Re: [Evolution-hackers] PIM application suite

[Jeffrey Stedfast <fejj ximian com>]

why must you insult me? that was completely uncalled for.

Good day.

Jeff

On Mon, 2004-04-19 at 21:31, Tristan O'Tierney wrote:
> i know i've kind of started a flamewar here and that
> wasn't my intention.
> 
> i'm a developer, a computer scientist, as a matter of
> fact. i'm deeply interested in usability.  it had been
> a long time before i got a mac, and the only real push
> i had was os x (because the linux->os x transition was
> pretty painless since i can keep all my unix goodies).
>  what i learned along the path is how sad a state of
> afairs the usability of computer software is, and just
> how much time and money apple puts into usability that
> so many other companies/groups/developers disregard.
> 
> just as i don't care what an actor has to say about
> anything but acting, i should not care about what a
> developer has to say about anything other than
> developing.  i'm not saying your opinion doesn't
> matter, but what i am saying is you're not qualified
> to argue usability when you are not the type of user
> gnome is trying to target. gnome is targeting the
> lowest common denominator -- the "i just want it to
> work" group. the ones who think of a computer as like
> a car. it's a black box that gets them from point a to
> point b.
> 
> what you fail to realize is by targeting this group,
> everyone benefits. even the people with tons of prior
> knowledge about computers. even the developers benefit
> when you target this group, because the end usability
> improvements trickle down to how much work you can get
> done per day, or at the very least, it reduces the
> amount of per-domain knowledge you need to accomplish
> a set of goals.
> 
> just because microsoft commits usability atrocities
> (like outlook) does not mean they should propogate to
> the OSS world.  we have a chance to do things right,
> why not get it done the first time? i've seen outlook
> used in the corporate world. 99% of people don't know
> how to use it beyond very simple email functions, and
> even then outlook displays about 15 more options at
> any given time that the user will simply never use. 
> that's the beauty of apple's design is that all these
> PIM applications integrate so well, and yet are
> separate from each other. this allows each application
> to focus on it's given function.  evolution is not a
> email program. it's a calendar/email/contacts program.
> this is too much functionality to put into one piece
> of software for the average gnome user.  that is all i
> am saying.  that is why it should be split up by
> default into individual focused apps.
> 
> --- Jeffrey Stedfast <fejj ximian com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 2004-04-18 at 05:03, Tristan O'Tierney
> > wrote:
> > > > the mailer will always depend on the addressbook
> > and
> > > > calendar, so
> > > > whether you load them into the window or not is
> > > > irrelevant.
> > > > 
> > > > in fact, I don't see why you wouldn't just load
> > them
> > > > into the main shell
> > > > window anyway, they're loaded!
> > > > 
> > > > no sense making the user run 3 apps having each
> > > > component loaded into
> > > > each of them. it just wastes more resources.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > the GUI wastes far more resources than a command
> > line,
> > > yet the GUI is far more usable.  resources are
> > > irrelevant here, especially when 128 megs of ram
> > or
> > > more these days for a simple PIM suite.  they
> > should
> > > be split up because they are different functions.
> > not
> > > because they aren't related. you simply aren't
> > > understanding this. mail != contacts != calendar.
> > yes
> > > they are all INTERDEPENDENT. they are even
> > related.
> > > but they are not the same function, it's just that
> > > simple.  if you try and cram too much
> > functionality
> > > into one interface it's incohesive to the average
> > > user.
> > 
> > doesn't seem to bother the average user, if it
> > did... there wouldn't be
> > Outlook or GroupWise or Lotus Notes or... a zillion
> > other groupware
> > suites.
> > 
> > in fact, you seem to be the only one (or, at best,
> > one of a handful)
> > bothered by this.
> > 
> > >  it's a linear function. the more options a user
> > > has to choose, the more chance of failure to find
> > the
> > > option they want and the increased time to find
> > said
> > > option.
> > 
> > how hard is it, really, to say "I want to make an
> > appointment. I need to
> > switch to calendar because obviously mail doesn't do
> > that"
> > 
> > you're saying the average user can't handle that,
> > yet you want to split
> > the applications which forces these users to have to
> > know which
> > application does what? it's the same bloody
> > decision.
> > 
> > 
> > >  it makes interfaces scary and bloated.
> > 
> > ah, bloated. the most overused and least understood
> > word used when
> > describing software.
> > 
> > >   i'm
> > > not sure why you can't understand this.
> > 
> > I'm not sure why *you* can't understand this.
> > 
> > >   the key to a
> > > good application is focus.
> > 
> > there is focus. where is there not focus? how is
> > there not focus?
> > 
> > >   there's something to be
> > > said about an app that does ONE thing well, and
> > > strives only to do that one thing.
> > 
> > ah, the good ol' "do one thing, and do it well"
> > argument. the most
> > widely used and yet least understood statement used
> > by non software
> > developers when trying to argue something.
> > 
> > for a loose definition of "ONE", everything does ONE
> > thing well and
> > strives to only do one thing.
> > 
> > if we split out the mailer, for example, would it
> > really only be doing
> > "ONE" thing? depends on how you define "ONE",
> > obviously. It replies to
> > mail, it composes mail, it forwards mail, it filters
> > mail, it fetches
> > mail, it sends mail, it displays mail, as well as
> > numerous other things.
> > That's not one thing... so I guess by your
> > definition each of these
> > functions should be a separate application too? :-)
> > 
> > >   this doesn't mean
> > > this independent app can't fully integrate with
> > other
> > > related applications (like a calendar or contacts
> > > program integrating with a mail app).
> > 
> > if you completely split them, then yes, it would
> > mean that.
> > 
> > > 
> > > > evolution --component=contacts
> > > then this should be the default
> > 
> > no, I disagree.
> > 
> > > , and there should be
> > > several evolution-pim scripts installed by default
> > as
> > > evolution-contacts, evolution-calendar, and
> > > evolution-mail.
> > 
> > no, if a distributor wanted this, then they could
> > make separate menu
> > entries - one to launch each of the components. that
> > would be the proper
> > way to do it, not writing shell scripts. average
> > users don't use the
> > command-line.
> > 
> > Jeff
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 	
> 		
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25
> http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash
>