[Libreoffice-ux-advise] ux-advise advice

[Jean-Francois Nifenecker]

Hello Michael and all,

wow! At least! Some *precise* and to the point answers! Thanks!

Le 18/02/2012 09:21, Michael Meeks a écrit :
>
> On Sat, 2012-02-18 at 08:50 +0100, Jean-Francois Nifenecker wrote:
>> As I understand (correct me if necessary) this list goal -- which I find
>> excellent -- is to narrow the topic to actual user experience
>> enhancements
>
> 	Well - the idea is that this is a place that hackers can get advice
> from user experience experts. ie. "I want to do XYZ change, I have a
> patch to do it - first let me check with some UX experts". It is
> intended to try to build good relationships between designers and those
> who actually implement their designs, thus far it seems to be working.

Ah! Ah! I'm starting to get the real thing which has nothing to see with 
what I was presented at first: this list is in *no* way for users to ask 
for a change/enhancement to the devs! It is all the way around: the devs 
are those asking for advice to the world.

So, if this is the actual goal, telling people in the users' discussion 
lists to come here is plain *wrong*.

-> The list to go is *[design]* isn't it?

>
>> My feeling, at this first participation, is that apparently
>> it's quite difficult to make ideas flow here when one's not from the
>> happy few.
>
> 	The design list is a great place for this 'flowing' of ideas.

uh uh...

>
>> So here are a few questions of mine that will help me understand the
>> nuts and bolts of this list: Where do the discussions lead ? Who decides
>> to (not) implement a change discussed here ? When is a consensus
>> considered valid ? Who decides that ?
>
> 	So in all of these cases, the discussions produce advice to a developer
> who asked for advice. It is fairly useless having a consensus solely of
> people who are unable to make any real change in the code :-) As such,
> pissing off the developers by immoderate criticism is a highly
> ineffective way to achieve any change, instead it is likely to solidify
> opposition.

Now I have a much clearer view of this list usage. It seems I goofed and 
pissed people off without even knowing I did so. Sorry for that.

-> I guess TDF should make things clearer to the outer world and 
internally. *Much* clearer. This would be a service to all: the devs who 
wouldn't be bothered by some "whingers" (like myself, though I wouldn't 
classify me as such) and users like myself who wouldn't spoil their time 
sending hopeful messages to some inappropriate place.

>
>> As I wish to post a few new messages wrt various UX topics I'm
>> considering important, I'd better know how things are held so that the
>> threads don't go wild because of respective ignorance.
>
> 	If this is initiated by you, and you have no intention of doing any
> coding on the topic, this is the wrong place - please try the 'design'
> list.

*Now* I understand that. Thanks again for clarifying.

-> don't you think it would be *very* beneficial to all to make things 
*very* *very* *VERY* clear about what each list is meant for? Who's 
asking what to whom?

Thanks again for answering and giving me a clearer view about UX. It's a 
shame that those who participate (hey, Cedric!) are themselves directing 
people here while we (I) should go elsewhere (ie, [design]). Then they 
feel pissed off... Doh!


So I see that my place is not here. I'll un-subscribe when this thread 
is over and leave you in peace. Accept my apologies for my dumb 
questions. I'll go the [design] route. Hopefully my messages will find 
their way there.


PS: wrt the text boundaries thingy, do you know if that feature 
discussed on [design]? If it was not, then we're in a catch 22.


Best regards,
-- 
Jean-Francois Nifenecker, Bordeaux