Use of library names (Akonadi, Solid, Nepomuk, Phonon etc.) in user interfaces

[Casper Clemence]

Following the mailing of Michael O'Shea and reply of Jakob Petsovits, I'd
just like to add a voice of support to the KDE useablity peeps and the idea
that it is really worth expending the effort to design interfaces that are
both elegant and powerful. Apart from anything else I think that well
designed interfaces force or at least promote well designed abstractions in
the software. If a programmer believes he can bundle any bag of variables
into an "advanced features" dialog and have the process made comprehensible
by a wizard he needent think about what 'makes sense'.

The advanced / wizard dichotomy I think is a big reason many users don't
understand their Windows software and consequently get frustrated with it.

Regarding the definition of "intuitive" the meaning has not as far as I
understand been twisted by coders. The meaning in "intuitive interface",
i.e. knowable by intuition is as widely used as that in "intuitive
knowledge" i.e. known through intuition. Perhaps this isn't what you meant.


Casper
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20080609/39b25920/attachment.htm>