Workspace Next Sprint Organization

[Aaron J. Seigo]

On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 11:50:45 Alex Fiestas wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 11:02:34 AM Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 05:34:47 Alex Fiestas wrote:
> > > Plasma workspace should be excellent on launching, switching and getting
> > > applications and it shouldn't bother the user while using those.
> > 
> > i think it is a fine (start to a) functional goal to reach for, in that it
> > approaches a specific use case (applications).
> 
> I think I already asked this in another email (I'm jetlagged so my brain is
> acting weird XD) but, why is this specific?

an answer to "finding alex's email" is not "manage applications".

an answer to "turn my computer off" is not "manage applications".

an answer to "have my music volume be appropriate to what i'm doing on the 
system (e.g. mute it when i get an incoming call on mumble / jabber / 
googletalk / etc)" is not "manage applications".

an answer to "how do i organize my information, which is the reason i turned 
on this damn thing in the first place, so that it reflects what i'm most 
interest in" is not "manage applications"

etc...

> > and to echo an earlier question of yours, i don't see how to apply it to
> > Bluedevil / RandR / Kamoso? (i'm fine that it doesn't, i'm just curious
> > that this was on your mind earlier, but i don't see how it fits here..)
> It doesn't, it only applies to the shell (plasma-workspae + kwin), which I
> did in purpose because I'm not sure of what a "desktop | workspace"
> contain.
> 
> If we include bluedevil, randr etc into the workspace then the vision should
> be extended.

does it need to be? the vison is not meant to be (and can not be) an explicit 
blueprint of every possible feature and how it looks. it is the collection of 
goals and values that every feature must meet when it is implemented.

so we don't necessarily extend the vision when the applications involved 
grows; we need to see how those applications can reflect the vision.

of course, these new additions may raise new questions, widen the scope. and 
if so, then yes, we need to tune the vision in recognition of that. however, 
that is not a given. the vision does not automatically require extension 
because the tool set grows.

> > > For the users that need it,
> > 
> > which people need it? which don't? why?
> 
> You only need to organize things when you have things to organize.
> 
> A user that only wants to watch lolcats on youtube and talk to friends via
> facebook doesn't.

(another example might be: a person working in a call center that uses 2-3 
applications on their computer which is defined by the IT staff)

> A user that use the computer for multiple things or in multiple areas (work,
> home) may want to.

which is more common, which do we want to design for? is one a super-set of 
the other? if so, can we design for that super-set of needs?

> > > There is another part of my vision focused on developers, I don't think
> > > it
> > > is relevant here.
> > 
> > be daring and share it anyways ;)
> 
> The workspace should be extensible by third party developers and thus should
> be able to integrate their applications with it not mattering on which
> technology the application is written.

sounds good to me .. we've also tried to focus on "easy" so that we avoid 
something super duper flexble and extensible but also too hard to make things 
for preventing people from doing so; we've also tried to focus on "produces 
nice results" so that people feel rewarded for their efforts (sth kicker failed 
at imho, resulting in orders of magnitude fewer addons for it compared to 
plasma)

-- 
Aaron J. Seigo
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/plasma-devel/attachments/20120516/d71b5fb5/attachment-0001.sig>