Mail Archives: geda-user/2012/11/18/13:06:47
On 11/18/2012 12:35 PM, John Doty wrote:
>>>>> I'm the guy who is advocating caution here, remember? I'm
>>>>> asking that gschem not be damaged, that any drastic change be
>>>>> in the context of a new tool.
>>>>
>>>> Ok. So will you be writing this new tool?
>>>
>>> No, I think *you* should. You're the one who's asking for drastic
>>> changes.
>>
>> Actually I'm not. In fact, I don't think I asked for any changes
>> AT ALL.
>
> Here's what you wrote:
>
>> For the new user (NOT "new engineer"), however, the user interfaces
>> of both programs have a pretty steep learning curve, where other
>> competing packages do not. NOTE WELL that I am NOT comparing the
>> relative "power" (whatever that actually means) of the packages...I
>> use gschem and PCB for a reason...I'm talking about situations like
>> this:
>>
>> "I want to start a new design. I don't feel like bumbling along
>> in Windows, let's see what's out there for grownup platforms. Hmm,
>> gschem. EEEEW! It'll take me a month to figure out this user
>> interface! I have better things to do. Mmmmm, Eagle has a free
>> version..."
>
> That, whether you realize it or not, is a request for *drastic*
> change, since the architecture of gschem revolves around that
> old-fashioned UI you're complaining about.
You keep asserting that, but I remain unconvinced. The internals of
gschem haven't been completely rewritten in a long time, if at all, yet
from about 2004-2007 it morphed from a program which I found very
difficult to use to a program which I find very EASY to use.
So, no, I was not requesting drastic change. I was requesting some
SLIGHT changes, mainly in presentation, documentation, and command
organization, and documentation. I firmly believe that a little bit of
work there would go a long, long way to the lazy "I don't want to have
to LEARN something!" crowd (several of my friends fall under that
category; why I continue to associate with them I have no idea) which,
unfortunately, constitutes the vast majority of gEDA's target market.
>> You're the one who keeps poo-pooing everything because it doesn't
>> look like a "modern GUI".
>
> No, I'm pooh-poohing the notion that your complaint above can be
> resolved by patching gschem. I'm also pooh-poohing the notion that
> merely changing gschem's keymap would be a significant step (although
> that's such a trivial change I don't oppose it).
Ok. We will have to agree to disagree there.
>> (as if that's some sort of legitimate metric for good software)
>
> I don't understand this. You complained that potential users don't
> like the gschem UI because it's unfamiliar. So, that's your metric,
> not mine. I'm opposed to this metric, but when I point out that using
> it has bad consequences for gschem, all of a sudden you think it's a
> metric I advocate.
Not because it's unfamiliar, because it's obtuse. But yes, perhaps
unfamiliarity would be another valid way to put it. Gschem's print
dialog is most definitely unfamiliar. Everything else on a modern UNIX
system has a very full-featured, and damn near identical (ref.
"familiarity") print dialog.
I think "modern GUI" is a metric you advocate because you keep harping
on it. I'd be happy to be wrong about that.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
- Raw text -