Re: evangelist users- the other key note from LCA marketing BOF

[Marcus Bauer <mbauer tiscali fr>]

On Thu, 2005-05-19 at 22:15 +0200, Claus Schwarm wrote:

> Maybe you could move the README into the wiki so it could be polished?

Basically it says:

* the question whether or not to include a new feature isn't "Why not"
but "Why? Is it really necessary to have that?"
* instead of giving the user the choice between six options it is better
to have directly a reasonable default.
* don't bother the user with stuff he doesn't care for
* kiss - keep it simple stupid


some quotes (keep in mind that's all not intended to be marketing
speak):

 - Boring window manager for the adult in you. Many window managers
   are like Marshmallow Froot Loops; Metacity is like Cheerios.

 - Does not expose the concept of "window manager" to the user.  Some
   of the features in the GNOME control panel and other parts of the
   desktop happen to be implemented in metacity, such as changing your
   window border theme, or changing your window navigation shortcuts,
   but the user doesn't need to know this.

Q: Will you add my feature?

A: If it makes sense to turn on unconditionally, or is genuinely a
   harmless preference that I would not be embarrassed to put in a
   simple, uncluttered, user-friendly configuration dialog.
   If the only rationale for your feature is that other window
   managers have it, or that you are personally used to it, or
   something like that, then I will not be impressed. Metacity is
   firmly in the "choose good defaults" camp rather than the "offer 6
   equally broken ways to do it, and let the user pick one" camp.

   This is part of a "no crackrock" policy, despite some exceptions
   I'm mildly embarrassed about. For example, multiple workspaces
   probably constitute crackrock, they confuse most users and really
   are not that useful if you have a decent tasklist and so on. But I
   am too used to them to turn them off.  Or alternatively
   iconification/tasklist is crack, and workspaces/pager are good. But
   having both is certainly a bit wrong.  Sloppy focus is probably
   crackrock too.

   But don't think unlimited crack is OK just because I slipped up a
   little. No slippery slope here.

Q: Why no XYZ?

A: You are probably getting the idea by now - check rationales.txt,
   query/search bugzilla, and read http://pobox.com/~hp/features.html
   and http://pobox.com/~hp/free-software-ui.html

   Then sit down and answer the question for yourself.  Is the feature
   good? What's the rationale for it? Answer "why" not just "why not."
   Justify in terms of users as a whole, not just users like
   yourself. How else can you solve the same problem? etc. If that
   leads you to a strong opinion, then please, post the rationale for
   discussion to an appropriate bugzilla bug, or to
   usability gnome org 

   Please don't just "me too!" on bugzilla bugs, please don't think
   flames will get you anywhere, and please don't repeat rationale
   that's already been offered.

Q: How about adding viewports in addition to workspaces?

A: I could conceivably be convinced to use viewports _instead_ of
   workspaces, though currently I'm not thinking that. But I don't
   think it makes any sense to have both; it's just confusing. They
   are functionally equivalent.