[kde-guidelines] Licenses

[Frans Englich]

On Sunday 03 October 2004 17:55, zander at kde.org wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 03, 2004 at 03:38:14PM +0000, Frans Englich wrote:
> > For editing-guidelines I started to write, it said:
> > "Don't discuss rationales behind a guideline or /why/ it is there because
> > it's impossible to do completely, and inappropriate to do it in it's full
> > length, which on top is necessary in order to avoid confusion."
>
> If you can't explain why a certain usability advice is given you have no
> business of writing guidelines.

You will have to explain to me why the ability to explain usability advise, is 
equivalent to writing it in the guidelines.
I didn't nor do say we shouldn't write the guidelines on scientific studies 
and reports, nor that we lack the competence to explain why we give certain 
usability advice; but what I did write, was I doubt the merits of putting 
that rationales /in/ the guidelines, and make it available to the reader. Not 
a subtle difference.

> I think you of all people know very well 
> that usability advice is given based on scientific studies and reports as
> well as on user-interface standards in use today.
>
> I think you need to read this one again:
> http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-usability&m=109344021328113&w=2

That's the first mentioning of what was decided on aKademy(just so we talk 
about the same thing :) ). As said, I didn't comment on writing guidelines or 
scientific grounds or anything else, but to put that in the guidelines. I'm 
dumb as a door when it comes to reading your archive links, could you quote 
from the text that explains(or whatever the reason to why I need to read it) 
why the rationales should be in the guidelines? Print out a copy and beat the 
reading ability into me? :)

If the rationales wasn't in the HIG, it would be like GNOME's or Apple's HIG, 
AFAICT. So your comments about "If you can't explain why a certain usability 
advice is given you have no business of writing guidelines" and "been the 
whole reason why corporations and individuals like myself have joined in the 
first place", knocks down quite a lot of people. It is obvious we talk about 
different things, since people are not here only because the guidelines will 
contain rationales, I guess. 

>
> > We obviously have some disagreement here :)
>
> Hmm, just you; all the people at aKadamy feel like I wrote above (IIRC).

If I had written, "I obviously disagree to everyone else here :)" or "I, 
compared to you, and possibly others, obviously disagree :)" would render 
your comment unnecessary, but I think it would be quite unnatural, and overly 
elaborated. I can't care less about how many/who I agree/disagree with, and 
neither see what it adds to the discussions(partly because I haven't said the 
current plans should be changed)

It's nothing wrong with disagreeing, and I'm obviously fine with it. It's 
often like this; "Regarding upcoming implementation, Foo will do Bar, but he 
hasn't convinced me yet. Perhaps I'll see the light later on". It's no big 
deal. 

I didn't propose to have it changed, as in "I don't expect this to be 
discussed, or followed up", so you don't have to iron out people disagree 
with me. Just relax and don't comment on it since you win anyway: the outcome 
will be the same, regardless of if it's discussed or not.


Cheers,

		Frans