Feedback to the Dot story

[Bogdan Cristea]

On 09/05/2013 02:38 PM, Thomas Pfeiffer wrote:
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> Active mailing list
> Active at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/active

Hi

Both Thomas and Aaron came with different point of views, equally 
correct. However, from the point of view of a developer, PA4 is far from 
being a fully usable product and I completely agree with Aaron here. So 
for now I would stick with PA4 alpha release till a true PA1 release is 
ready.

regards
Bogdan