Design/Meetings/2012-06-10

    From The Document Foundation Wiki
    • Date/Time: 2012-06-10, 1600 UTC (the time below is 2 hours ahead of UTC)
    • Location: IRC, channel #libreoffice-design

    Attendees

    Log

    18:00:38 astron247: Hello.
    18:00:46 alexanderW: Hi
    18:02:27 mirek2: hi
    18:03:04 mirek2: (I feel a bit sick today, so excuse me if I'm a bit slower than usual.)
    18:03:10 alexanderW: Could you quickly check whether you have problems with the BrightBlue masterpage: http://ubuntuone.com/1rcQiE2v1xbJ0lWsIqWWzu
    18:03:37 alexanderW: Bjoern said he had problems applying the masterpage, but I don't
    18:04:34 astron247: no problems in 3.5
    18:04:43 astron247: but ... do we ship URW Gothic?
    18:04:52 mirek2: blueprint plans uses dejavu fonts
    18:05:23 astron247: alex asked us to open _bright_blue
    18:05:25 mirek2: and there are other font problems as well
    18:05:45 mirek2: right
    18:06:05 alexanderW: oh, they are only ubuntu default fonts, not ones shipped with LibO?
    18:06:11 mirek2: right
    18:06:13 astron247: ah, i thought you were correcting me...
    18:06:51 mirek2: when is the deadline for template submission?
    18:07:11 astron247: beta 2 time?
    18:07:20 mirek2: which is?
    18:07:25 astron247: ugh... 
    18:07:31 alexanderW: Jun 18 - Jun 24
    18:07:48 astron247: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleasePlan/3.6
    18:08:15 mirek2: so June 18?
    18:09:05 mirek2: the problem with the current selection of templates is that some take up quite a lot of space
    18:09:39 alexanderW: Well, if I include the svg, some don't render properly
    18:10:11 alexanderW: and at least one SVG is much bigger since it contains several bitmaps
    18:10:26 mirek2: would it be possible to not include the bitmaps?
    18:10:38 mirek2: have some simpler templates?
    18:11:28 alexanderW: Well, they are neccesary for the vintage temlate e.g.
    18:11:30 astron247: thats what michael said btw
    18:12:00 mirek2: anyway, what I wanted to say was that http://spiceofdesign.deviantart.com/#/d52vby2 presents some simple designs that we could use instead
    18:12:17 mirek2: and have the more space-intensive templates presented online instead
    18:12:48 mirek2: I got in contact with the author -- he'd like to help, but has trouble with LibreOffice's theming system
    18:13:15 astron247: @mirek: these templates are heavily font-based
    18:13:36 mirek2: basically all of the submitted templates are
    18:13:38 astron247: we'd still need a bigger selection of fonts
    18:13:53 mirek2: but these templates would work with the Liberation fonts as well
    18:14:15 mirek2: we can't have a bigger selection of fonts
    18:14:34 mirek2: even if these fonts were bundled with LibreOffice, we couldn't ensure compatibility with MS Office
    18:14:45 mirek2: which is a big issue for us right now
    18:15:00 mirek2: however, the templates still work well, even with Liberation fonts
    18:15:12 mirek2: and they'd be quite light
    18:15:24 astron247: im not sure about how well theyd work ... honestly.
    18:15:25 alexanderW: We now got fewer masterpages than before, so maybe we can work on that for 3.7?
    18:15:30 alexanderW: 14 instead of 25 I think
    18:16:00 alexanderW: and those presentation templates with a several masterpages included were removed
    18:16:22 mirek2: yes, but do we need that many masterpages anyway?
    18:16:28 alexanderW: I doubt it
    18:16:33 mirek2: especially now that we have an online repository
    18:17:12 astron247: it's not integrated all that well so far, but youre right we should aim for a rather minimal selection
    18:17:16 alexanderW: Yes, templates for Writer, Impress calc etc will probably not be included anyway
    18:17:29 alexanderW: rather be downloadable
    18:18:16 mirek2: In any case, it's preferable that the bundled designs are scalable and lightweight
    18:19:00 astron247: @alex: can you recreate the bitmap parts within impress somehow?
    18:19:01 mirek2: also, vector-based designs are more generic and less distracting (i.e. they bring the content forward)
    18:20:00 alexanderW: I used them mainly to bring in paper textures, in order to make them less dull
    18:20:12 alexanderW: vintage and cuba libre only, IIRC
    18:20:40 mirek2: to be honest, I would prefer them without the bitmap parts
    18:21:20 mirek2: especially as the template's background shouldn't bring attention to itself, but rather to the content presented on it
    18:21:46 astron247: @alex: where are vintage and cuba libre? they don't seem to be in the package you linked to...
    18:22:14 mirek2: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Design/Call_for_Templates ?
    18:22:31 alexanderW: http://ubuntuone.com/3dhPGPbyYnvvkAjZR8Ffoe
    18:24:07 nrundy: im just an everyday user. if anyone needs perspective of joe schmoe, let me know
    18:24:13 astron247: seems i havent looked at that call for templates for quite a while
    18:24:40 astron247: @nick: youre invited to take a look at our templates.
    18:24:53 nrundy: yes, im looking
    18:26:16 mirek2: so... should we judge the current templates now or next week?
    18:26:33 mirek2: given that the deadline is the 18th, perhaps we could next week
    18:26:55 astron247: okay... i dont really want to judge either cuba libre or vintage... i would never make a presentation with them i think (even though they might be very attractive to others)
    18:28:03 alexanderW: okay
    18:28:45 astron247: but, tbh, i almost always start from scratch with presentations
    18:29:17 mirek2_: @astron: to be honest, neither would I, as I really prefer the most minimalistic of templates
    18:29:41 mirek2_: since, as I said, those bring out the content and are relevant no matter the topic
    18:30:02 mirek2_: anyway, this week, it'd be great if we could a) change the fonts in the proposals to Liberation fonts and see how they look, ...
    18:30:30 mirek2_: ... b) see whether we need some kind of license statement and ask the authors for it
    18:30:52 nrundy: Liberation Fonts look terrible in Word. Is there anything that can improve this?
    18:31:05 nrundy: or is it just a matter of Word users having Lib font in their Word?
    18:31:17 nrundy: Most people I deal with use Word
    18:31:58 astron247: @nick: google made some improvements to liberation and if were lucky the improved fonts will already be in 3.6
    18:32:18 mirek2_: ... c) see whether we might not be able to cut down on the size of some templates
    18:33:19 astron247: so, vintage seems not so hard to cut down: make the bookmark a vector image, the ink spot too and use ~solid background
    18:34:03 astron247: you'd lose quite a bit of texture though
    18:35:12 mirek2_: would that look bad?
    18:35:43 mirek2_: if so, could we just keep vintage online and have a simpler vector-based template shipped with LibO instead?
    18:38:13 astron247: mirek: right now, i think the background looks a bit blurry... so maybe its not so bad...
    18:38:46 astron247: somehow, the financial times keeps their brand image alive just by using light-pink backgrounds ...
    18:39:05 alexanderW: What about the other ones?
    18:42:57 astron247: okay... so what was your question alex?
    18:43:19 alexanderW: Whether to use vector images for the other templates
    18:43:28 mirek2: yes, please
    18:44:47 astron247: to the extent possible with our svg renderer, but no further than that
    18:45:02 alexanderW: ok
    18:45:21 alexanderW: Shall we go on?
    18:45:27 mirek2: yes
    18:46:06 mirek2: would you like to talk about design principles?
    18:46:38 astron247: id like to get something else out of the way before we go into that
    18:46:47 mirek2: sure, go ahead
    18:46:50 astron247: how do we vote on the splash screen issue?
    18:47:12 mirek2: I feel that's closely related to the design principles issue
    18:47:29 mirek2: if they are passed, we'd try them against these principles to see how they stack up
    18:47:29 astron247: nah, i meant the technical process of voting...
    18:47:54 mirek2: we'd eliminate any that wouldn't follow them
    18:48:16 astron247: which would be all ... since splashes are inherently ~useless?
    18:48:27 alexanderW: voting on the remaining ones on the mailing list?
    18:48:36 mirek2: I guess so
    18:48:55 mirek2: @astron: well, they are useful to indicate that an application is loading if it's taking a long time
    18:48:57 alexanderW: Is there an aim what startup times we want before removing the spash screen?
    18:49:13 mirek2: I don't think there is right now
    18:49:16 astron247: none that id know of
    18:49:26 mirek2: but we do want to get rid of it sometime in the future
    18:49:31 astron247: i hope the devs arent too infatuated with the poor thing
    18:49:46 mirek2: :)
    18:50:03 astron247: tbh, at least on my notebook, libo starts faster than firefox...
    18:50:08 astron247: or thunderbird
    18:50:15 astron247: neither of which have a splash
    18:50:22 mirek2: :)
    18:50:36 astron247: (although there are addons for that)
    18:50:45 mirek2: that may be it
    18:51:17 astron247: you mean, so. should code an addon that enables the splash?
    18:51:49 mirek2: about the voting: how about voting on both the mailing list and the G+ page, so that we have a broader opinion?
    18:53:05 mirek2: @astron: would anyone install that willingly?
    18:53:09 astron247: maybe ... and then, discuss any outstanding issues with the top ~2 in the chat later on?
    18:53:20 alexanderW: yes
    18:53:25 nrundy: can the splash be disabled, like as an option in preferences?
    18:53:36 mirek2: I would discuss the issues first, then vote on them
    18:53:36 astron247: yes, what os are you on?
    18:53:41 astron247: (@nick)
    18:53:49 nrundy: ubuntu
    18:54:17 astron247: gksu gedit /etc/libreoffice/sofficerc
    18:55:02 astron247: change the line that says Logo=1 to Logo=0
    18:55:35 nrundy: Thanks! I have SSD so splash is pretty much useless
    18:56:23 astron247: no problem
    18:56:41 astron247: okay, so mirek, when would you discuss the proposals?
    18:56:57 mirek2: I guess this week would be a good time
    18:57:13 mirek2: but, again, I'd like to get our design principles passed
    18:57:19 astron247: okay...
    18:57:40 mirek2: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Design/Ethos
    18:57:58 astron247: im sorry, ill have to go grab dinner ... be back later
    18:58:08 mirek2: ok
    18:58:14 alexanderW: see you
    18:58:35 nrundy: bye i mean
    18:59:28 mirek2: any issues with the principles on the wiki?
    18:59:49 mirek2: (I'll run them by astron later)
    19:00:01 alexanderW: Can we simply copy those of Mozilla? Licensing wise I mean?
    19:00:58 mirek2:  I'm sure we can; I can ask permission if we need it, otherwise we can simply link to Mozilla's page of principles
    19:01:32 alexanderW: A statement would be useful I think. Otherwise they seem very precise
    19:01:39 mirek2: ok
    19:01:57 alexanderW: Maybe make the headlines more readable
    19:02:16 mirek2: these names are useful for submitting bug reports
    19:03:17 alexanderW: I see
    19:03:19 mirek2: I don't think it's an issue, but I wouldn't be squarely against simpler names
    19:03:38 mirek2: one other topic I wanted to discuss
    19:03:51 mirek2: I'd like to get rid of Contests
    19:04:35 mirek2: I believe the only current Contest (templates) would be better off as a Playground, as we can always use new templates
    19:04:44 alexanderW: But not the option to let the community supply designs?
    19:04:55 alexanderW: okay
    19:05:11 alexanderW: merge both
    19:05:31 mirek2: If we need to pick several designs by a certain date, we should use Whiteboards
    19:05:41 mirek2: the workflow of contests was never really well thought-out
    19:06:25 mirek2: we would still need to do proposal analysis and tweaking with contests, so we'd wind up with the same workflow as whiteboards
    19:07:31 alexanderW: I don't think we need several designs that often, so removing unneccesary and possibly confusing wiki pages could be good
    19:07:36 mirek2: ideally, Playgrounds should be the brainstorm space, Whiteboards the refining/working space
    19:07:41 alexanderW: especially for new contributors
    19:07:43 mirek2: @alex: great
    19:08:31 mirek2: is there anything else we need to discuss?
    19:09:37 alexanderW: I'm not sure
    19:09:54 alexanderW: I think not
    19:09:59 mirek2: alright
    19:10:16 mirek2: will, nick, any questions/comments/concerns?
    19:10:20 alexanderW: Did you complete the icon spreadsheet?
    19:11:15 mirek2: only filled it with authors, though some authors weren't mentioned on the log
    19:12:02 mirek2: I know Astron already sent an e-mail asking for permission
    19:12:16 mirek2: Lapo is the only one we've heard from so far, though
    19:12:17 alexanderW: Yes he mentioned that last week
    19:12:30 willubuntu: Well, I'm back
    19:12:31 alexanderW: hm
    19:13:01 willubuntu: So will the splash screen and start center be shipped with LibO 3.6?
    19:13:10 alexanderW: no
    19:13:24 alexanderW: I think not
    19:13:45 mirek2: a new splash screen will ship with LibO, but we haven't decided which one yet
    19:13:56 mirek2: a new Start Center as well
    19:13:58 alexanderW: today is the last day of feature freeze and if that involves coding it would be too late I think
    19:14:07 alexanderW: in 3.6 ?
    19:14:18 mirek2: it doesn't involve coding, just simple image replacement
    19:14:21 mirek2: yes
    19:14:31 alexanderW: oh, nice
    19:14:43 mirek2: i.e. it's not a complex issue, and it doesn't really need to be checked for bugs
    19:15:25 willubuntu: mirek2: Excepted for the start center, the image is divided into several parts. I've got a problem with it.
    19:15:26 willubuntu: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/File:Keep_It_Simple_start_center_screenshot.png
    19:15:40 willubuntu: The items are misplaced.
    19:16:16 willubuntu: I don't know why initial devs have divided the start center background in several parts. Make no sense
    19:16:23 mirek2: that's odd -- replacing the image files should do nothing with the buttons on the start center
    19:17:20 alexanderW: Maybe in order to scale it?
    19:17:24 willubuntu: I tried to have a look at the code, but didn't found the location of it.
    19:17:25 mirek2: your proposal would be possible to carry out, but the look of the buttons on hover and pushed in would probably look odd
    19:17:54 willubuntu: alexanderW: Tried with several environments and the background seems to be not scaled at all.
    19:18:25 mirek2: maybe with languages that require different widths?
    19:18:26 alexanderW: then it's indeed strange
    19:18:50 mirek2: (I don't think that's really the case, though)
    19:19:15 willubuntu: mirek2: Tried with English, German, and Dutch. I will try with a right-to-left language to see.
    19:19:48 willubuntu: I asked the question yesterday on the dev IRC chan, but got no answers (Gsoc mentoring+holiday+wheather)
    19:19:58 mirek2: it's funny -- there were special png's for rtl languages, but they were identical to ltr ones
    19:20:08 willubuntu: mirek2: Same reflexion
    19:20:12 willubuntu: :)
    19:20:23 willubuntu: I think they could be removed.
    19:20:26 alexanderW: perhaps some sort of legacy
    19:20:35 mirek2: that's something that won't be done for 3.6, though
    19:21:49 willubuntu: If someone found the problem in the code, please keep me informed.
    19:22:07 alexanderW: Rafael posted some screenshots of his work btw: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/attachment/3987922/2/td3.png
    19:22:19 willubuntu: alexanderW: in the case of legacy, it would be nicer to update the code.
    19:22:45 mirek2: @alex: nice
    19:23:03 mirek2: @will: I noticed that your template resembled that on http://mirek2.deviantart.com/#/d4qwtkj
    19:23:12 mirek2: did you ask the author for permission?
    19:23:19 alexanderW: who?
    19:23:31 mirek2: will
    19:24:41 willubuntu: I asked the Google+ LibO Design maintainer. He said me I can get inspired by one of these if needed
    19:24:59 mirek2: yes, inspired
    19:25:15 mirek2: not copy one
    19:25:45 mirek2: it's still the IP of Caleb Riley, so you need to ask him for permission
    19:25:53 mirek2: to license it under the CC0 license
    19:25:58 mirek2: otherwise, we won't be able to include it
    19:26:46 mirek2: so... please do ask
    19:27:21 mirek2: also, could you change the fonts to Liberation fonts?
    19:27:54 willubuntu: mirek2: Why DejaVu fonts are already shipped with LibO, aren't they?
    19:28:00 mirek2: nope
    19:28:16 mirek2: at least I don't think so
    19:28:24 willubuntu: mirek2: On Windows it does
    19:28:40 willubuntu: I'll try on my Debian VM
    19:28:55 mirek2: are you sure those fonts aren't bundled with some other FOSS app, like Inkscape?
    19:29:21 willubuntu: Inkscape seems to be bundled with any fonts.
    19:29:23 willubuntu: I'll check
    19:29:48 mirek2: even if they were, the developer community wants the templates to use Liberation fonts, as these have the same metrics as Times/Arial/Courier, thereby making them "compatible" for Windows+MS Office users
    19:29:59 mirek2: and Mac users as well
    19:31:29 willubuntu: mirek2: Ok I'll make the needed modifications.
    19:32:18 willubuntu: It's really constraining.
    19:32:30 willubuntu: Too much rules, even when it's working well.
    19:33:16mirek2: I agree, but it's been decided this way
    19:33:36 mirek2: makes me sad that LibreOffice can't take advantage of typography
    19:34:01 alexanderW: hopefully that will change if it allows font embedding
    19:34:18 mirek2: and be sure to contact Caleb Riley (or should I?) -- otherwise, we won't ship it
    19:35:11 mirek2: @alex: maybe, though that will significantly increase filesize...
    19:35:45 mirek2: the best solution, IMHO, would be to automatically search FLOSS font repositories for the fonts in a document
    19:37:13 mirek2: but that wouldn't satisfy Office users, which, unfortunately, we feel we need to cater to in this respect to our own detriment...
    19:37:17 willubuntu: mirek2: I hoped you were joking with this copyright infringement. But not . Yes, please contact him, so.
    19:37:39 astron247: ok ... im back
    19:37:42 mirek2: @will: no, this really is serious
    19:37:51 astron247: so... yes, deja vu should come bundled
    19:38:15 mirek2: Apple and MS have sued/bullied a lot of money for lesser things
    19:38:47 alexanderW: https://opengrok.libreoffice.org/search?q=urw+gothic&project=core
    19:38:52 mirek2: @astron: even if it came bundled, it has different metrics than Times/Arial/Courier, so it couldn't be used for the default templates
    19:39:03 alexanderW: ^ Does that mean that URW Gotic is bundled as well?
    19:39:29 astron247: not necessarily i think
    19:39:44 astron247: since we dont seem to ship with, say, astron boy...
    19:39:50 willubuntu: alexanderW: Yes it's shipped with
    19:40:01 willubuntu: I just made a fresh install and it is
    19:40:25 alexanderW: good
    19:40:29 willubuntu: So URW Gothic L and DejaVu are bundled with LibO
    19:41:33 mirek2: yes, but it still can't be used with templates, as outlined above
    19:42:54 astron247: @mirek: if we reduce typography to the liberation fonts we are pretty much destined to fail.
    19:43:13 astron247: anyway, i finally found where fonts lay
    19:43:28 mirek2: I'm basing what I say on the last ESC call
    19:43:28 astron247: theyre in /more_fonts
    19:43:36 willubuntu: mirek2: Finally, could you take over this copyright problem and contact Caleb?
    19:43:44 mirek2: @will: will do
    19:44:48 astron247: i know i shouldnt argue against you, but against the people that hold that "just-liberation" opinion but...
    19:45:12 astron247: ms didnt ask us when they introduced 6 largely great new default fonts
    19:45:35 mirek2: I agree with you 100%
    19:45:47 willubuntu: mirek2: Is the default font choice for template definitive or can we have a discussion with devs?
    19:45:50 willubuntu: +1 astron247
    19:45:55 mirek2: that's why I also think integration with font repositories would be much better than bundling fonts with files
    19:46:15 astron247: though, font repos require you to be online
    19:46:17 mirek2: @will: I think it's definitive, though you can always try
    19:46:50 mirek2: @astron: when you receive a file from someone, it usually comes from the Internet
    19:47:10 astron247: not if its on a usb key
    19:47:13 mirek2: we should, of course, ship the fonts in the bundled templates
    19:48:04 astron247: so, ftr, the fonts we ship with:
    * opensymbol
    * ttf_amt (whatever those are)
    * deja vu
    * gentium
    *liberation
    * libertine
    19:49:10 astron247: no, amt are the agfa monotype fonts that shipped with staroffice and these are propiretary, so we dont have them
    19:49:35 astron247: (i think)
    19:50:29 mirek2: I meant that the templates we ship should still use bundled fonts and not rely on these online repositories
    19:50:40 astron247: right
    19:50:54 mirek2: and we should have a "bundle fonts" option, of course
    19:51:16 astron247: on the topic of bundling fonts, i saw there was an AI and eilidhs name .. is there any action in that diraction?
    19:51:37 astron247: [in the meeting notes]
    19:51:51 mirek2: it's being worked on...
    19:52:01 astron247: nice
    19:52:24astron247: is this part of odf already?
    19:53:10astron247: (or some tdf-internal proposal?)
    19:53:22 mirek2: I'm not sure
    19:53:32 astron247: okay.
    19:53:45 alexanderW: From ask.libreoffice.org: No. The ODF file specification does not support font embedding. And LibreOffice does not embed fonts in file formats that do support font embedding (such as MS formats)
    19:54:03 astron247: who posted that?
    19:54:06 alexanderW: oh wait
    19:54:12 astron247: someone reputable?
    19:54:12 alexanderW: 'Pedro'
    19:54:16 alexanderW: http://ask.libreoffice.org/question/648/is-it-possible-to-embed-fonts-in-a
    19:54:30 astron247: hm, no pedro is mostly a user, i think
    19:54:47 astron247: not a core developer
    19:54:51 alexanderW: Dag Wieers said yes, ODF would support it
    19:54:52 alexanderW: hm
    19:56:36 mirek2: alright, can we move on?
    19:56:39 astron247: right.
    19:57:28 mirek2: while you were gone, we were discussing getting rid of Contests...
    19:57:57 mirek2: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Design/Meetings/2012-06-10
    19:58:03 astron247: well theyve only been there for a very short while, so i wont miss them much
    19:58:15 mirek2: good
    19:58:22 astron247: (and thanks, but i kept empathy open)
    19:58:30 mirek2: and what about Mozilla's design principles?
    19:58:47 mirek2: great -- you can fill in the beginning
    19:59:18 astron247: so, as other people (faaborg even) said, all of the principles are irrefutable, so we should pick maybe three that seem most important to us
    19:59:29 astron247: (but other than that, i like them.)
    19:59:49 mirek2: why? we need as much guidance as possible
    20:00:29 astron247: uhm ... i dont think i understand... what do you mean?
    20:00:40 mirek2: I think all of them are important for guiding a design, and we should always keep all of them in mind when designing
    20:01:08 astron247: but sometimes they go against each other...
    20:01:30 astron247: sure, you can keep all in mind, but when theres a conflict where do you go?
    20:01:48 mirek2: it may seem that way, and I know Alex said so himself, but I don't think they realy do
    20:02:24 mirek2: e.g. it's been said that minimalism counters discovery
    20:02:34 astron247: and control
    20:02:44 nrundy: i don't know about that
    20:02:59 nrundy: Unity in ubuntu is pretty minimal, yet I find it easier to discover in unity than gnome 2
    20:03:46 nrundy: i think the middle-ground is generally the best approach
    20:04:43 astron247: unity is not so minimal... its a huge graphics-intense overlay
    20:05:04 astron247: the overview pages are pretty massive and icon-laden
    20:05:13 alexanderW: gnome 2 was more minimal
    20:05:16 mirek2: I don't like Alex's interpretation of ux-control and I'd like to reword it
    20:05:24 alexanderW: ?
    20:05:30 mirek2: @astron: I agree about Unity
    20:06:37 mirek2: I've written a response to Christoph on the mailing list about this
    20:07:12 mirek2: I would say it's worth a read
    20:07:14 astron247: okay... will have a look
    20:07:35 * willubuntu I have to go now (exam on tomorrow). I'll keep Pidgin open in order to continue to receive all info. Bye.
    20:07:50 alexanderW: bye
    20:08:18 mirek2: ok; you don't have to keep Pidgin open, though: the log will be put on https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Design/Meetings/2012-06-10
    20:08:22 nrundy: user interaction wise though, unity is more easy on the user. no?
    20:09:05 mirek2: @nrudy: please, let's not get into the UI wars discussion; I'd say both have their pros and cons
    20:09:07 astron247: bye will
    20:09:11 mirek2: let's leave it at that
    20:09:26 nrundy: roger. wasn't tryin to start war
    20:09:40 mirek2: I know, sorry, just want to keep on topic
    20:09:45 nrundy: np
    20:11:11 nrundy: all i meant was that minimal interface seems to be what a lot of folk prefer. I see this a lot in L0 too. I have some photos of others LO setups. all minimal
    20:11:23 astron247: @mirek: okay... not yet at the part about ux-control, ... but yes, there are different people that use different application
    20:11:40 astron247: > I don't quite understand this example. Doesn't drawing behavior concern the
    20:12:23 mirek2: I just meant to illustrate how I feel about minimalism
    20:13:00 mirek2: avoid going a complex route when you can go a simpler route, avoid unnecessary repetition, design for needs, not for wishes
    20:14:19 Mirek2_: your thoughts?
    20:14:42 astron247: uhm ... did you specifically address ux-control somwhere?
    20:14:55 astron247: (you did mean the mail you just sent out, right?)
    20:15:30 Mirek2_: I don't think I did
    20:15:49 Mirek2_: just the minimalism issue
    20:16:48 Mirek2_: perhaps we could lose the ux-control principle altogether?
    20:17:02 astron247: okay... so, one thing i quite firmly believe is, its easier to make good browser (i.e. viewer) ui than it is to make good editor ui
    20:17:19 astron247: @mirek: no, i wouldnt want to lose that
    20:17:45 astron247: novacut seems to have done that and the results seem pretty bad to me
    20:17:48 Mirek2_: of course: an editor has many more features
    20:18:07 astron247: nah, in an editor its harder to know what people want
    20:18:11 Mirek2_: @astron: really? I think Novacut is pretty great
    20:18:31 Mirek2_: @astron: you shouldn't design for what people want
    20:18:41 Mirek2_: your software should have a purpose you build it for
    20:18:59astron247: @wants: thats not the way i meant it
    20:19:21 Mirek2_: sure, people want to share stuff online, but you're not going to make Writer into a social network; you're going to build software especially for that purpose
    20:19:53 Mirek2_: Writer is a tool for making documents, and therefore should be designed for making documents
    20:20:05 Mirek2_: secondary tasks should be taken care of with extensions
    20:20:11 Mirek2_: as I said on the mailing list
    20:20:25 nrundy: i agree with this
    20:20:37 astron247: okay, what i mean is, in a viewer the appearance of a document is already set in stone, whereas in an editor you can completely redefine the appearance of it
    20:20:42 nrundy: i'm worried thunderbird is adding too much extra to itself with new stuff being proposed
    20:21:47 Mirek2_: @astron: not true; document readers are increasingly allowing you to set the typeface and font size of the document for better usability
    20:22:10 astron247: so, your pdf reader allows you to set the font? firefox does? chrome does?
    20:22:38 Mirek2_: no; I said, increasingly
    20:22:47 Mirek2_: Office 15 will serve as a reader, and it will
    20:22:52 Mirek2_: e-book applications do
    20:22:59 Mirek2_: some of them, anyway
    20:23:14Mirek2_: some mobile document viewers do
    20:23:54 Mirek2_: it has a special "Read mode" for viewing documents
    20:23:59 astron247: but that still is a year ahead
    20:24:16astron247: and its not primarily a reader its primarily an editor
    20:24:43 astron247: and yes, the viewing mode seems useful.
    20:24:50 astron247: (to me, at least)
    20:25:13 astron247: however, the problem is that mso isnt exactly lightweight and starts slow
    20:25:48 Mirek2_: we're getting a bit off-topic here: I'm just saying that a viewer may edit the appearance of a document
    20:26:22 nrundy: yes
    20:26:56 astron247: sure, but always:
    * on the base of what the author of the document has set
    * according to peoples, eg accessibility needs
    (* prefs)
    20:27:54 Mirek2_: yes, by default, but it's the same with editors
    20:27:59 astron247: and then, most viewers are just viewers and the options they give you for customising them are usually quiate shallow
    20:28:08 Mirek2_: yes, of course
    20:28:24 Mirek2_: as I said, editors have more features
    20:28:44 astron247: _for a reason_
    20:29:02 Mirek2_: yes
    20:29:50 Mirek2_: anyway, about ux-control: I just think that is a completely subjective principle
    20:30:11 astron247: sure, they all are
    20:30:19 Mirek2_: theoretically, it could be used to justify our horrible Options dialog
    20:30:23 Mirek2_: @astron: not really
    20:30:25 nrundy: dont test show people find some ux controls easier than others?
    20:30:32 Mirek2_: how so?
    20:30:37 nrundy: i have terrible time with mso ribbon
    20:30:49 astron247: @nick: nah, not really the topic
    20:31:08 astron247: http://uxmag.com/articles/quantifying-usability
    20:31:18 astron247: (see the article)
    20:31:40 Mirek2_: @astron: how so?
    20:32:02 astron247: oh that was directed at me...
    20:32:29 Mirek2_: P.S. I feel that, with our extension infrastructure, the user will always be in control
    20:32:53 Mirek2_: it's not something we need to design for: if anyone needs something, he can code/ask for an extension
    20:33:51 Mirek2_: @astron: I mean, how are the principles "completely subjective"?
    20:33:54 astron247: well, for instance, if you disregard control, you could make an application that, when invoked, starts writing four-letter words and then exports it to pdf and sends it to your boss.
    20:34:15 astron247: that was @users will always be in control
    20:34:38 Mirek2_: if that's what our application is for, then sure
    20:34:51 Mirek2_: but, as I said, we need to take into account the primary purpose of our application
    20:35:14 Mirek2_: which is creating documents with variable contents, shapes, and sizes
    20:35:31 astron247: and how much control a user needs over her document
    20:35:37 nrundy: one of the things I really like about LO is the ux control
    20:35:50 nrundy: to change font, hit context-key h
    20:36:00 nrundy: then have quick access to font, size, etc
    20:36:18 nrundy: compare mso ribbon and it takes me much longer to adjust controls
    20:36:20 astron247: so, you dont find jargon subjective?
    20:36:35 nrundy: this directly affects the ease and quickness and comfort in using the software
    20:36:37 Mirek2_: ux-control is more about applications doing things automatically vs. giving options for everything
    20:36:54 astron247: @nick, please read the article
    20:37:14 Mirek2_: @astron: it says "Users should not be required to understand any form of implementation level terminology."
    20:37:37 Mirek2_: I don't think that's very subjective
    20:37:46 nrundy: yes.
    20:37:51 nrundy: I am speaking to article
    20:37:58 nrundy: I guess it would fall in ux-feedback
    20:38:38 nrundy: or maybe implementation-level as well
    20:38:54 astron247: really, though? are you sure you could define "implementation-level" terminology for every possible libo feature?
    20:40:02 nrundy: i am speaking directly to working in Writer and dealing with editing font, size etc which is common task as it realates to ux control
    20:40:23 Mirek2_: @astron: implementation-level terminology is basically code showing through in the UI
    20:40:33 astron247: its clear that you shouldnt have c++ function names in your interface, but beyond that...
    20:40:46 astron247: its pretty much undefined
    20:41:06 Mirek2_: @nick: but isn't the reason why you find it easier in Writer just because you're used to its shortcuts more?
    20:41:21 Mirek2_: @astron: that's basically it
    20:41:31 astron247: no, it goes beyond
    20:41:36 nrundy: no.
    20:41:38 Mirek2_: +using words like "text" or "phrase" instead of "string"
    20:41:50 astron247: see...
    20:42:05 Mirek2_: since, in common language, "string" isn't text
    20:42:14 nrundy: I'm speaking generally here. I tap shortcut and box appears that has everything I need to interact with to accomplish that limited task
    20:42:28 nrundy: I can quickly make a selection or selections and then close the box.
    20:42:50 Mirek2_: isn't that the same with Office? it has shortcuts as well
    20:43:18 nrundy: yet I could accomplish the same thing with the mouse with the buttons. AND I have immediate feedback from the toolbars about any changes and my current state.
    20:43:44 Mirek2_: @astron: how do you understand "implementation level terminology", then?
    20:44:32 nrundy: "or require the user to have access to additional information that is not found in the interface itself"
    20:45:10 astron247: okay... example browsing: is "cookie" imp-level terminology?
    20:45:29 astron247: should you rather use "small text file that can identify you"?
    20:45:45 nrundy: well its status is not found in the interace itself. cookie
    20:46:16 nrundy: unless maybe an addon is used in browser
    20:46:48 Mirek2_: no, it's not imp. level terminology, just like "computer virus" isn't -- that's a word in its own right and has no synonym that would be more familiar to the common user
    20:47:27 astron247: you can always create a new word, then, that would better describe what a cookie does
    20:47:30 Mirek2_: "string", on the other hand, has some perfectly suitable, more understandable synonyms
    20:48:53 astron247: and "computer virus" is not very much like "cookie" – "computer virus" sounds very much like sth that was created to enable non-tech folks to understand what this software does
    20:49:10 astron247: (and its also a leaky metaphor in enough ways)
    20:49:15 Mirek2_: @astron: I do think that the choice of the term "cookie" was rather unfortunate, but it's the only term that exists for such a thing
    20:49:27 astron247: but you can create something more folksy
    20:50:07 Mirek2_: sure -- you can suggest that to Firefox and Chrome developers
    20:50:22 Mirek2_: it'll need to get enough traction to become commonly-used
    20:50:43 astron247: thats not the point though.
    20:50:53 Mirek2_: then again, they've done it with "bookmarks" vs. IE's "favorites"
    20:51:06 Mirek2_: @astron: what's your point?
    20:51:16 astron247: they probably think the word "cookie" is okay, while I might think its implevel terminology
    20:51:20 nrundy: i think chrome nailed a lot of the articles points. this why it is successful
    20:51:55 astron247: the point still is, its subjective what is and is not imp-level
    20:52:14 astron247: discovery ... extremely subjective, too
    20:52:42 astron247: i occasionally watch my parents in horror when they navigate menus
    20:52:51 nrundy: something u notice when watching video about discovery
    20:52:54 Mirek2_: @astron: I disagree. If "cookie" is the official name for a thing and doesn't have a more familiar synonym, then it's not implementation level. "Toolbar" as well.
    20:53:26 Mirek2_: @astron: discovery: "Users should be able to discover functionality and information by visually exploring the interface, they should not be forced to recall information from memory."
    20:53:40 nrundy: people tend to have things they try based on past experiences. based on past learning. then there is natural/subjective curiosity tendencies
    20:53:41 astron247: again, toolbar, is not a good comparison ... the only thing that would be more folksy than toolbar would be toolbelt
    20:53:48 Mirek2_: that just means that everything should have a visual representation
    20:54:00 Mirek2_: @astron: how about Android's "action bar"?
    20:54:11 astron247: what about it?
    20:54:45 Mirek2_: nevermind, just think it's a better term
    20:54:52 Mirek2_: with commands labeled "actions"
    20:55:07 astron247: ah okay
    20:57:15 Mirek2_: anyway, how about we define impl. level terminology as terminology that is relevant specifically to developers
    20:57:46 astron247: its still subjective
    20:58:12 Mirek2_: very slightly
    20:58:48 Mirek2_: if you think of a better definition, you're welcome to share
    20:59:11 Mirek2_: anyway, about discovery...
    20:59:21 astron247: my point is that youll never remove the vagueness from any of the criteria
    20:59:56 Mirek2_: @astron: there is inherent vagueness in everything
    21:00:04 Mirek2_: even in mathematics, you could argue
    21:01:04 astron247: in ux things are especially vague though
    21:01:07 Mirek2_: however, I'm arguing that the vagueness in these principles is quite slight and irrelevant in most situations
    21:01:22 Mirek2_: it's always a goal to go more into detail, though
    21:01:31 Mirek2_: @astron: right now, yes; but they don't have to be
    21:02:17 astron247: in twenty more years of psychology and when we have specific user adapted ui they wont be any more
    21:03:21 Mirek2_: UI design is a science by itself
    21:03:41 Mirek2_: these principles are a good beginning
    21:04:00 astron247: it comes down to psychology which comes down to biology and physics ...
    21:04:09 astron247: and maths
    21:04:32 Mirek2_: don't forget chemistry
    21:04:40 astron247: right you are
    21:04:55 Mirek2_: yes, but just like physics is applied math, UX design is applied psychology
    21:05:16 Mirek2_: there's plenty of reason to investigate it separately
    21:05:22 Mirek2_: about discovery: it basically says that the user should be able to find a feature visually
    21:06:01 Mirek2_: e.g. Windows 8's start "corner" goes against this principle
    21:06:12 Mirek2_: as there's no visual indication that it goes to start
    21:06:39 Mirek2_: the user has to recall that the button used to be there and then happen to accidentally hover in that corner
    21:06:42 astron247: agree about that...
    21:07:00 Mirek2_: where do you see the vagueness, then?
    21:07:14 nrundy: discovery is built on learning
    21:07:21 astron247: but i think the ui was planned with tablets in mind whose only button is a windows button
    21:07:32 nrundy: if user has experience, discovery is enhanced.
    21:07:33 Mirek2_: yes
    21:07:48 Mirek2_: I'm just stating that it goes against this UX principle
    21:08:17 nrundy: if i teach elderly neighbor, u do things on puter by going to start button. this what user looks for in a new ui
    21:08:19 astron247: and then, some users might discover that when the get to lower left, a little start tile appears
    21:08:23 Mirek2_: of course, hardware buttons are as much part of the UI as software buttons, so Windows is technically fine if you see the start button
    21:09:00 nrundy: but hot corners r new. users have no experience with. windows users that is.
    21:09:33 nrundy: so they are "easily" discoverable for people who have history.
    21:09:35 Mirek2_: @astron: yes, but there's no visual indication that the user will see anything if he hovers there
    21:09:38 astron247: sure, but some users might discover it, some might not
    21:09:52 astron247: @mirek, oh yes there is
    21:09:52 nrundy: but for users without history, they likely will never discover
    21:10:18 Mirek2_: @astron: empty space isn't a visual indicator
    21:10:39 nrundy: point is that the starting point of the user has to be taken into consideration with design.
    21:10:49 nrundy: at least to some extent.
    21:10:50 astron247: no, when you get into the corner, a little tile appears
    21:10:53 Mirek2_: if you have a button on hover, that's fine as long as you have a visual indication of where to hover
    21:11:02 nrundy: what does the user know? what is expected?
    21:11:05 Mirek2_: in Windows, there is no visual indication to hover
    21:11:30 nrundy: win8 going to be rough for most old win users
    21:12:03 astron247: still, some people might discover the hot corner without the indicator, others will fail
    21:12:40 Mirek2_: yes, but it goes against UX discovery, as the user can't discover the corner by "visually exploring the interface"
    21:13:54 astron247: i think visually exploring does include using the mouse ... not sure though
    21:14:19 nrundy: this relates well to ubuntu's "hidden" global menus.
    21:14:47 nrundy: but win8 corners are still not easily discovered from moving the mouse around
    21:15:21 Mirek2_: look at it this way: if you had a screenshot of the UI and were asked what to click, the user would have to be able to say what to click; then would receive another screenshot of the UI after clicking and would have to say what next, etc. until he accomplished the task
    21:15:50 astron247: sure, there the ui would fail pretty badly
    21:15:52 nrundy: yes
    21:16:19 Mirek2_: @astron: so you understand what I mean, then?
    21:16:35 Mirek2_: how would you propose to reword the principle so that this meaning is more apparent?
    21:16:47 Mirek2_: and, also, do you still think this too vague?
    21:16:54 nrundy: got 2 go. thx for letting me participate guys!
    21:19:27 astron247: i absolutely agree that it is not terribly discoverable, but it will be more discoverable to some than to others
    21:19:48 astron247: mirek, i do think the principles are well-worded.
    21:20:15 astron247: maybe implementation-level is a bit difficult, but overall they are well worded
    21:20:33 astron247: and i dont believe in complete objectiveness
    21:20:38 astron247: sorry
    21:21:29 Mirek2_: it is not completely objective, I agree, but certainly not quite as vague as many have described it
    21:21:54 astron247: @alex: what do you think?
    21:22:53 astron247: so, faaborg said differently and he is the guy who invented the method of using bugzilla for tracking ui issues
    21:23:14 astron247: who also worked with these criteria
    21:23:21 Mirek2_: in case Alex is afk, this is what he wrote previously "[19:01] <alexanderW> A statement would be useful I think. Otherwise they seem very precise"
    21:23:53 Mirek2_: @astron: if we see problems, we'll try to make the principles more precise
    21:24:04 Mirek2_: we'll see as we go
    21:24:16 Mirek2_: just today, we hit on some
    21:24:37 Mirek2_: perhaps you could help me reword the principles we discussed today to be more precise?
    21:24:45 Mirek2_: I'm not much of a word smith...
    21:25:22 astron247: please read what i said before. my opinion (totally subjective) = wordsmithing wont help
    21:25:42 astron247: the principles are usually quite clear
    21:26:07 astron247: but we still have to decide to go with one or the other
    21:26:33 astron247: (btw, doesnt win8 deliver a good example of minimalism winning out over discovery?)
    21:26:51 Mirek2_: @astron: again, I disagree
    21:27:07 Mirek2_: minimalism and discovery deal with different things, if you just read the definition
    21:27:58 Mirek2_: discovery says that the user should be able to discover all features visually, not rely on memory
    21:28:28 Mirek2_: minimalism says that UIs should be as simple as possible
    21:28:52 astron247: okay. so we can both agree that win8 is a pretty minmal affair (or tries to be at least)
    21:28:55 Mirek2_: it's a bit hard to define: I tried my best on the mailing list
    21:29:27 Mirek2_: @astron: not at all
    21:29:36 Mirek2_: it has a very large surface area
    21:29:49 Mirek2_: there's a lot of duplication between Metro and the classic desktop
    21:30:06 astron247: disregard the metro/desktop split just look at metro
    21:30:29 astron247: (if ms had followed through with what they planned)
    21:31:26 Mirek2_: "ux-discovery" is disregarded with toolbars, charms, and app switching
    21:31:45 astron247: right
    21:31:51 Mirek2_: which actually goes against minimalism, as it makes the UI more complex than necessary
    21:32:21 astron247: no, it makes the main ui (ie the program or start menu) more minimal
    21:32:26 astron247: or seem more minimal
    21:33:25 Mirek2_: again, minimal is defined as "as simple as possible", not as "having as few things visible as possible"
    21:33:32 Mirek2_: there's a difference
    21:33:44 Mirek2_: having nothing visible can make a UI incredibly complex
    21:34:48 Mirek2_: again, if you think there's a better way to word the definition, be my guest
    21:35:11 astron247: still, theres something called visual complexity
    21:35:28 Mirek2_: yes, things shouldn't be visually complex
    21:35:35 astron247: and that is what ms wanted to reduce
    21:36:04 Mirek2_: if you follow both "ux-discovery" and "ux-minimalism", you have to have some visual indicators of clickable areas
    21:36:31 Mirek2_: but you should avoid unnecessary bitmaps, such as Apple uses in their skeumorphic UIs
    21:36:59 astron247: you read the spiekermann article too?
    21:37:18 astron247: i liked it, keep in mind though, hes a ms employee.
    21:37:28 Mirek2_: I've read a lot on the topic
    21:37:45 Mirek2_: and I have my own opinion of it
    21:38:00 Mirek2_: Android's Holo seems to be the best in this case
    21:38:15 astron247: have never tried using that
    21:38:23 Mirek2_: it has visual indicators for everything, yet doesn't resort to skeumorphism most of the time
    21:38:37 Mirek2_: Holo is Android's new design language
    21:39:07 Mirek2_: "ux-discovery" and "ux-minimalism" work hand-in-hand, IMHO, resulting in an interface that's "just right"
    21:39:14 astron247: i know, but i still like to try stuff on my own and not judge from pure appearance
    21:39:33 Mirek2_: right
    21:40:11 astron247: although i think i did try an adroid 3 tablet once and came away confused (in a store)
    21:40:32 Mirek2_: confused about what?
    21:40:44 Mirek2_: Android 4 is a bit better than Android 3
    21:40:47 astron247: how to use the homescreens, menu etc.
    21:41:04 Mirek2_: which menu?
    21:41:14 astron247: main menu ...
    21:41:23 Mirek2_: the homescreen is a bit confusing, I agree
    21:41:31 Mirek2_: still not sure what you mean by that menu
    21:41:49 astron247: me neither, it some time ago.
    21:42:08 Mirek2_: there is a menu button on older Android phones, but it's been discarded in favor of an on-screen action overflow
    21:42:11 astron247: maybe android 3 doesnt really have a main menu any more?
    21:42:45 Mirek2_: I don't think Android ever had a "main menu"
    21:42:48 astron247: right, i have an "older android phone" myself (with 2.1)
    21:43:03 astron247: and it has a main/applications menu
    21:43:18 Mirek2_: Android has an application screen
    21:43:51 Mirek2_: I agree that Android's home screen isn't that well-designed
    21:44:27 Mirek2_: in any case, I don't think "ux-discovery" and "ux-minimalism" go against each other: they guarantee that all features can be found visually, but that there are no unnecessary elements that get in the way
    21:46:03 astron247: we can agree to disagree then... which, considering that we are the only two left discussing means that this discussion ends fruitlessly
    21:46:33 Mirek2_: well, it's always good to get the design principle issues out of the way
    21:46:51 Mirek2_: I'd still be interested in an example in which the two would go against each other
    21:47:15 Mirek2_: a visual representation of features is something necessary
    21:48:09 Mirek2_: perhaps we should edit the definition of minimalism to "as simple as possible in order to accomplish the principal task"?
    21:48:49 astron247: maybe
    21:49:04 astron247: that would leave us to define the principal task (for every ui)
    21:49:31 Mirek2_: yes -- that is something that needs to be defined, IMHO
    21:50:05 Mirek2_: it doesn't need to be defined for everything right away
    21:50:07 astron247: but basically its in the title of the whiteboard at hand
    21:50:17 Mirek2_: exactly
    21:50:24 Mirek2_: we'll just define it as we go along
    21:51:13 astron247: so, right i am not against the principles, but i still think we need to prioritise them (and that theyre subjective)
    21:52:40 astron247: from bokardo.com id still like to take progressive disclosure
    21:52:58 Mirek2_: ok -- should we accept them as our principles, then, and deal with prioritisation if/when we come to it?
    21:54:03 astron247: yes
    21:54:19 Mirek2_: should we include it under "ux-minimalism"? it seems to fit
    21:54:46 Mirek2_: though this one I think is a bit too vague
    21:55:26 astron247: maybe discovery?
    21:55:32 Mirek2_: this line is fine: "When possible, defer decisions to subsequent screens by progressively disclosing information as necessary."
    21:56:22 Mirek2_: I think discovery deals with something else entirely: it just asks for everything to have a visual representation
    21:56:35 Mirek2_: ux-minimalism deals with how much to show on each screen
    21:57:11 astron247: ok
    21:57:40 Mirek2_: is it ok if I just include "When possible, defer decisions to subsequent screens by progressively disclosing information as necessary."?
    21:57:47 astron247: ok
    21:58:20 Mirek2_: hold on -- I still probably wouldn't agree with it as it is
    21:58:46 Mirek2_: as it's sometimes best to remain on the same screen
    21:59:17 Mirek2_: but perhaps just pop up a small bar
    22:00:40 Mirek2_: I don't think it can be applied in all situations
    22:01:39 astron247: as i said subjective
    22:02:09 Mirek2_: I still don't think Mozilla's principles are that subjective
    22:02:22 Mirek2_: this one principles is, IMHO, not applicable to all UIs
    22:02:57 Mirek2_: especially when it's not standard to have several screens on a desktop environment
    22:03:15 astron247: okay.. shall we move on?
    22:03:15 Mirek2_: dialogs, pop-ups, maybe, but screens rarely
    22:03:30 astron247: ms uses it for their ribbons
    22:03:42 astron247: and menus also use it
    22:04:31 Mirek2_: it can't be talking about "screens" then?
    22:05:04 astron247: opened menus are in a way the next screen
    22:05:53 Mirek2_: still, if we're talking technically, the screen (as in the whole screen) shows a lot of unnecessary info: the apps toolbar, all the windows hovering behind the app, etc.
    22:06:53 astron247: i dont think you can take it that literally with windowed uis
    22:07:16 Mirek2_: but all the principles have to be taken literally; otherwise, they're badly worded
    22:07:40 astron247: guess i agree there
    22:08:39 Mirek2_: (I really don't mean to attack you or anything; after all, I'm the one who suggested these principles, but now that I look at this one, it's a bit too vague for me)
    22:09:18 Mirek2_: (and you are the one who brought up Mozilla's principles)
    22:09:42 Mirek2_: if you can think of a better wording, though...
    22:10:03 Mirek2_: for now, I'll put make Mozilla's principles the standard
    22:10:18 Mirek2_: would it be OK if I left out ux-control
    22:10:29 astron247: no
    22:10:42 Mirek2_: I feel determining the feeling a user gets from a UI is quite subjective
    22:11:02 Mirek2_: would you mind rewording it then, to not deal with the feeling of a user, but rather with the UI itself?
    22:11:08 astron247: square one?
    22:11:26 Mirek2_: :)
    22:11:37 Mirek2_: let's at least get this principle out of the way
    22:11:38 astron247: no, it should be about the users feeling
    22:11:51 astron247: having complete control over the ui is not helpful
    22:12:08 astron247: and does not create the feeling of control, rather that of insecurity
    22:12:16 Mirek2_: well, we could also have a principle that says users should feel good about the UI...
    22:12:29 Mirek2_: ok...
    22:12:37 astron247: i see what you did there
    22:13:18 Mirek2_: I'm just trying to capture how vague the principle feels
    22:13:39 astron247: can you replace it with anything better?
    22:13:47 Mirek2_: any designer could say that he doesn't feel like he has control over a given interface
    22:14:03 astron247: we could surely define areas where users are more sensible than in others, eg. privacy
    22:14:47 Mirek2_: if a default can interfere with the needs of the user, the user needs to be made aware of the option to change the default
    22:15:07 Mirek2_: and I tried to describe needs vs. wants on the mailing list
    22:15:29 Mirek2_: though I could have gone into more detail, perhaps
    22:15:37 astron247: phew...
    22:16:36 astron247: do you really think that makes it better or clearer?
    22:16:37 Mirek2_: privacy would be a need
    22:16:47 Mirek2_: yes
    22:17:05 Mirek2_: because I know that, in many cases, designers argue about their own feeling
    22:18:15 Mirek2_: when we have the needs of the user defined, we can say what options the user needs to be made aware of and which options he is free to discover himself if he wants them
    22:18:34 astron247: @designer/feeling: that wont change, except maybe björn might help us get rid of that
    22:19:20 Mirek2_: by "that", do you mean unsubstantiated arguments based on feeling alone?
    22:19:27 astron247: yes
    22:19:54 Mirek2_: yeah, that's something we should get rid of
    22:20:09 Mirek2_: are you ok with that wording, then?
    22:20:25 Mirek2_: and should I attach a definition of needs vs. wants to the principles page?
    22:20:54 Mirek2_: and that every piece of UI should have a "primary purpose"
    22:21:42 astron247: mirek, please, i beg you, instead rethink the objectivism/subjectivism part and then maybe amend that we dont want complete control over everything
    22:22:48 Mirek2_:  hold on -- so what should I publish as our principles?
    22:23:33 astron247: publish them as preliminary, keep control please, and add that it really is about the feeling
    22:24:28 Mirek2_:  are there any issues you see with my wording?
    22:25:05 Mirek2_: (btw, non-related: do you have a full log of this chat? could you put it on the wiki?)
    22:25:36 astron247: yes, i can
    22:26:21 astron247: ok, how about you just add your wording to the existing description?
    22:26:48 Mirek2_: alright
    22:27:02 Mirek2_: I guess we're done then?
    22:27:07 astron247: ok,can we come to the start centre thing shortly?
    22:27:16 Mirek2_: sure
    22:27:17 astron247: you havent already posted to g+?
    22:27:25 Mirek2_: not yet
    22:27:36 astron247: okay, first, sorry for the delay
    22:27:53 Mirek2_: that's ok
    22:28:21 astron247: second, basically, if you want to just copy my message from the mailing list, keep the june 29 date
    22:28:40 astron247: (so we can discuss proposals in the chat)
    22:29:04 Mirek2_: hold on -- which message?
    22:29:26 astron247: ah my announcement message i meant
    22:29:36 astron247: for the splashes
    22:29:51 astron247: (minus the one or other requirement that doesnt fit)
    22:29:55 Mirek2_: alright
    22:30:26 Mirek2_: and the G+ post can be shorter, I hope?
    22:30:40 Mirek2_: the requirements are on the playground itself, after all
    22:31:02 astron247: @g+: sure, maybe link to the announcement
    22:31:20 Mirek2_: great
    22:31:32 Mirek2_: is it ok if I just link to the playground?
    22:31:45 Mirek2_: that page should house all the necessary info
    22:32:17 astron247: okay. but then please add links from there to the motif and branding pages
    22:32:32 Mirek2_: alright
    22:33:10 Mirek2_: when you post the IRC log, could you leave it unabridged?
    22:33:34 astron247: you seem to distrust me ;) for good reason
    22:33:38 Mirek2_: I noticed that you abridged quite a few things when posting a log from a chat when I wasn't here
    22:33:42 astron247: but yes, i will
    22:33:57 Mirek2_: thanks
    22:34:08 astron247: i discussed building with alex which i found was OT enough to leave it out
    22:34:39 astron247: ok, have good night then
    22:34:59 Mirek2_: good night