Re: [Usability]Re: UI Review Summary - week 2
- From: Mike Hearn <mike theoretic com>
- To: Shane OConnor - Sun Ireland <Shane Oconnor sun com>
- Cc: desktop-devel-list gnome org, glynn foster sun com, usability gnome org
- Subject: Re: [Usability]Re: UI Review Summary - week 2
- Date: 30 Nov 2002 19:46:35 +0000
> There is a lot in there - assuming everyone is agreed that there should be a bug
> logged for each item in the doc I'd suggest we need some *volunteers* to whom
> certain sections/items can be assigned and bugs logged.
> I can start the ball rolling.... if you want I can take a section and log bugs.
> Whadaya think? Which section/item will I take?
That's a good idea imho. I did try doing an independant UI review for
file roller and posting it to the list, but nothing much came of it.
Maybe I should have converted them into bugs too, but after asking for
somebody to sanity check what i'd written (first review) the replies
turned into a wishlist for transparent VFS access to compressed files.
Well, that's nice, but what we have this week is File Roller, and it
needed an UI review. It wasn't very encouraging.
I can't help but think that the current system doesn't scale terribly
well. Shouldn't it be up to the software authors themselves to read the
HIG and make their software compliant? Why does it have to be a group of
people in IRC who do it?
What is simply to stop the release team from saying "we ship 2.2 when
the following programs have been UI reviewed:" and then if the authors
don't or can't review their own apps the dedicated review team takes up
the slack at the end. As it is, assigning deadlines in this way seems
] [Thread Prev