[ubuntu-art] That's a wrap everyone!

[Michiel Sikma]

Op 1-jun-2006, om 15:04 heeft Julian Oliver het volgende geschreven:

> ..on Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 02:26:29PM +0200, Michiel Sikma wrote:
>>
>> I don't think that's a very good idea. We need to select a theme
>> based on good discussion about the propositions in which we provide
>> good arguments. We're all graphic designers, so we know what
>> usability means and what visual identification is all about. At the
>> risk of sounding elitist, I really don't think it's a good idea to
>> let the community get that involved in our work.
>
> that's treading down a dangerous and foolish path.

No. Thinking that it's a good idea to listen to people who don't know  
anything about designing is a foolish thing. People really don't know  
much about that kind of stuff.

You're absolutely right that people know what they do and don't want  
to see every day when they use their computer, but we know that as well.

I don't know what else to say that I haven't already said. Just  
because users might say that something is good or not good doesn't  
make it so.

> a designer that doesn't listen to their audience is in danger of
> obsolence through self-rarification.

I agree with that, but we're not exactly in danger of obsolence.  
There's not a single design team closer to its audience than an open  
source team. We do listen to the public a lot, and I do agree that  
listening to the public is a very good idea.

There's a difference between asking people to give feedback and  
making people vote on whichever theme they like better simply for the  
sake of "having the public decide". All decisions should really be  
the result of thought and good discussion by knowledgeable designers  
based on design principles and guidelines. Decisions should,  
ultimately (and typically, since there will always be exceptions), be  
made by the art team and not "the people".

> Ubuntu and it's software is for the user. therefore, as a  
> useability target,
> their opinions must be configured within the design process; it is  
> only logical
> that they have influence over the end product, if only on the level  
> they provide
> a rich (and potentially diverse) pool of critique.

I agree with that as well.

> Apple, for instance, has really messed up there, by coming up with an
> Empirical model of Useability that simply doesn't work across the  
> board.
> tooth and nail they fight for that broken helper app called the  
> Finder yet
> their _users_ beg for them to replace it with something that actually
> works (ever counted the mouse clicks it takes to perform the
> same/similar task across OSX and Ubuntu?).

I don't get it. I've never heard that people are "begging Apple" to  
"replace the broken Finder". It seems like that's just weaseling.  
Who's saying that, and why do you believe they represent the majority  
of developers? I find that the Finder is a very nice file manager and  
that the Human Interface Guidelines do represent methods and rules  
for making better applications. Panic (http://panic.com/) makes very  
good software and follows such guidelines sharply, for example.

I don't intend to start a discussion about that here, though.

>> All the times I've tried to get people who don't really know much
>> about designing get involved with any work, whether it's print, web
>> or art, I've been let down because even though you'd expect those
>> people to be able to give a fully unbiased review from an outsider's
>> point of view, they really just will either approve or disprove of
>> whatever you've made based on ridiculous criteria.
>>
>
> people don't have to know about semiotics and colour theory to know  
> what
> they like to use/look at day in, day out.

Of course they don't.

That doesn't mean that people who really don't know anything about  
designing should have the final say.

I've always been disappointed because people who aren't designers  
have a tendency to simply give really bad arguments for their  
choices, and we can't make decisions based on random input.