Am 12.06.2015 um 23:42 schrieb Christoph Noack:
> Hi Klaus-Jürgen, hi all!
> Am Mittwoch, den 10.06.2015, 23:07 +0200 schrieb K-J LibreOffice:
>> Hi Christoph,
>> Am 08.06.2015 um 23:58 schrieb Christoph Noack:
>>> Hi all,
>> Nice to see you're back.
> Have I been away?
sorry for the late reply but I don't want to leave this email undiscussed.
I'm very surprised that two trolls (at least in the mentioned thread) should represent to whole community. Hopefully the decision to stop the project was done by competent people after the heated conference. Since the renaissance project consists of two parts, the registration of user data and the proposal of new GUI, I have no idea why the survey data shouldn't be valid or less accurate.
It is the best but not only source for our latest improvements. Jay's changes are based on discussions within the UX group and with experts/trainers, direct observations, data from other surveys, and last but not least it is based on our Human Interface Guideline. So we rather discuss how much we trust in old data - and hopefully in follow-up studies we will run in the future.
> On 07/06/15 19:07, Jay Philips wrote:
> > The software hasnt changed that dramatically since the OOo stats were
> > collected and user behaviour doesnt change that much over time as well.
> > I dont exclusively rely on the stats, as i do compare LO with its
> > various competitors (MSO, iWork, WPS, WordPerfect, Calligra,
> > Abiword/Gnumeric).
> Hi Jay, I suppose you are not aware of the internal discussions based on
> those statistics, which were rejected by a large percentage of the
> community, to the point that there was a petition to stop the "so
> called" Renaissance Project.
> https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=21819 >
> https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=21338 >
> In Orvieto, at the OOo Conference, there was an rather heated session
> about the statistics, and the entire Renaissance Project, and at the end
> the project was stopped because it was rather clear that the approach -
> top down - was not liked by the community.
> The promise, at the time, was to re-start the survey to obtain more
> accurate statistics (I cannot remember the discussion word by word as
> too much time and too many things have gone by). I suppose that some
> objections coming from Sophie reflect those objections from the community.
> Unfortunately, the survey was never re-started because of the Oracle
> acquisition and the subsequent turmoil inside StarDivision and inside
> the community.
> Best, Italo
> Italo Vignoli - Marketing & PR
> mobile +39.348.5653829 - email / jabber [hidden email] > hangout / jabber [hidden email] - skype italovignoli
> GPG Key ID - 0xAAB8D5C0
> DB75 1534 3FD0 EA5F 56B5 FDA6 DE82 934C AAB8 D5C0
> To unsubscribe e-mail to: [hidden email] > Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ > Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette > List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/design/ > All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Dipl.-Psych. Dr. Heiko Tietze
Research & Project Management
T +49 30 6098548-22 | M +49 179 1268509
User Prompt GmbH | Psychologic IT Expertise
Grünberger Str. 49, 10245 Berlin | www.user-prompt.com
HRB 142277 | AG Berlin Charlottenburg | Geschäftsführer Björn Balazs
> I'm very surprised that two trolls (at least in the mentioned thread).
Thanks for calling me a troll. Sorry, but given the attitude of the
discussion, I am not available neither to be called a troll nor to help
based on your approach (which is not helpful at all). I am not going to
discuss the subject any more, but I am ready to fight any solution not
suitable for the project. The fact that young people like the ribbon is
meaningless, unless we want to get into the same Microsoft nonsense of
locking in people into "visual" habits (the ribbon is covered by over 30
patents) and not into proper habits.
On 06/15/2015 01:25 PM, Heiko Tietze wrote:
> I'm sorry but you get me wrong. I was refering to Dingo-Dog and Tommy as trolls.
The issue with using terms like "troll" is that those not intended to be
branded as such, do get branded as such.
A second reason is that the term has now come to mean "they advocate
that which I do not approve of, but I have no rational, logical,
irrational, stupid, or insane point by which their claims can be
refuted, because I know that they are 100% correct, but I none-the-less
disapprove of what they advocate.