Re: 3.6 Feature: IBus/XKB integration

[Lanoxx <lanoxx gmx net>]

Please not that the arguments I am stating below apply for all areas of 
software, and are not particularly about the choice between IBUS and fcitx.

On 12/05/12 16:51, Owen Taylor wrote:
> Hi Maguerite,
>
> Thanks for the detailed response!
>
> It's hard for me to talk about the pros and cons of fcitx and IBus -
> sadly I don't speak or write Chinese, and I haven't investigated the
> technical operations of these systems either.
>
> But what I do want to talk about is the user experience we try to create
> in GNOME. In general, our goal isn't maximum choice. It's the best
> possible experience.
Im sure if you would ask Microsoft, they will most definitely tell you, 
that they are trying to create the best possible experience for the 
user. But many if not most people in the opensource area are still 
prefering Linux. Why is it? In my opinion it is because of the choices 
Linux offers. It was definitely for me. You can customize windows to a 
certain degree, but at some point you will reach a limit. When I had 
reached that limit I switched to Linux, because I could customize it, 
theme it, and automate it in the ways that were most useful for my 
workflow and my personal preferences. That was six years ago. In the 
recent one or two years however there has been an increasing trend to 
provide a minimal set of choices (Gnome Shell) remove any kind of 
configurability and as many options as possible. Everytime someone comes 
forwards and brings up an argument in favor of more options, more choice 
more configurability, then this is immediately countered with the killer 
argument of usability.
> A user starts using GNOME. They have trouble inputting Chinese text.
> A friend sees their computer, tells them to uninstall IBus and install
> fcitx. Things work much better. Is this a success of Free Software?
> No - it's a failure. We gave the user an operating system that didn't
> work until someone fixed it.
What if technology A works better in one situation and B better in 
another? Should we still make a decision towards A or B? IMHO we should 
not try to make decisions about options but about the default choice? In 
your example its not the operating that was broken but the choice of 
option A over B.
> In my experience, there is almost no chance most users will understand
> the concept of an input method framework. Users are busy talking to
> their friends, doing school work, or inventing the cure for cancer. They
> don't want to take a course in how their computer works internally. We
> can provide options behavior - are they using Pinyin or the Four-Corners
> method? But we shouldn't give them options for how applications talk to
> the input method.
If we include all the options but make reasonable default choices, then 
those users you are talking about can happily work away and keep 
themselves busy curing cancer or what ever. But for those users for whom 
the default was not right, a short trip to google or asking a friend can 
bring them back to what they want. If we fail to provide these options 
we will only ever satisfy those users for whom the default was right.
> We also really value using the same basic components on all GNOME
> systems. You hit a crash on your system in GNOME Shell when using
> fcitx, and you report it in GNOME bugzilla. If I'm using fcitx, then
> I can reproduce the bug and fix it. If I'm using IBus or no input method
> framework, then the bug may never be fixed.
>
> Users should also be easily able to mix and match and switch between
> languages. This means that we need an input method framework that works
> well for all the input methods - we can't have one input method
> framework for Chinese, and another for the languages of India.
>
> So, please make the argument that fcitx is better and more aligned with
> the philosophy of GNOME and should be used instead of IBus!
I disagree, we should provide a standardized interface that allows all 
options. In paralell to that, lets have a discussion about which default 
value is more suitable to the majority of Gnome users!
> The best way to make that argument is to explain it to us -
>
>   * Does fcitx allow for an easier-to-understand configuration user
>     interface? Do you have screenshots?
>
>   * Does fcitx have better feedback to the user while they are entering
>     input?
>
>   * Does fcitx have better dictionaries and algorithms in its input
>     methods?
>
>   * Is fcitx less buggy?
>
> - Owen
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list