[Bf-funboard] UI Mockups

Jude Jackson syzygy6 at gmail.com
Sun Sep 29 21:18:17 CEST 2013

You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.

The "average user" can obviously be many things depending on how you
measure averages and when user testing, a mean of users is not the goal.
However it is well known that there are certain paradigms for use, and it
is merely necessary to find the most useful paradigms. For the majority of
people who enjoy Lays potato chips, they can happily agree on one of a few
popular flavors (let's say plain, garlic and onion, and BBQ) without
quibbling over exactly how much salt or onion flavor a given flavor has. In
short, what you want is the "average" user within a use paradigm; ie the
Typical User.

But I'm speaking in broad terms. Countering his vague language with the
vacuous language of Michel Foucault is akin to substituting a dull kitchen
knife for a slab of pig iron. And then claiming the knife if privileged,
whatever you think that means.

On Sunday, September 29, 2013, Troy Sobotka wrote:

> On Sep 29, 2013 9:54 AM, "Paweł Łyczkowski" <pawellyczkowski at gmail.com<javascript:;>
> >
> wrote:
> > I would say that the decision about the importance of UI elements should
> > be made according to how often an average person uses them.
> Terms such as "average person" are also privileged.
> This is why I generally avoid these discussions as the difficulties of
> design often begin with language and sum up to very little real-world
> design solutions.
> In my experience, no one is average. Every person brings with them a unique
> set of attributes and needs based on their experiences.
> A beginner learning 3D has radically different needs and expectations than
> say:
> *) A studio texture artist.
> *) A retopology artist.
> *) A matte painter.
> *) A mastering / color technician.
> Etc.
> Can we ever achieve a balance with the rather disparate archetypes of
> audience members that currently assemble under the banner of "Blender
> audience"? Likely not.
> The positive side of this is that the more granular Blender becomes, the
> more each area stands a chance of being honed to meet the needs of the
> smaller studio situation Ton has publicly stated as a target demographic.
> I fear that without the input of this particular and nuanced demographic,
> the amoeba-like UI debates are nothing more than wasted energy. Moving one
> way today, another tomorrow, with plenty of flailing of cilium and heated
> arguments in between.
> Internal consistency is about the best 'progress' the collective can aim
> for, and make large improvements in.
> Structured redesign discussions are worthless without the focused input
> from the target stakeholders.
> > I'm sure
> > that certain parts are used less, or more, by both the new and
> > experienced users.
> The ratios of usage might help us discover where to rank functionality in
> terms of progressive disclosure. Even then however, without examining the
> frequency from within the target stakeholder base, as opposed to the random
> existing usage numbers, the analysis would be fruitless.
> With respect,
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-funboard mailing list
> Bf-funboard at blender.org <javascript:;>
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-funboard

More information about the Bf-funboard mailing list