[Bf-committers] 2.5 release

joe joeedh at gmail.com
Wed Nov 18 04:23:30 CET 2009

It's a bad idea to try and design everything about a UI ahead of time;
you inevitably end up making changes once you actually implement
things anyway.  I also disagree that we're risking making a bad
impression, this is a *beta* after all, and plenty of software
survives being in beta (just look at firefox).


>> Knapp wrote:
>> > OK, I can see this point but the other side of it is that we (advanced
>> > users in both senses) are using it to try it out and to find bugs but
>> > also to learn it, so that we can help the next wave of users. If I see
>> > a button is missing, for example the play rendered animations button,
>> > I go looking for it. If I find it, then I know where it is and have
>> > learned that bit. If on the other hand buttons pop up later, I might
>> > already know that they are not there (falsely) or never think to look.
>> >
>> > I think to solve your point, a message should pop up saying something
>> > like, "Not Yet Implemented", just as it would on a beta web site.
>> >
>> > The other plus of this, from a design point, is that we have a well
>> > designed UI. Putting together a UI in bits is how we ended up with the
>> > mess that is the 2.49 UI. It was made by years of people adding bits
>> > here and there as best they could. 2.5 is a total redesign to address
>> > problems like this, at least I think it is. Why not decide where all
>> > the button will go early on? Maybe even plan for buttons that might be
>> > needed years down the road. (not saying they should be seen yet)
>> >
>> > Also the work is not useless, if the buttons go to planed but not yet
>> > implemented features. The UI is a totally key part of the puzzle of
>> > making a great work flow and a great piece of software. It should be
>> > one of the most thought out and tested bits of the whole thing.
>> >
>> > A bit of auto testing would not be a bad thing. :-)
>> >
>> > On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 4:31 PM, Roger Wickes <rogerwickes at yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> With all due respect, I disagree totally with the request to add
>> >> all button, even if they go nowhere. I think it is misleading,
>> >> and a lot of useless work, to put in buttons that go nowhere.
>> >> I would only agree if we were using an automated GUI testing
>> >> tool that clicked on certain coordinates in executing the script.
>> >> In that case, we would want to preserve those coordinates
>> >> for later regression testing. If the goal of the release was to
>> >> get feedback/work out UI placement and arrangement, cool,
>> >> but that is not one of the goals of the release, afaik.
>> >>
>> >> Users that see a button like to click it. Otherwise, you are
>> >> introducing a decision point into the process, which is "Is this
>> >> feature implemented in this beta?" and I would bet dollars to
>> >> donuts they would not know. Hence, if a feature WAS supposed
>> >> to be in there, but was broken, clicking the button with no response
>> >> masks the error, as the user will assume it was not in the release.
>> >>  ----------------
>> >> Sent by Roger Wickes for intended recipient. If you are not the intended
>> recipient, please delete this message and contact Mr. Wickes immediately.
>> >>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bf-committers mailing list
>> Bf-committers at blender.org
>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers

More information about the Bf-committers mailing list