Re: The path of least blame

[Tim Murphy <tnmurphy gmail com>]

The whole problem sort of comes from the fact that the idea of an "Application" is an oddity.

What we really have are objects in the users' perspective - web pages of streams of commands in a terminal or documents in an editor.  Thinking about "Applications" gets in the way of seeing the problem - when I'm using a computer I think about the things I'm working on, not the software equivalent of a pen or scissors that I am using to perform the work.

One wants users to be able to find, access create these things. There are applications to do it.  Some applications handle the ability to work with multiple objects (e.g. firefox tabs and windows) and some do but not well (terminal tabs of limited appeal). Into the mix comes the fact that processes are

a) Robust - one window can crash but others run on.  This is amply demonstrated by the hoopla surrounding Chrome's use of processes for each tab.
b) New contexts where we can do something different without upsetting what we're working on now.

In general some people really have a problem with thinking that they know what I should or shouldn't want to do.  e.g. I might have 2 sound cards and 2 rooms in my house so I might want multiple copies of my music player running.  Anyone who says "nobody needs to" should probably pause and consider if they aren't simply demonstrating a lack of imagination and consideration.

I think what is needed is:
1) A way to work with multiple objects
2) A way to create new objects without affecting any that we're working on now (for some of us this is the more important one e.g. a new terminal window for a new little task)
3) A way to have the reliability of "forking a new process" at all times.

Since Firefox has decided to be good at handling multiple web pages, there is no need for it to launch multiple instances to cope with new pages.

Since the terminal is not so good, launching a new terminal on each press is useful.

In either case, however, clicking has the effect of creating a new object (empty terminal or blank web page).   This makes sense.  A button which creates a new object one minute and merely shows you that object again the next time you click on it is not consistent.

Regards,

Tim

N.B. Apologies to Antonio for forgetting to reply-all

2011/8/6 António Fernandes <antoniojpfernandes gmail com>

2011/8/6 Aurélien Naldi <aurelien naldi gmail com>

Maybe it's users' expectation that is wrong

This is why users get angry. How can an expectation be wrong? It is always right. It is only that expectations are different. For some, they expect a new instance should be started, for others they expect to be taken to the existing instance. My point is that if software does not have enough information to perform as expected, it should choose the option that does not allow users to blame it.

Even if both expectations were equally valid, that would be the wrong criterion. Software exists to help users, not to save itself from blame. 

Hi,

I agree that software is here to help and doesn't care about being blamed, but people writing the software do care :)

Sure, I am sorry. I understand that getting blamed matters, but it should not be the only and ultimate criterion for user experience design decisions. This is what I meant, but phrased it poorly.

_______________________________________________
gnome-shell-list mailing list
gnome-shell-list gnome org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list

--
You could help some brave and decent people to have access to uncensored news by making a donation at:

http://www.thezimbabwean.co.uk/friends/

-- 
You could help some brave and decent people to have access to uncensored news by making a donation at:

http://www.thezimbabwean.co.uk/friends/