On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 10:17:54 +0200, Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
Good user experience isn't very specific, that's right. But the important part is that it is a focus. That we actually care about the experience of the user and take this into account when taking decisions about what to do and how to do it. What this means in details of course has to be worked out, but if this is a serious direction, this is just a natural part of development.
That makes sense to me. I may be thinking a little further down the road beyond just the strategy, which does mean that the specifics are not necessarily - "relevant" isn't the right word, because the specifics are relevant - maybe "as critical at this stage of the discussion".
I don't think it's a contradiction to not focusing on non-technical end users. These are orthogonal issues. Focus on good user experience is one thing, which users are our target group is another thing. The "polish" will be different dependent on the target group, but it needs to be done to provide a good experience in any case.
OK, that makes sense to me as well. Needing to define more specifically that target group (beyond the 'high level' description here) is something that probably falls later in the discussion.
= No focus =
* Directly providing a polished distribution for non-technical end users
I think we do this now with the main distribution, and that to an extent, this is an essential goal as well (or at least "good to have") because it provides a basis for the derivatives to provide that polish. I guess this perhaps needs to be more specifically defined for me as to what isn't/wouldn't be included. I couldn't even say what I would take as implied as not being provided by this statement.
You could also read that non-focus as: We are not Ubuntu.
For the definition of what a non-technical end-user is, I like to think of this as as somebody who never bought a computer magazine. What that then implies for the actual products, needs to be worked out, but it won't involve problems like explaining how to use a mouse or what a harddisk is.
The Ubuntu comparison makes this clearer in my mind. Though arguably our current userbase does include both technical and non-technical users (I see this in the demographics in the forums, for example - it often makes for interesting interactions between members of the two groups) - so we might want to consider that there is a decent size non-technical user following already that may feel left out with this direction (though it sounds like perhaps the direction hasn't been previously defined).
* Bleeding edge technology
It might make more sense instead of saying there's no focus on bleeding edge technology to clearly mark anything that's a technology preview as such and include it with those caveats. That way, that newer technology can be tested by those who want to do so, but they know that they are essentially alpha- or beta- testing. (Of course, it could be argued that those who do that should be using Factory instead of a numbered release - and perhaps it will be.)
You could also read that non-focus as: We are not Fedora.
But I agree with your point that including newer technology as some kind of labeled previews make sense, and of course sometimes new technology is also the right way to go. But openSUSE's strategy should not be to focus on always having the latest technology.
The key differentiator here would thus be that we might include new technology if it makes sense, but the focus is on that ultimate usability as a reference implementation for re-spins and for a technical audience. Do you think that captures/restates the idea here? Or put another way, "always" is the key here - as in "not always, but perhaps sometimes, when it makes sense" - which would apply to the examples I provided earlier, or also possibly the inclusion of XEN virtualisation. Jim -- Jim Henderson Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org