Hobgoblin of small minds and all that. ;) People do like to complain though,
so a spirit bead is always good.
Sorry, I
disagree. This kind of thing is MADDENING for users and makes
Linux look fly-by-night.
That presumes we have a monopoly on inconsistency. ;) Having a consistent interface will definitely
work to our advantage, but
I'm talking about near term when I say things like that. Being as I'm not
going to be the one coding, I can't say "must" or "has to".
"consistent interface" is idealisation that professors of human
interaction use. it's a useful idealisation but it has troubled
surviving in the real world.
if the whole bunch of people sais the consistent behavior is braindead -
it's better off changed. after all the goal of consistency was to make
people not notice the interface.
>Of course, you can't force people to
follow human interface guidelines
>in the free software world. All we can do is carefully develop them
>based on what users want, then if you choose not to comply you are
>explicitly stating that you are hubristically choosing to ignore the
>users need for a consistent experience.
people do not need consistent experience, people need to get the work
done. consistency is one of the tools that make getting the work done
easier, but it isn't a goal in itself.