Plasma User Types

[Michael Rudolph]

On Saturday 12 April 2008 14:58:26 Celeste Lyn Paul wrote:
> On Saturday 12 April 2008 08:24:46 Michael Rudolph wrote:
> > On Saturday 12 April 2008 11:17:23 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> > > On Friday 11 April 2008, Michael Rudolph wrote:
> > > > ruled that answer out in a previous blog post, Celeste, I
> > > > think, that "everyone" is the description of the typical plasma
> > > > user type.
> > >
> > > we are creating a framework upon which interfaces get built that
> > > get used by the "everyone" set, but the group we keep in mind
> > > while designing things does not need to be the "everyone" set.
> > > indeed, it can be rather focussed. where that focus gets applied
> > > is the purpose of this conversation.
> >
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > thanks, Celeste and Aaron, for your clarifications. I'm still not
> > really convinced.
> >
> > My point is, that all user types are important and that I don't
> > really see the benefit of splitting them up. But I see dangers that
> > this splitting up bears.
> >
> > When we start to look isolated at the socialite, for example, we
> > will come up with personas and scenarios that may very well contain
> > a twitter applet, some facebook or myspace integration and many
> > other things. And if we do this, please excuse my strong words, we
> > would have been better of with just doing a KDE3.6. No one, never
> > ever, in his right mind never wants to use twitter, ever! People
> > want to communicate! We have to look at what the user is actually
> > trying to do. When we look at users in terms of their experience or
> > their background on Linux or Windows, we are already way too deep
> > entrenched in all the concepts that make current user interfaces so
> > wrong.
> >
> > My favorite way to clarify this is hanging up a picture. Say you
> > got that new Picasso for your dorm room and are driving a nail into
> > the wall as your roommate walks in and asks what you are doing,
> > standing on a ladder there. What do you say? - I'm putting this
> > picture up. No one would say: I'm using a hammer. Because a hammer
> > has a good user interface. The user doesn't even realize he uses
> > one. He is completely
> >
> > concentrated on doing, what he is actually trying to achieve. If
> > hammer designers went about as we do, they would create a docking
> > station for the hammer, customizable decals for the shaft and
> > exchangeable versatile heads, that make the hammer so fragile that
> > you cannot slam it, but have to tenderly pet the nail. Users would
> > be more occupied with their hammer, than with their actual task.
> > You are also not aware of the ladder, you just use it. Because it
> > has a good user interface. To use a KDE ladder, you'd probably have
> > to log in, and you'd have to reboot for every rung you wanted to
> > take.
>
> The use scenario is displaying a picture.  The use case is using the
> hammer and putting a nail in the wall so you can mount the picture on
> it.  The environment is a college dormitory which could have either
> cinder block or dry composite walls.
>
> Given a different environment, maybe a hammer isn't available and you
> only have to work with sticky tacks.  That probably happens more
> often in an environment like a dormitory than a house.  Of maybe you
> don't have a ladder because you tend to be a tall person.  Or since
> you are young, you can pick up the 20 Kilo frame much easier than a
> little old lady.
>
> All of these factors are going to experience of the picture because
> part of the experience is putting it on display.  Now, if you are a
> college poster manufacturer and 80% of your sales are from college
> kids, you probably aren't going to worry about how the 1% sales of
> little old ladies who can't pick up 20 kilos and don't have a ladder
> are attempting to display your product. Anything you might do to
> accomodate that 1% customer base might effect your other customers
> and cause you to loose sales from your 80% customer base.
>
> That is why come up with user groups, types, scenarios, and cases. 
> To really understand who is using our product, how, and why.  That
> way, we can improve the product, reach out to customers we want to
> include, and understand when we make a change to accomodate one user
> type, how it will effect other user types.
>
> Sure, *anyone* can purchase the poster and frame and put it up on
> their wall. But unless the manufacturer had a specific interest in
> reaching out in to a specific customer base, why would they risk
> upsetting and losing primary customers?  The manufacturer isn't
> trying to please *everyone*, just their *primary* customers.
>
> Also, to further clarify.  This user group information isn't mine.  I
> didn't make it up.  This is knowledge which exists within the Plasma
> project.  All I did was go about collecting it in a scientific way so
> the Plasma developers and sit down and discuss it so they can make
> use of it in future development of the product.
>
> > I'm not sure I can spark a constructive discussion around that
> > issue, so I'll just let you guys go on for now, but the important
> > questions we need to ask ourselves right now, have little to do
> > with experience or curiosity levels, in my point of view.
> >
> > michael
> > _______________________________________________
> > Panel-devel mailing list
> > Panel-devel at kde.org
> > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/panel-devel

Hi Celeste,

thank you very much for taking the time to answer, also for writing it 
down in a comprehensible way, like I could not have done it.

The only thing I'm still unwilling to accept is, that one has to leave 
the old ladies behind. (how sad is that? :-) A sign of good design is 
that it caters to 100% (which I like to simply refer to as: humans), 
and only if one fails to come up with good design should one try to do 
bad design, that at least appeals to 80%. That's all. 

But I'm very stubborn, so don't waste your time trying to convince me, 
and you seem to be knowing what you are doing, so I will not waste 
mine, trying to convince you, when all it seems to be about is 
methodology. We should continue this discussion when there's a report 
and analysis to discuss. Until then I'm not going to pester you with 
this matter anymore.

So thanks again for your time.

michael