[openbeos-cdt] Re: Areas of interest for CDT

  • From: Eddy Groen <eddyspeeder@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: openbeos-cdt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:42:39 +0100

2009/11/7 Johan Aires Rastén <johan@xxxxxxxx>

> To get the discussions started, here are some areas I think the CDT
> could be active within. (...)
I think it's important that these areas are clearly defined when
> discussing ideas, as it will be easier to see the purpose and effects
> of proposed changes.

Because of the proposed name change, I actually agree with Johan that we
ought to think about this. It would be nice if we can agree on the direction
we're headed. Since several days have passed since Johan's proposal, I'm
adding all of them below. Johan likes lists :-)

1. Usability. To understand what the user wants and how they easiest
> achieve that. Workflow analysis might help to increase efficiency.
> 2. User friendliness. How information is presented to the users.
> Includes making the basics easily understandable for beginners,
> providing enough information to intermediate users so they don't have
> to look up stuff in the manual constantly and not getting in the face
> of experienced users.
> 3. Aesthetics. Everything that doesn't have any other purpose than
> making Haiku more beautiful. Of course it's a lot of personal
> preferences involved but I'm sure there are lots of things everybody
> would agree makes the OS look better.
> 4. Consistency. Not the least important but I'd say it applies to all the
> above.

Ad.1: "Usability": absolutely, indeed with workflow analysis and performance
measurements. However, do we have the proper facilities to do this? It
requires controlled conditions, not to mention huge amounts of time in data
processing and analysis.

Ad.2: "User-friendliness": is too vague a term as this definition strongly
differs among users. "Human-computer interaction" applies better here,
involving the question "does the computer do what the user wants?"

Ad.3: Proposal: "Aesthetics and emotion-driven design."

Ad.4: "Consistency": yes, definitely. Though applying to all of the above, I
think it may be separately named because it's also a different way of
approaching design. It takes different eyes to consider consistency. The
only thing I wonder is, what is the scope of the team's consistency
influence? Can it dictate consistency rules to software through the (already
existent) interface guidelines, much like Apple does?

So my list would be:

Human-computer interactioin
Aesthetics and emotion-driven design

Other related posts: