X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at neurotica.com
Message-ID: <50A92363.8060607@neurotica.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 13:05:23 -0500
From: Dave McGuire <mcguire AT neurotica DOT com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121028 Thunderbird/16.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: [geda-user] Thoughts on gschem UI
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> <CCE840E8-FADA-49F8-8075-FBB8B2C33510 AT noqsi DOT com>
In-Reply-To: <CCE840E8-FADA-49F8-8075-FBB8B2C33510@noqsi.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com

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