Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder1-1.proxad.net!cleanfeed2-a.proxad.net!nnrp3-2.free.fr!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
From: =?UTF-8?Q?St=C3=A9phane?= CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr>
Subject: Re: This FOSS Thang :-)
References: <uso2en$184pn$1@solani.org>
 <ug4vui1sog06gsn7r2dep8t32pg539pnc9@4ax.com> <usq48p$dl57$1@dont-email.me>
 <17bc1de93bb4055f$981$3331982$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com>
 <usr82n$19trd$4@solani.org> <ut4t4o$32464$1@dont-email.me>
 <65f600a1$0$8233$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <utcpgl$10gjc$1@dont-email.me>
 <65fe0bac$0$2988$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <utn78o$3pu1f$1@dont-email.me>
Organization: Mulots' Killer
User-Agent: slrn/pre1.0.4-9 (Linux)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: 24 Mar 2024 11:33:59 GMT
Lines: 215
Message-ID: <66000fa7$0$2559$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 Mar 2024 12:33:59 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: 78.201.248.7
X-Trace: 1711280039 news-1.free.fr 2559 78.201.248.7:41518
X-Complaints-To: abuse@proxad.net
Bytes: 10610

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.

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.

>>> ... 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.

>> 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.

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

>>>> 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. 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.

>> 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.

>>>> 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.


>>>> 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.

But they do it for all end-users, when all end-users or not the same.
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. And I know
better than you what's better for me.

>
>> 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.

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. 

>> 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.

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

Which is another subject I don't contest.

>> 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. 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
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========