IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Seriously.

Go back and look at Peter's point about Excel. Tons upon tons of flexibility and functionality that exists without the need for corresponding tons upon tons of configuration. Which means that allowing people to come up with innovative or unusual ways to use something does not depend upon adding configuration options to it.

\r\n\r\n

But should applications be limited on purpose to keep users from using them in ways that the developer didn't consider? Maybe, but it's not a given IMO. I would personally take that as a strike against that application - not a plus.

\r\n\r\n

You are not talking about configurability here. You're arguing with some hypothetical development team that either A) hates its users or B) has a massive control-freak complex or C) both. Perhaps you have run into such a development team, but that's not what's being dicussed here. And it's already been pointed out that reducing configurability does not necessarily equate to reducing the number of (non-trivial) things users may do with an application.

\r\n\r\n

Your argument recently seems to have been that those who don't like Gnome don't understand it well enough, or don't know their needs well enough, or ... - something other than accepting their honest appraisal of their wants and needs. Yet to an outsider it looks as though you were more interested in "stirring the pot" than putting your money where your mouth is because Gnome isn't your preferred environment.

\r\n\r\n

My argument, in so far as it touches on most of the people who've argued with me, is that the needs of highly advanced technical users often diverge significantly from the needs of most other users. A desktop environment which primarily seeks to fit users in the latter group will, pretty much necessarily, have to either leave out things which the former group consider "essential", or expose them in a different way in order to avoid a loss of usability for its primary target user base.

\r\n\r\n

In other words, a systems administrator needs fine-grained control and configurability of every single option. Joe Sixpack doesn't, and in fact that control and configurability can place unnecessary obstacles in his way as he tries to use something. So if your target audience is Joe Sixpack, you're going to disappoint the sysadmin.

\r\n\r\n

My use of Enlightenment (though I'm typing this right now in GNOME) is based on my understanding and acceptance of this fact; when the majority of an application's or desktop environment's users have needs which different significantly from my own, I don't expect something that fits them to fit me particularly well. So instead of complaining that this makes that application or environment broken or crippled in some fashion, I look around, find the right tool for the job at hand and go with it.

\r\n\r\n

Look at it this way: my mother needs to keep track of her money. Suppose that there's an application out there which just has you type in your initial balance, and then enter your deposits and withdrawals as they happen. If you're tracking a savings account, it could let you enter the account's interest rate and calculate that for you as you go, so you'd always have an up-to-date balance. This would a good application for her, and would suit all of her needs. Now, I'm a small business, and my accountant needs to keep track of my money. Which would be more productive: complaining to the developers of my mother's application that it's not suitable for use by my accountant, or shopping around to find something designed for needs of an accounting practice?

\r\n\r\n

As for rumors that GNOME will add more configurability, I'd want to see much more detail and really I'd want to see how it gets implemented before I judge it; I worry that the GNOME team will eventually cave in to the ceaseless screeching of high-end users, and I know that would inevitably decrease the general usability of the desktop.

--\r\nYou cooin' with my bird?
\r\n[link|http://www.shtuff.us/|shtuff]
New Balkanization
===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
     Let's try it again then. - (ubernostrum) - (48)
         I don't think anyone disagrees with that. - (Another Scott) - (4)
             Re: I don't think anyone disagrees with that. - (ubernostrum) - (3)
                 Sensible people don't want redundant configuration options. - (Another Scott) - (2)
                     Seriously. - (ubernostrum) - (1)
                         Balkanization -NT - (drewk)
         Fine - (broomberg) - (42)
             Re: Fine - (ubernostrum) - (40)
                 Simple example - (broomberg) - (16)
                     Re: Simple example - (altmann) - (1)
                         Hey - (broomberg)
                     No. - (ubernostrum) - (13)
                         Batch process. Automation. Piss off. -NT - (drewk) - (2)
                             It's probably a database permissions problem. - (pwhysall) - (1)
                                 Now that twitch in my left eye is back -NT - (drewk)
                         mickeysoft berk - (boxley)
                         You've made it plain - (broomberg) - (8)
                             You've made it plain - (ubernostrum) - (7)
                                 Reality check - (ben_tilly) - (6)
                                     The statement that highlights the fundamental disconnect - (bepatient) - (5)
                                         Devil's advocate mode - (broomberg) - (4)
                                             You CAN always leave means to override the default behaviour - (hnick) - (3)
                                                 No, it can be very complicated - (tonytib) - (2)
                                                     That's true. - (hnick) - (1)
                                                         ICLRPD (new thread) - (drewk)
                 On its face - (bepatient) - (22)
                     I use Excel daily. - (pwhysall) - (4)
                         And why can't you do sparkle text *and* marching ants? -NT - (drewk)
                         That could mean Excel is a flawed example. - (static) - (1)
                             Number *format*. - (pwhysall)
                         you poor bastard -NT - (boxley)
                     Thanks for that link. Nostalgia! - (Another Scott)
                     Re: On its face - (ubernostrum) - (15)
                         Quick question for you - (ben_tilly) - (14)
                             I do not believe - (ubernostrum) - (13)
                                 Before anyone else responds to this ... - (drewk)
                                 Too Late, Drook. - (jake123) - (11)
                                     Ya gotta admit, it /is/ arse-ugly, though. - (pwhysall) - (10)
                                         Ya looking in the mirror again? ;-) -NT - (jbrabeck) - (3)
                                             I see many things in the mirror. OS/2 isn't one of them. -NT - (pwhysall) - (2)
                                                 And *I'm* the one that gets accused of fishing for LRPDs -NT - (drewk)
                                                 That's because it isn't behind you -NT - (ben_tilly)
                                         Ya gotta look at a version that's was released in this - (jake123) - (5)
                                             Re: Ya gotta look at a version that's was released in this - (pwhysall) - (2)
                                                 Wow. 4 out of the 6 are very nice looking. - (folkert) - (1)
                                                     I take it your wife chooses the decor in your house. - (pwhysall)
                                             Jack, it' like trying to teach a pig to sing. -NT - (n3jja) - (1)
                                                 you've heard him, he cant sing :-) -NT - (boxley)
             Thanks, Barry, now I don't have to write that same post -NT - (drewk)

SoylentSheep is Sheeple!
203 ms