[Bf-funboard] UI Mockups
syzygy6 at gmail.com
Sun Sep 29 21:22:30 CEST 2013
(in before "useful is a privileged word")
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 3:18 PM, Jude Jackson <syzygy6 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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>
>> > 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
>> set of attributes and needs based on their experiences.
>> A beginner learning 3D has radically different needs and expectations than
>> *) A studio texture artist.
>> *) A retopology artist.
>> *) A matte painter.
>> *) A mastering / color technician.
>> 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
>> existing usage numbers, the analysis would be fruitless.
>> With respect,
>> Bf-funboard mailing list
>> Bf-funboard at blender.org
More information about the Bf-funboard