On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 12:17:36PM -0600, Charles Cazabon wrote: > Derek Martin <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > [...] > > As Thomas has just admitted, he is rather stubborn (though > > not any more stubborn than I, myself =8^) ), and seems much more > > concerned about making mutt behave the way he thinks is right, rather > > than giving users what they want. > > This is the correct way to build good applications. I understand the point you're making, but I strongly disagree with the way you're making it. Allowing the programmers to completely design the UI without considering the needs of the users is a great way to make a program that sucks, unless the programmers happen to be UI geniuses. Most aren't. The correct way to build good UI is to use good UI design principles which are taught in any CS program, and to take the way users work, and want to work, into consideration when doing so. Of course, the programmer needs to provide balance and blend the users' needs into a consistent UI that works well for everyone. But when the programmer starts introducing arbitrary limitations that needlessly irritate a portion of the user community, he has failed to do his job. Imposing arbitrary limitations on line wrapping lengths is, I think, such a case. > Most users are idiots (see Sturgeon's Law), and most user > suggestions make for lousy UI, no matter how badly they think they > want it. Many users are idiots, and many suggestions are inane. But many users are not idiots, and many user suggestions have made many programs substantially better, including Mutt. -- Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail. Sorry for the inconvenience. Thank the spammers.
Attachment:
pgpe8dXxWWMt3.pgp
Description: PGP signature