Sheesh. Left out a critial word. (01)
Eric Armstrong wrote: (02)
>>>> "Being people-centric isn't just about user interface,
>>>> however. It's about attitude...
>>
>> Eric criticizes:
>>
>>> Uh. It *is* an attitude -- an attitude that says "I want to make
>>> it easy for people, I want to solve their problems". Selfishly,
>>> so they'll love me and/or pay me, but it is that attitude which
>>> produces both the functionality and the access to it (interface)
>>> the results in sex appeal.
>>
>>
>> While I wouldn't doubt that many people in fact only pay
>> heed to other people for selfish reasons, such as pandering to some
>> audience
>>
>> http://usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?TheAudience
>>
>> I would have to disagree that being people-centred is the same as
>> pandering. Meatball is people-centred because we
>> like people.
>
> I didn't mean to imply that being people-centered was pandering.
> I meant to say that it's not "about" attitude, it *is* an attitude,
^^^^^
> and that everything stems from that attitude -- quality,
> reliability, functionality, and power, as well as ease of use.
>
>>> There was something about fancy black dress shoes that made me
>>> realize the connection between good taste and simplicity. After
>>> all, it is gaudy, ornate shoes with bananas and grapes on the
>>> tassels that seem gauche, compared to shiny black shoes.
>>
>>
>> Depends what culture you're from... Be careful! ;)
>>
> Yes, the analogy has cultural overtones. But the heart of the
> matter -- the functionality and the interface -- still requires
> simplicity. One can only imagine the interfaces that would have
> been constructed in Elizabethan England.
>
>
> (03)
--
This message is archived at: (04)
http://collab.blueoxen.net/forums/cgi-bin/mesg.cgi?a=tools-yak&i=407B1861.9030302@sun.com (05)
|