jasper at xfce.org
Mon May 10 15:12:11 CEST 2004
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 02:51:15PM +0200, Xavier Otazu wrote:
> Jasper Huijsmans wrote:
> >On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 01:46:35PM +0200, Xavier Otazu wrote:
> >>To work in an environtment where user cannot define the most elemental
> >>interaction rules, is like driving a Ferrari with a stiff metal seat ...
> >>you cannot drive comfortably neither use the full potential of the
> >>car... ;-)
> I simply tried to find a similarity between user interaction (GUI)
> and the true potential behind it. I tried to tell that to extract full
> potential you need a personalized interaction with the user. If your
> interaction with the system is not comfortable nor easy, you cannot
> extract the full potential. People with physical disabilities spend more
> time trying to click on the title bar that pushing Alt+Button1, and life
> is even harder.
> And what about the fact that in xfce there are keyboard shorcuts but
> not mouse shorcuts? What is the reason for that difference?
Your arguments are valid, I was only complaining about the analogy.
> I am sorry if you are annoyed by my questions. I think I was simply
> trying to tell what was my point of view, and I would like to know what
> is yours. I would like to know your reasons to not include mouse
> shorcuts. why you cannot comment on that? I cannot find what are your
> thoughts about this questions on any FAQ, that's the reason I asked. I
> tried to speak, simply that, not confronting positions.
The question is not what annoyed me, it's a valid one. I cannot speak
for Olivier, but in general we try to make things work well by default,
rather than supply a load of options. The accessibility one is your
strongest argument here, but there are more ways to get to a window, for
example the taskbar, so I'm not sure being able to easily move a window to
the back of the stack is vital for using xfce.
> > Apart from your actual argument, which I will not comment on, the above
> > is a load of @#$@, pardon the expression.
> If you don't like cars and are sensible about this question, you can
> be sure I'll never use this analogy again. In fact, I neither like cars,
> but I though it was an easy analogy to ease understanding for everybody.
Car analogies have been misused in user interface discussion far too often.
Don't take it personally, I'm just being grumpy.
> >Or it may be a very good one, considering 99.9%  of the people don't
> >to change anything about how their car works, but simply take a few
> >minutes to find out the differences with what they're used to and drive.
... and as you can see, there's always a way to turn a car analogy around.
This also always happens and is equally annoying as the original analogy.
So, please keep asking these questions and discussing the user interface,
but please don't use a car analogy to backup your point. If only for me ;-)
More information about the Xfce4-dev