X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Mime-Version:	1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] Thoughts on gschem UI
From:	John Doty <jpd AT noqsi DOT com>
In-Reply-To:	<50A90BC7.8080901@neurotica.com>
Date:	Sun, 18 Nov 2012 10:35:32 -0700
Message-Id:	<CCE840E8-FADA-49F8-8075-FBB8B2C33510@noqsi.com>
References:	<50A688B8 DOT 4090809 AT neurotica DOT com> <CC923058-B962-45B5-973D-EA03906430B9 AT noqsi DOT com> <50A6A265 DOT 6050300 AT neurotica DOT com> <4E8E6F31-EF8D-4540-BA86-7935C1C3E6D8 AT noqsi DOT com> <50A6A95C DOT 5030903 AT neurotica DOT com> <355DEF4F-51BB-44A8-A5F4-D8564E7E7885 AT noqsi DOT com> <20121116213601 DOT 13718 DOT qmail AT stuge DOT se> <66889AAB-3A82-4861-ACB0-B35A876EF6F4 AT noqsi DOT com> <CAC4O8c8s3837dD5so1hu-QOm8PW69sehVNNX7njQvnRGzXODGw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <B63F900B-2C12-48A4-AD4B-5A616078030B AT noqsi DOT com> <CAC4O8c9BAJe8_7KLL8aaGq30HCkj+q74DB9jywXRXogJzdqNzw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <50A83AAA DOT 6060500 AT jump-ing DOT de> <B1A7C9C1-5EAE-49AB-A03A-D5D4AFD3B0C0 AT noqsi DOT com> <50A8615E DOT 2080800 AT neurotica DOT com> <05730E0F-4DA1-47C8-80BB-5D4F37EFD94E AT noqsi DOT com> <50A8675D DOT 30509 AT neurotica DOT com> <565D7E6F-DC3C-42E8-A069-519129E281BF AT noqsi DOT com> <50A90BC7 DOT 8080901 AT neurotica DOT com>
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailer:	Apple Mail (2.1085)
X-MIME-Autoconverted:	from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id qAIHZdxL024190
Reply-To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Nov 18, 2012, at 9:24 AM, Dave McGuire wrote:

> On 11/18/2012 06:26 AM, 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'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). 

> (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.

John Doty              Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
http://www.noqsi.com/
jpd AT noqsi DOT com

- Raw text -