[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: lots of feedback on the test-list



On Mon, 2012-12-03 at 13:44 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> All of them. So
> there's a fairly strong burden on us, as the ones trying to Do Something
> Different, to both make our Different thing worth the effort, and
> minimize the effort just as much as we possibly can.

I know you didn't mean it this way, but I do want to be clear that we
didn't change the way we represent the custom part UI just to be
different. I think maybe some users are getting frustrated because they
are assuming this was the case, and I completely sympathize because I'd
be frustrated too if that was the driving goal here - thankfully it's
not.

The idea was to enable folks who don't understand all the intricacies of
the technologies to end up with the final disk layout they wanted and
still be able to take advantage of the tech we can offer. I think no
matter your level of expertise in the specific tech, you likely
understand what you want your filesystem to look like afterwards, so the
idea was to start from that common ground and hand-hold them through
filling out the tech. Even some of the sysadmins I interviewed when
putting the mockups together couldn't remember what all the different
RAID levels meant, for example. :)

I think the biggest weakness, based on the feedback, is our ability to
handle pre-existing configurations that folks want to re-use. It wasn't
a priority for the design (and it maybe should have been - that is
absolutely my bad,) but is something we should support. Hopefully we can
improve that experience by learning more from folks running into issues
what exactly they were trying to do & how exactly their previous system
config was set up before they ran into issues. 

> But I do think we can improve things within the design itself as well.
> Like I said on IRC, the conclusion isn't 'this layout isn't working,
> ABORT ABORT ABORT', but the conclusion may be 'if we put our thinking
> caps on we can probably come up with ways to refine the design so it's
> more discoverable and less scary'.

Yep, I agree 100%. I don't think anybody is saying what we have is
perfect, and I will be the first to admit I don't think the design is
perfect either - you always have to iterate to get to a good design. I
am sure even Jonathan Ives and the other Apple designers iterate over
and over - because that's the design process. We have a good base design
and we need to simply continue refining it to make it better.

~m


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]