X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        bh=QIYB+Pp/8y3cNE4LvBD8qIZ6Ls29OtJ7PZWiB2anCPE=;
        b=aGoANSRmSZC8xI21bPhSEOc4z3ZzvujAN5n4EZR0aDy01rXOk63WkAXX8U0U3NK5bZ
         Lo56ivwlHWIR/Z1XKpk9O8j2/9GenIQU4ItGQnYoeJysqIjH96+p6H2zhtzxlodsulNl
         GWfuS9Azo/VYHm/4pRQuKzGrTf9V8UUhOCBmg3Ul5RC5SMemuBwRxHwnv6xyRM4GFSW1
         CL0GFtOUYyHi96Xtdik8VEjGKmvsdXA/6cTTK007GmBMFtfQb4tm8SU+JeY9CpcjF0eb
         0bX5+gwJHzU8+YWCrSP4hTF6wbSfPzjTATT5na1WcDyCilD3absGot3nGPl/DJRVhbL6
         tTXw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <50A92363.8060607@neurotica.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>
	<CCE840E8-FADA-49F8-8075-FBB8B2C33510 AT noqsi DOT com>
	<50A92363 DOT 8060607 AT neurotica DOT com>
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 14:56:45 -0500
Message-ID: <CAM2RGhSoQKnSkCsnRWfik_P-9o0WxYEfaqrQpDF-HEE1oCTbqQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [geda-user] Thoughts on gschem UI
From: Evan Foss <evanfoss AT gmail DOT com>
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
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
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Dave McGuire <mcguire AT neurotica DOT com> wrote:
> 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.

I share that perspective. I remember trying to use 2004 stuff it was
harder but then again I had only used Electronics Workbench (yuck)
before that point.

>   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.

I am trying to switch the rest of the department at work to gEDA but
the major sticking point is that it does not operate the way Vamp
McCAD does. I for one fear gEDA trying to go the GIMP route where they
try to imitate everyone else's UI to attract users.

>>> You're the one who keeps poo-pooing everything because it doesn't
>>> look like a "modern GUI".

Modern GUI these days seems to me everything uses opengl. Gnome, KDE,
MacOS and Windows are going this route. I for one am disgusted by the
idea that everything needs to be shining and bouncing. There has to be
a better use of GPU power.

>> 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.

I really like the keymap.

>>> (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



-- 
Home
http://evanfoss.googlepages.com/
Work
http://forge.abcd.harvard.edu/gf/project/epl_engineering/wiki/