Re: F-Spot mission statement

[Warren Baird <photogeekmtl gmail com>]

Ben Monnahan wrote:
> If expert functions *HAD* to have a negative impact on user-friendlyness 
> it wouldn't be worth including the statement because it would never pass 
> the test. :)  That statement is all about wanting to add expert 
> features, but not at the expense of making it overly complex for the 
> common user.  I like features too.  It's really about making basic 
> usability the top priority.

The statement as it originally wrote sounded like we will compromise 
expert usage for ease-of-use.    I really disagree with that.   I think 
stating explicitly that ease-of-use is a focus is great!

I've worked on designing a number of commercial UIs, and I never came 
across a situation where you couldn't come up with a UI that was both 
easy to use, and provided all of the functionality that expert users need.

>     I really believe that f-spot needs to target both naive *AND* expert
>     users. 
>
>
> Wherever possible I agree.  But sometimes they may be at odds and I 
> think its best to make it clear where the priorities are.

As I said above - I don't really think they are at odds.   I totally 
agree that it has to be easy to use for both naive *and* expert users. 
Starting with the explicit statement that we will sacrifice expert users 
will colour the choices we make all along the line.

>     I also agree with John that shorter is better than longer.   I don't
>     think words like 'standards' really need to be in a mission statement. 
>
>
> I personally like it in there because although its something we probably 
> all already agree on, its something I'd like to have written just to 
> make it clear unless there was a disagreement in the future.  I wouldn't 
> fight too much having it removed though, since I'm guessing most people 
> already take it as a given.

well - it's part of ease of use.   Playing well with other programs is 
implicit in 'ease of use' (IMHO anyways).

> >    F-Spot helps you manage your digital photos in a powerful yet
> >    highly-intuitive way.  It provides easy ways to perform common tasks
> >    like finding a certain photo or photos quickly, organizing photos via
> >    tags, doing minor touchups, and sharing photos with friends and family.
>
> I'd be OK with this, but it seems a bit weak for my taste.  It sounds 
> more like a marketing campaign than a policy document.

I thought mission statements *were* more like marketing campaigns!  :-)

On a second reading, I think what's missing is more details on the high 
end / expert usage...  If I have time before the meeting this aft, I 
will try to draft something...

>  I guess I like 
> the part about prefering ease of use over expert features. (Again, not 
> necessarily at the expense of expert features, as you pointed out they 
> don't always need to contradict each other)

Hmm.  As I said, I personally prefer both.  But to be honest, if I had 
to choose, would choose expert features *over* ease of use...  My 
primary motivation for getting involved in this project is really kinda 
greedy - I want to build the best photo management solution *for me*! 
:-)     But I'm also a fan of ease of use...

Personally, I'd like to see something in the mission statement like 
"Appealing to both casual and professional photographers".

The workflow required by a pro or semi-pro photographer is really quite 
different from a casual user.  I'm not quite in this category yet - but 
I hope to be in a year or two.

I really *hope* that we are as interested in appealing to the pro/semi 
pro photographer as the casual user...

> Warren: Hope to see you at the meeting tonight to discuss this in real 
> time.  I don't actually think our positions are that far apart.

I'll do what I can...  as always, I'm limited by work - at the moment 
I'm free at that time, but who knows...

Warren