Re: Cocoa et al as HCI usability problem
Re: Cocoa et al as HCI usability problem
- Subject: Re: Cocoa et al as HCI usability problem
- From: "Hamish Allan" <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 11:58:33 +0100
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 12:37 AM, Peter Duniho <email@hidden> wrote:
> It's true, the phrase "riff-raff" wasn't actually used. But it's the
> essence of what was written.
>
> I'm not reading between the lines. People are explicitly stating the
> opinions I've described.
I don't think you understand what "explicit" means. Nor did I even
make that statement implicitly.
You said in an earlier message: "But frankly, I think you already have
to be a pretty hard-core Mac fan, and _really_ want to see your
software on the Mac, to be motivated to spend a lot of time with
Cocoa." I realise you think that's a bad thing. I happen to disagree
with you, and Graham has already replied with a very good explanation
of why.
I don't take it personally that you disagree with me. And I agree with
you about some aspects of the documentation. For example, more direct
links to code samples would be probably useful. But asking for the
documentation to be kept up to date is like asking for software to be
bug-free. Making this happen relies on people like you.
You say "The last thing I wanted to do was spend a bunch of time
trying to remember what was so painful about it and submitting all of
that information to Apple. Yes, I agree it would have been better for
me to do that. But I've got other things to do." And yet you expect
us to "move directly to offering specific and constructive help with
specific problems. If someone has failed to state their own concerns
or problems in a way that allows for this kind of specific,
constructive help, just ask questions that will elicit the kind of
details that would allow for that."
I think you may have mistaken this mailing list for a paid consultancy
hotline. When I ask a question on this list, I don't expect an answer.
If someone gives up their free time providing me with one, I am
grateful, *especially* if it refers me to documentation that answers
my question (as that indicates someone has given up their free time to
direct me to something I should probably have been able to find
myself, without bothering them).
If I don't think that my question is answered, I reply, explaining
*specifically* why not. I don't just state that I have already read
the conceptual guides -- I attempt to prove it. I don't want to be
treated with kid gloves. And I don't want Apple's documentation
bloated by such treatment.
> Just because _you_ think the answers are clearly answered in the available
> docs, that doesn't mean that they actually are, nor does it mean that you
> have any excuse for doing anything more than just referencing the docs.
I think you mean "for doing nothing more". But again, if you want
people to be answerable to you, I recommend you spend more time
talking to paid consultants.
Hamish
_______________________________________________
Cocoa-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list.
Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden