Re: This FOSS Thang :-)

On 3/24/24 7:33 AM, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

Le 23-03-2024, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> a écrit :

On 3/22/24 6:52 PM, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

Le 19-03-2024, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> a écrit :

Plus you're implying that the work done by full time UI professionals is
bad

>
I'm not implying anything. It's clear.

>
What's clear?  "Yes" or "No", are you explicitly claiming that the work
done by full time UI professionals is invariably bad?

 Of course no. I'm claiming a lot of UI professionals use more time to
choose the colors and the size of the angles than the usability of the
tools they design. Sometimes it can be good.

So because UI Pros can walk & chew gum at the same time ..
.. you're jealous?
Or is it merely that you personally don't believe in ever spending any time to make something be aesthetically pleasing as well as functional?

 But clearly, for example, that is bad design:
https://www.workday.com/
It's clear a lot of professional UI designers had worked a lot for it.
I can't understand how so many companies switch to it.
There are others, I won't look for every case I know.

And just what is Sooooo wrong about that website?

 

... but do you have any credible citations for that?  Cite, please.

>
Why should I cite anyone?

>
Because you're trying to outwardly go beyond your personal opinion.

 My opinion on my way of using my computer is a thousand times worthiest
than your opinion of my way of using my own computer. No study can prove
otherwise.

Irrelevant, because I'm not dinging you for your own personal choices for yourself: I'm dinging you because you're trying to push your personal perceptions of what is "good" onto others without proof.

 

When I'm using my computer, I not asking
anyone how he feels about it. I can see by myself that the GUI designed
by UI professionals are slowing me. So they're bad and it needs to be
changed. I have nobody to cite and I really see no reason why I should.

>
Merely your non-professional opinion...right?  Have you ever even worked
professionally with any UI designers?  UI researchers?  Obviously, not.

 That's the really big issue with UI designers/researchers. They work in
their own world outside of the reality. I've work with a lot of real end
users. I know the gap between your fantasy and the reality.

I've worked with both, kid.

 The best tools I'm using are tools written by developers for developers.

The classical "By Lab Rats for Lab Rats" ... BTDT.

No
professional UI designer to interfere and put garbage designed to help
the users unwilling to learn when it become more difficult for the
advanced users.

Such tools are indeed quite powerful, but only after you've crawled a mile through the shards of glass which are their steep learning curve.
There was little/no attention ever spent to make it user-friendly, nor to write anything more than, oh, maybe seven lines of documentation: you are forced to do everything its way, or not at all.

 

And
finely, you can use the time spend by others to start from something
almost ready to adapt it easily to your own needs.

>
That's an argument to go with whoever has the larger marketshare, as
they've had the greatest amount of user UI feedback to optimize from.

>
No.

>
Because your sample size of n=1 is more profound than n=millions that
the professionals work with.  "Check!"  /s

 Still no. The reason is not the market share size. It's the number of
developers involved.

Market share size is important to obtain feedback on design decisions, bug reports, enhancement requests, etc.  Plus when it comes to the number of developers developing said product, what's typical for your "tools written by developers for developers" is that they're one-man jobs (as well as written for a very small set of customers) which means that you have a single point of failure for its maintenance.

The market share is full of end users unwilling to
do the least effort to learn. The difference doesn't come from the end
users but from the developers.

Sounds more like you're being an arrogant l33t who enjoys looking down your nose at those who haven't gone through your same level of pain of learning how to use use some lab rat software which had made no effort to not be hard to learn.

 

When I want a theme, I can find a few even with a limited market
share.  I don't find the exact one that I want, but I can find easily a
close enough one. When I want a way to do something, I can find someone
who needed it before me or something close. Without need of market
share.

>
Except you're failing to show how your choice provides for an
objectively more productive UI.  It is clear that you don't know if
you're becoming more productive or less based on your UI choice.

 I can see it by myself. I have nothing more to show. I gave you one simple
example. You are unable to look at it.

By your own metric, here's definitive proof you're wrong: www.google.com    /s

There's a lot of
configuration files and ideas to help you improve your configuration
effortlessly.

>
Still isn't a zero amount of time ... which adds up the more you tweak.

>
Yes, but the amount of time added is less than the time I would loose by
using a default done by a bad UI designer.

>
Not so, because you've not quantified what the productivity hit was this
allegedly "bad UI":  you merely claiming something doesn't make it true.

 If I loose some time, it's bad for me. If I see a lot of people losing
time it's bad in a general sense. If I see a lot of people asking for
help, it's a proof that it's bad. I claim I'm faster with my way of
doing things than when I do things designed by Microsoft (when I need to
ask for help sometimes). I know it. I see it every day.

No, simply "seeing lots of people" needing help isn't proof that something is bad:  it is proof that everything has a learning curve,
and poor training.
Likewise, even if you "see it every day" doesn't mean much when you don't have supporting documentation for its productivity effects.
Plus you're trying to disregard the many hours/days that it took you to claw up your personal learning curve of using poorly UI designed software simply because it was in your past.

When I do something it's useful for a really long time. For example,
When I started to learn about tilling Windows Managers, it was with
wmii. Then I was able to use a lot of its configuration to switch to
i3wm. And then, it was the same with swaywm. So with the lot of
similarities between the WM, I used the same shortcuts and I didn't need
to learn anything new. For a very few time invested during the years.
Unlike Windows, which changed everything with each upgrade and I needed
a few months to find my way out each time.

>
Which for users who don't need to know how to program tiling, but just
use the UI, this is relevant...how?

>
That's exactly my point. Thanks a lot for your support. You really
dismissed my points because you consider they are irrelevant when you
don't understand them.
>
I'll rephrase it.
You say: "If you value your time, do my way."

>
Nope.  I'm saying that the UI professionals know what they're doing, and
that there's productivity value gained through UI standardization.

 Your way is to follow UI professionals. So it's what I say.

No, I'm saying that UI pros actions are more trustworthy than some old dude ranting on USENET that the pros all suck and that he knows better.

 But they do it for all end-users, when all end-users or not the same.

Because there's never any specialization?  Bull.  Some software is for self-selected user groups and consequently have complex UIs that invoke a long learning curve; the UI "art" there is to make them have a less steep learning curve that makes its advanced elements more discoverable and thus accessible to their customer base...ie, lower friction.

Some are more technical than others, some are more functionals, some are
more willing to learn, some are using it on a day to day basis, some are
using it only once a month or once a year. Some want to use it, some
don't.
 So, by design, ou can't have something perfect for everyone.

That's a non sequitur, because no solution will ever be able to be optimal at everything.

And I know better than you what's better for me.

Non sequitur again, because you're trying to extrapolate your personal optimization (belief or real) as being optimal for everyone else.

I say: "I value my time and your way will slow me and make me lose my
time."

>
That does appear to be what you're saying, but it was done without you
offering objective proof that "your way" actually is more productive,
either for you or for anyone else.

 I. DON'T. CARE. FOR. ANYONE. ELSE. What part don't you understand? I'm
not an English speaker, I can try to say it in another way if it's
needed.

Yes, we know that you only care about yourself.
Other people aren't as craven as you are, in that they also care about others.

 I care for me. My way is better for me. I don't claim my way is better
for others: I just don't care. What don't you understand.

Your statement is incorrect: you do care. If you honestly believed that others don't matter then you'd not be evangelizing. It is obvious that the reason why you're making such an effort to try to defend your workflow is to try to "sell" it to others.

 

You say: "Your arguments are irrelevant for people who don't like your
way."

>
Incorrect.  In addition to noting (above) that you've not come close to
substantiating your claim, I'm saying here that the UI developers are
optimizing for their majority use case.  Plus those users do not need to
get down into the weeds of UI is driven by wmii, i3wm, or swaywm.
Indeed, the very fact that you called out those protocols is an
illustration of how far you're off of consideration of the mainstream
use case.

 And still you refuse to believe I'm more productive in my way than in
Windows/Mac way. So it's far from incorrect.

Incorrect: it doesn't matter to others if "your way" is better for you.

 

Finally, I've noted that there is positive value in productivity in
there being UI standardization.

 Which is another subject I don't contest.

Unless it is some standardization that others choose to use that you do not use.  /s

 

And that's where your arguments are garbage. I don't care about the way
the others are using their computers. I care about the way I'm using
mine.

>
Its perfectly fine for you to optimize "for you".  The problem that you
have is, as already noted above, you have no objective substantiation
that you're actually optimizing it even for just yourself.

 I provide you an easy example. Only one line.

Oh, you're referring to that command line bit.
Come to think of it, did you ever answer my question of what your workflow changes to for when the target file is not a PDF?

It's easy to see how it's
fast to write. It's easy to see how it's fast to use. It's easy to see
how it's difficult for me who's always on the keyboard to switch to
the mouse to find the file explorer and to find the directories and the
files in it.

What percentage of all users today use CUI so exclusively? 0.0001%?
Congratulations for living long enough to become a niche use case.

 Still you refuse to consider it can be better for me because no one
payed by a company will be willing to study my way of doing things that
can be good only for me.

No, that is not what I'm saying.  What I am saying is that you have no credible evidence that your use case is generalizable to the broader population of today's computer users.
You probably have a decent argument if we were still in the pre-1984 era where CUIs were prevalent, but this is the GUI century for most people.

 

So, when you say: "Do my way because others don't like your way, it's
better for you.", it's just shit.

>
Nope. You are totally free to be stupid and refuse to apply the Best
Practices as applied by pro's who are paid to do this sort of work.

 I refuse to apply the best practices designed for others when I can see
by myself they don't suit me. You can consider it stupid, it's an honour
to be considered stupid by a sheep.
 OK, you don't trust/believe/understand what I say. It's useless to go
further.

No, I get it:  you are a PROUD CUI WARRIOR!
And for some tasks, CUI is superior to GUI - its why we still have keyboards on desktop PCs.
But for an ever-increasing share of users, employment of CUI ... and keyboards ... is declining.  I've been noticing that even the written word is getting more and more use of voice-to-text instead of typing, for example.

 By the way, my way of doing things doesn't change with every update.
Unlike Microsoft. So if say, the design of Windows 7 is good, why change
it for Windows 8? Do you really believe you win productivity when your
end users have to lose time to know where they need to click once the
interface changed?

You have a point in that "change for change's sake" is generally not a good thing, but we are often unable to see shifts in the terrain of the forest when we're squinting at the UI bark of the trees.  Likewise, some UI "helpers" turn out to be bad ideas and we may not know until we try.
The same holds true back on the CUI prompt too:  we've just forgotten.

Where the line is drawn is when you recommend to others that they should
be just as obstinately stupid as you are oh so proudly being.

 When did I recommend to others to do the same? It's the only part of the
discussion I would consider answering if my provider display your
answer.
 Because I don't care if your lack of brain makes you follows the reports
without the ability to understand them. But when you tell I want to
impose my way on others, it's another story.

Insult attempts show that you're frustrated because you've not really been listening to what I've been saying. You are entrenched in your ways and closed to new ideas such that you've become stagnant.
-hh