REVIEW/RFC: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Kevin/Updates_Policy_Draft

[Orcan Ogetbil]

On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Orcan Ogetbil (oget.fedora at gmail.com) said:
>> What I am trying to say is, a redesign of an interface _usually_ have
>> valid reasons. Those users who don't want their menu items moving
>> around want to live like automated machines. Forbidding such changes
>> promotes lazyness.
>>
>> If the update removes features that existed in previous version, that
>> is another story. I support you forbidding this type of change.
>>
>> But I really don't buy this "users shouldn't be disturbed by moving a
>> button from left to right". If the user is disrupted to what they are
>> used to, he needs to learn not to (be disrupted). Do we really want to
>> serve a closed-for-learning community? :(
>
> It's restricting the arbitrary application of change to the user to
> times when they are well able to deal with it. If I'm running F-13
> and trying to create a slide deck, and run into a crash, I want the
> update for the crash to just fix that crash. Not fix that crash and
> reorganize the slide interface so I need to relearn it for the slides
> I'm in the middle of. If this change is restricted to the next
> major release, I'm expecting some amount of change, and therefore are
> better able to process it, we're better able to document it, and so
> on.
>
> Taking your suggestion to its extreme, we should promote learning and
> resist automaton behavior by randomizing the menus at each click, changing
> the default MTA once per release, and so on.
>

Random changes are different than planned-by-upstream changes. I don't
think I would like to have randomized changes. But I am all in for
planned changes that people thought about.

Our views are very very different. But I don't need to reiterate my
opinions. I am sure you got them.

Orcan