[openbeos] Re: scheduler/reminder

  • From: "Simon Taylor" <simontaylor1@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 14:26:22 +0100 BST

[snip
> > User friendly -- slick interface.  Easy-to-use file
> > structure.  Queries.  No hangups.
> > Geek friendly -- intuitive API, access to CLI, customizability, 
> > scripting.
> > Admin friendly -- Easy to configure, restrict, upgrade, modular,
> > sensible default values, secure secure secure.
[snip]
> > If we stick to these core values, I think we're set.
> >
> > In my opinion, #2 is the most important.  Since we aren't 
> > commercial, the
> > geeks will write the software and the OS itself.  Sound 
> > architectural
> > design (as opposed to Linux-style) which is necessary for #2 will 
> > help #1.
> 
>     Here I don't agree! :-) I think the order is: #1 #2. :-)

Definately #1, #2. Geeks are users too!

Geeks will write the OS and the software, but hopefully they will write 
it for users.

> > To a certain extent, if we do everything right #1 is just a matter 
> > of
> > quality control, that person with a white glove who makes sure that 
> > there
> > isn't that veneer of dust on everything, and sends stuff back if 
> > it's
> > broke.  Making things geek-friendly (i.e.  limited customizability) 
> > will
> > allow us to test (and offer) different paradigms with ease.  Should 
> > "put
> > to rest" (or rather, let lie) debates on whether we should have a
> > mac-style menu or a PC-style menu, et cetera.
> 
>     :-) ... this justifies you choice! Now I don't know the right 
> order
> anymore! :-)))

The user should always be the focus. In the future, when OBOS R3 has 
complete domination on the desktops of the world [evil laugh], 99% of 
the users will be non-geeks. Bear that in mind when designing R1 et al.
 
> > #3 is where OBOS needs to break ground.  Because BeOS never had
> > this.  Again, good design that enables some of #2 should also 
> > facilitate
> > #3.  For example, It's nearly impossible to find config files, -- 
> > mostly
> > because of developers.  It stands to become worse when OBOS becomes
> > multiuser.  To achieve #3 we need 1) a sound organizational 
> > doctrine, and
> > 2) an auditing team that makes sure at the very least programs 
> > respect
> > organization principles -- and at best scans through developer's 
> > source
> > code (when available) & binary (when necessary) to suggest 
> > improvements.
> 
>     :-) Now I think I agree with you: #2 #1 #3 !

You're so fickle Adi!

The organisational and auditing side of things should be handled by 
beunited.org - they are planning to "certify" products as being 
standards-compliant, and suggest improvemts where it deviates from 
standards/guidelines.

As people have said, the concepts of geek-friendly and user-friendly 
are not mutally exclusive - therefore there isn't really an "order of 
importance". There is no reason to disallow access to the terminal, or 
scripting, even though users wouldn't care. However, there will be 
conflicts between the 2 at some point (eg about how many very-
complicated-and-insignificant type of options are going to be 
available). In these cases, the user should be given more importance 
than the geek, as the user forms the huge majority of our eventual 
target market.

Linux definately does things with #2 first (I would say #2 #3 #1) - 
where everything is designed with the geek in mind, and then the non-
geek is catered for as more of an afterthought, eg (as Adi says) by 
wrapping CLI apps up in a GUI or whatever. The thing that sets OBOS 
apart as a project is the desire to make a really usuable OS for 
everyone, and one of the keys to achieving that goal is user-
friendliness.

> Adi

Simon

Other related posts: