Comment 20 for bug 882274

On 28/10/11 14:59, Marco Biscaro wrote:
> But do you agree that with a "locked" UI it's much hardier to reach
> more people?

Yes. But Unity is not locked. There are several options. It's a matter
of debate which options we should have. I'm glad we agree that we should
not have every possible option, and I trust you can appreciate we are
unlikely to agree on precisely which options we will have. Therefor, I
trust you recognise that we will have some specific differences of
opinion, and that this is normal.

If you recognise that, you will likely also recognise that we have a
framework of responsibility in Ubuntu which means we know who is going
to carry the day when there is a disagreement. In this case, it is me.

> I think customization is the point. The software needs to adjust
> itself to the user, not the inverse. A very factual point: minimize
> windows when clicking in the launcher icon. That is bug #733349 (which
> has 133 affected people and 7 duplicates). You (design team) simply
> said "the design and user-interaction discussion does not agree with
> this". Two questions: 1. Why? This was not explained. This is the
> great issue discussed here: we (community) don't know what are the
> design concepts and ideas behind unity.

In this case, the principle would be that the consequence of an action
should generally be consistent, unless the action appears to set itself
up for reversal. So, clicking twice on an icon should generally do one
thing twice, not one thing then the opposite. In this case, the one
thing is "show the application".

If the icon changed when you clicked it, for example it got an "on"
switch, then it might invite you to turn it "off" by clicking again. But
it doesn't. So clicking the icon should always show the app. Which it does.

> And in situations like this, we simply get a "won't fix" without
> aparent reason. 2. Are the features and options for you, design team,
> or for users?

For users, and we test that with blind testing, not by counting me-too's
and shouts.

> Do you agree that a bug with 133 people who claim to be affected, with
> 196 comments and 7 duplicates is a significant thing? But again: all
> of us simply got a "no", and not a why. I understand that you (unity
> developers) have a lot of bugs to solve and things to polish that are
> more important than adding a new feature, but keep reading...
>> Now, if I spent all day defending, explaining, and responding to every
>> request, we'd get nothing done.'
> Agreed. But I really think we deserve some explanations, and not bugs
> closed as "won't fix" and that's it. All you need to do is to write one
> or two sentences that explain why it was closed.

You'll find several comments from me on these bugs. If I have to respond
with one or two sentences to every commenter, I'll not have time for
useful work ;-)

>> Step back and think for a minute
>> about the opportunity in front of us - to bring free software to a much,
>> much wider audience.
> Ok. I'll do so keeping the bug I cited above in mind (bug #733349).
>> Is the thing you're demanding so important that it
>> should come before that?
> Obviously it's not. But it's a *way* to bring free software to a much
> wider audience (customization for those that want it, migration from
> other OS made simpler).

Customization comes at a cost for those who don't want it. Every option
adds a cost. Adding all the options everyone wants results in software
nobody will like. The balance is not going to be liked by everyone too.
Accept that.

>> Have you figured out what you can offer in
>> exchange? Are you willing to do the work yourself?
> Yes, I'm ready to do so. At truth, I've already done. It's an option is
> cssm, disabled by default, that allows users to enable this
> funcionality. But I get a big "no", again, without reason. See

This is not an option I want to carry in the codebase.