<div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On the contrary, I found Michael's rant refreshing. Politically
correct rants look like a lot of nitpicking over nothing.<br>
</div></blockquote><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">...</div></blockquote><div>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><br>
But of course a little "We shouldn't do this, it's a bad idea" just
gets an enthusiastic push-back from strong-headed "visionaries" that
think they're onto something. When the criticism starts coming in
force and with sharp language, a threat to ration and reason is
made--in other words: humans fear losing arguments in the same way
they fear being punched in the face, and strong and vicious protest
is threatening in that it makes being wrong particularly high
impact. If the whole world is iffy but unenthused, they will
swallow your crap and then complain--unenthusiastically--that it's
not great. If you are being flamed and shouted at, then when the
whole world doesn't turn around and realize how excellent your new
ideas are--perhaps because they're not--you take a MAJOR social hit
and suddenly nobody likes you, and as a bonus they also get it in
their heads that anything you touch is a born disaster and probably
will never come near you again.<br>
<br>
In other words, maybe you'll listen when people actually say what
they mean instead of sucking all the emotional meaning out and
presenting simple facts--facts which you may dispute with other
simple facts. Facts are facts, whether they're true or false.
Information is more than just facts: the emotional weight carries,
and the presentation makes that. Do you honestly think Unity would
have ever happened if Shuttleworth got called a pinhead whenever
someone commented on the design proposal and subsequent betas? It
would have been quickly abandoned as every single developer
associated with the project ran for cover from the raining fire and
brimstone.<br></div></blockquote></div><br>John,<br><br>I can see that you make a good point; bad UI decisions would have been less likely to happen if at first they were savagely railed against, thereby causing the potential developers of those bad ideas to go elsewhere.<br>
<br>The problem, as I see it, is that once the decisions have already had time and effort invested in them, it becomes a problem of, "is all that work I did stupid/irrelevant?" This, in addition to pressing the "I can't be wrong!" button, also presses the "if I'm wrong, my work isn't valuable, so I'm not valuable" button. This is, as I see it, the other side of the psychological "coin" that you aptly outlined above. Therefore, when a part of a person's sense of self worth is threatened by way of intense criticism, the normal response is to "dig in" and fight vehemently to protect the perceived value of one's work. Thus, no matter how bad an idea or system is, those who made it will be all the more stubborn if they feel like they can't concede gracefully. (Incidentally, this is similar to how [useless] bureaucracies become self-preserving.)<br>
<br>So, while I'm, in fact, all <i>for </i>speaking bluntly, I also see the quandary that speaking too bluntly produces when being "wrong" (for the "owners" of a work) would mean that the months they spent on a particular project would all be for nothing, should they admit that they were actually wrong.<br>
<br>As a side note, mentioning these psychological/social dynamics may well push the conversation further in that direction, but it would seem that it needs to be said (and under other circumstances, I wouldn't hesitate to aggravate everyone by saying them). Nobody likes to admit that their thought processes are irrational and/or emotional, since it means that on some level, they're being "stupid" by letting other things control any intelligence they might otherwise possess.<br>
<br>This dynamic (all of the above, including what you've written) seems to have run rampant in the development of GUIs for the last year or so...but I hadn't exactly intended to expose this directly until you began doing so. (Now the beans are "spilled...")<br>
<br><blockquote style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote">
Plus it's fun to read people speaking frankly, though if you spoke
like a Franc I guess you'd have to use a lot more accents and
apostrophes.<br></blockquote><div><br>Well said. ;-)<br><br>--Dane <br></div>