On Dec 19, 2010, at 3:07 PM, Bryan Hoyt | Brush Technology wrote:
But I think if we go with Teto's proposal, when it's complete it will provide all the functionality that the current filter editor has (and much more), in a simpler, more widely-understood interface, so why would we bother maintaining a separate piece of code that offers less and is no simpler to use?
Maybe I'm just knee-jerking. I get frustrated by the GTK vs QT situation on the Linux desktop, which has watered down so much valuable OSS human resource over the years, for very little gain (ok, now there's some flamebait for everyone... email me privately if you want to shoot me down).
Malcom Gladwell explains it quite well in this TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/malcolm_gladwell_on_spaghetti_sauce.html
Very relevant, thanks. I've been reading "The Tipping Point" recently, same author -- great book, though not really applicable in this context.
On another note, it strikes me that although his main point (we need to give people choices) is relevant, the specific options are still based significantly on market research. None of the best options were chosen simply because some academic hypothesized they would be popular.
Yes... but in this context I can see a *few* ways to do it are best.
For example, some people simply *love* the blender node-based interface for combining things... and some people hate it. I believe it comes down to the fact that there is no *single* way to do that, but for some people one interface is better and for other people a *different* interface is best.
http://www.blender.org/index.php?eID=tx_cms_showpic&file=uploads%2Fpics%...
or
For *some* users that is a very good interface. For *other* users that is a really poor interface.
It's similar to giving people directions. For some people the best approach is to give them a single linear list of turn-by-turn directions (first left, second right after the third stop sign, etc). For other people the best approach is the spacial one where you give them a simple line-map. There is not a single approach that is optimal for both types of thinkers (although combining both of the two is often most useful).