Unity

Bug #733349
Comment #155

Comment 155 for bug 733349

Revision history for this message

SRoesgen (s-roesgen) wrote on 2011-07-13:

#155

@Roland

I am afraid it IS handled the same way in other cases. For instance, bug 668415 (https://bugs.launchpad.net/unity/+bug/668415) was treated the same.

Users (= 105 "Affects me" voters) complained about the inability to move the launcher. They said they want the option to move the position of the launcher (just the OPTION, they did not want the default position changed).

It was told to us that this "won't fix" by design decision. A user offered to write a patch. But the patch was never written. (I would have been demotivated , too, if I had been in his place -> why should I write a patch which will never be used? Not everybody wants to fork unity just for the sake of two or three changes).

The whole way to state that something is implemented by "design decision" is an interesting way to answer a question. It is is like A asks: "why is it done that way" and B answers "it is the best way to do it that way". After B's simple answer the problem is that A still does not know WHY it is the best way. To say "it is a design decision" is no argument at all; it is no proof at all; it is no reason at all. Worse is the fact that saying "it is a design decision" takes one thing away from the user: the possibility to argument against the decision.
And btw. to say that Canonical made usability tests etc. with a group of users is NO proof at all. The group of people who were chosen for the tests was too small (15 people) and the number of different types of users was not equally divided among the test subjects. (see http://design.canonical.com/2010/11/usability-testing-of-unity/)
Because of these reasons the group of test subjects was not representative for anything.
I appreciate the fact that Canonical did sponsor a research of usability on a group of test subjects. But 105 voters in bug 668415 and 97 voters on this bug here should make you rethink any design decision which was based on 15 people. Heck! I do not even know if these "design decisions" are in anyway connected to the usability tests conducted at the end of 2010. But if they are not based on these tests, then tell me what exactly is the base of reason which made these design decisions come into existence?

@Roland

I am afraid it IS handled the same way in other cases. For instance, bug 668415 (https://bugs.launchpad.net/unity/+bug/668415) was treated the same.

The whole way to state that something is implemented by "design decision" is an interesting way to answer a question. It is is like A asks: "why is it done that way" and B answers "it is the best way to do it that way". After B's simple answer the problem is that A still does not know WHY it is the best way. To say "it is a design decision" is no argument at all; it is no proof at all; it is no reason at all. Worse is the fact that saying "it is a design decision" takes one thing away from the user: the possibility to argument against the decision. 
And btw. to say that Canonical made usability tests etc. with a group of users is NO proof at all. The group of people who were chosen for the tests was too small (15 people) and the number of different types of users was not equally divided among the test subjects. (see http://design.canonical.com/2010/11/usability-testing-of-unity/)
Because of these reasons the group of test subjects was not representative for anything.
I appreciate the fact that Canonical did sponsor a research of usability on a group of test subjects. But 105 voters in bug 668415 and 97 voters on this bug here should make you rethink any design decision which was based on 15 people. Heck! I do not even know if these "design decisions" are in anyway connected to the usability tests conducted at the end of 2010. But if they are not based on these tests, then tell me what exactly is the base of reason which made these design decisions come into existence?