[Panel-devel] The ALI: do we really need or want it?
Janne Ojaniemi
janne.ojaniemi at nbl.fi
Mon Jan 9 20:38:49 CET 2006
On Monday 09 January 2006 17:43, Riccardo Iaconelli wrote:
> Alle 19:46, sabato 07 gennaio 2006, Janne Ojaniemi ha scritto:
> > Why should the user know what
> > application does what? Why should he know what "Codeine", "Amarok",
> > "Konqueror" and "Juk" are and what they do? How does it help the user to
> > read through descriptions which say "Amarok, a Music player" "Juk, a
> > music player" and "Some new Music-app, a music player"?
>
> That's not true. The user have to know these information for bug-reporting,
> know if some problem appears what application has failed, and such similar
> things.
Um, so we should expect the ins and outs of applications so they could report
bugs? What is the goal of KDE:
a) to design a GUI that makes it very easy and efficient for users to reports
bugs to developers
b) to design a GUI which is easy and powerful to use.
To me, the correct answer is B. user should NOT have to learn all those
music-players (in the case of this example) so they could report bugs on
them. I don't know much about Juk or Noatun, since I use Amarok. Am I doing
something wrong here?
And besides, even with my suggestion, the apps WOULD still be there. When the
user accesses the content, he uses apps to use them. This is about how the
content is presented to the user. The fact that I could access my music
directly from content-menu, instead of first starting Amarok, and accessing
it through it, would not really lessen my Amarok-knowledge. And going through
my playlists with Amarok does not turn me in to Amarok-guru, when compared to
using Content-menu instead.
More information about the Panel-devel
mailing list