<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
On 9/14/2012 11:23 AM, Patrick Cloke wrote:<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAC4yyp=C969BWvDRP3WFrpox1PLYDT55c=ud1+hwyZVg8xsLkQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Kent
James <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:kent@caspia.com" target="_blank">kent@caspia.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<div><br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> To push at the
simplicity boundary, we must be willing to reduce the
complexity of the user interface. One of the main ways that
we have to do that is through addons. The user interface for
features that are only going to be used by a tiny fraction
of our users should be pushed to addons, and not included in
the core code.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>To be clear here, you're talking about the user interface,
but not the actual core code? That seems a bit wonky. Maybe
it's time to revise the UI that touches these features to add
"advanced" options?<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I think that our sweet spot (to use an overused term) is the
advanced, non-enterprise user. The complex features absolutely need
to be there for our main users, which means that they need to be in
the core code. But we still need some method to push the boundary
toward the simpler users. That means simplifying the user interface.
So I don't understand why that is wonky.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAC4yyp=C969BWvDRP3WFrpox1PLYDT55c=ud1+hwyZVg8xsLkQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> In the long run I would
like to see us do this more explicitly by adding a category
of addon that is maintained along with the core product, and
shipped with the core product. So these addons would have
the same commitment to support as any core feature, but are
included as addons to reduce the overall complexity of the
product.</div>
</blockquote>
<div>This sounds more complicated to maintain to me. You have
to figure out what add-ons are installed (or enabled at least)
and check various combinations of those to ensure everything
still works. Plus, when writing code, it might be harder to
understand all the consumers of a certain API.<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
This has been the major objection to this concept in the past. I'm
not sure though that it is conclusive however.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAC4yyp=C969BWvDRP3WFrpox1PLYDT55c=ud1+hwyZVg8xsLkQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">Good candidates for that
in the long run would be chat, calendaring, RSS feeds,
bayesian junk processing, advanced security models, and
advanced search and filter functionality.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>Is this list actually based on anything? I use most of
these on a daily basis, as do most people I know of who use
Thunderbird. How do you decide what stays in and what goes?
Can things be prompted/demoted? There's political as well as
technical questions in there, mind you. It would be great to
have hard data about what features are used and what ones
aren't used.<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
+1 to the hard data, though note this is reaching out to a new
segment of users so you have to interpret the data carefully. The
list is only my personal list of issues I am aware of, not intended
on being a concrete proposal of any kind.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAC4yyp=C969BWvDRP3WFrpox1PLYDT55c=ud1+hwyZVg8xsLkQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
</div>
I also wonder if some options don't necessary need UI and
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="about:config">"about:config"</a> is a good enough UI for them. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
That is good for really rare choices, or cases where a minority
disagrees with a decision (New versus Unread counts in the Mac
summary is a good example of that). But some key players hate them
on principle.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAC4yyp=C969BWvDRP3WFrpox1PLYDT55c=ud1+hwyZVg8xsLkQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<br>
I don't think it makes sense to talk about this in overall
terms. I think it would be more useful to take a look at each
feature individually and see whether it can be simplified /
removed / etc.<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
A specific strategy of being more deliberate about pushing advanced
features to addons is an overall issue, and the main point of this
thread. Certainly we should strive whenever possible to keep user
interfaces simple.<br>
<br>
:rkent<br>
</body>
</html>