Feedback to the Dot story

[Thomas Pfeiffer]

On 05.09.2013 13:30, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> so what do we do? wait until there are only tasks that a majority of random
> test subjects do well on?

Do you think the tasks for the test were picked randomly? Most of the 
tasks in the test are essential for working with what sets Plasma Active 
apart from other OSes (like adding things to Activities, tagging stuff 
in Files or using SLC). It's not the first time I set up a usability test.

>> To me, this is not a "polished product", this is still an (advanced)
>> early adopter / developer version.
>
> i understand you feel this way (i noted so in my earlier email, even). this is
> not your call to make, however.

It's standard procedure in human-centered design to do a usability test 
before releasing a product. And in every company I've worked with, 
people not being able to finish important tasks (or having big problems 
along the way) results in a red light, forcing the product team to do 
another iteration before release.
I know that's not the way it works in FOSS: We release early versions 
into the public to get feedback from a wide range of people. That's 
absolutely okay, but calling it a "polished product" instead of an early 
version still does not make sense to me.
It's not my call, but it isn't yours, either. If the majority of the 
team feels that PA4 is a polished product (which may very well be the 
case), then I have to bow to that majority, of course.

>> And since we target early adopters
>> and devs, why do we call it "polished product”?
>
> we target early adopters and devs because there are no devices that it comes
> pre-installed on.

Yet I have heard several times things along the lines of "The people we 
target with PA4 will be fine with that", which translates to me as "We 
assume the target audience of this release to have above-average 
computer skills".

>>> real products ship. real products are not perfect. yet somehow people use
>>> them and even fall in love with them.
>>
>> Release early, release often, I know. That's what all FOSS should do and
>> most do. But e.g. Simon or KTp give their - already pretty mature -
>> products 0.X version numbers and say they'll call them 1.0 when they
>> find nothing really missing anymore (that doesn't mean they cannot be
>> improved anymore, though).
>> I know this isn't about version numbers, but I've never heard David call
>
> yes, it is not about version numbers.
>
> that said ... Simon is quite mature; KTp still has a ways to go. regardless,
> one of the hurdles KDE projects face is this perfectionism bleeding over into
> public communication.

I consider both Simon and KTp pretty successful, despite their making 
clear that they are not "1.0" yet.

> we can, and do, have all sorts of valid criticisms of the products produced.
>
> for most people, that doesn’t matter one bit. and so when we go out and tell
> people how *bad* our software is (which is exactly what your messaging
> translates to in people’s minds) they just don’t use the software at all or if
> they do they focus on the negatives we’ve  primed them for.
>
> the result is that they do not use software that would actually work *just
> fine* for them and even make them happy.
>
> why? because we’ve pointed out what it does not do well in an attempt to over
> our ass instead of highlighting what it does do well and focusing people on
> that.

I know this list is publicly readable, but do you think what's written 
on this list directly affects public opinion? Read the quote from me in 
the article. Does this sound like pointing out how bad PA4 is to you?

>> I don't mean to say that we did bad work, because we didn't. We did
>> great work, but we still have more great work to do before we have a
>> "polished product". PA4 is great, but still very "rough" in a whole lot
>> of ways.
>
> shall i list all the bugs i run into on a daily basis on my (not very old)
> Android phone?
>
> shall i share the pain of watching my brother-in-law use his brand new top-of-
> the-line Android phone while he complains about this or that as he fiddles
> about with it?
>
> you are trying to live in a world of perfection that doesn’t exist, and that
> mindset is an existential threat to the  project.

I pointed out why I would not consider PA4 a polished product. I did not 
write a blog post about PA4 being bad or anything.

I have different standards for "polished" than you. That's fine with me, 
but I don't think that means I'll have to shut up and keep my standard 
for myself.
To me it's similar with bugs: I may have annoyed you and Marco and 
possible others as well when I insisted on several bugs being fixed 
before release.
However it turns out that fixing these bugs took only a few days, 
resulting in improved quality. And it was not that bug fixing which 
delayed the release in the end. I gave my green light on august 16th. If 
I'd kept my mouth shut, those bugs would still be in there.