50 ms·

> given the volume of staff at Apple Unrelated to RavynOS, but I see the size of the Apple staff more like a weakness not a strength. They became terribly inef

> given the volume of staff at Apple Unrelated to RavynOS, but I see the size of the Apple staff more like a weakness not a strength. They became terribly inefficient in the recent years.

pjmlp 4y ago
And still they will perform better than any FOSS attempt to clone their work.
- klabb3 4y ago
  Yeah, FOSS culture is unfortunately neither very good at design, nor attracting good designers for collaboration. Many engineers don't even respect design and/or designers.
  - meltedcapacitor 4y ago
    I find Gnome has been doing quite nicely with design (despite the haters).
  - mschuster91 4y ago
    That is because designers usually tend to push for "making stuff easy for users" by removing options, whereas engineers tend to like to expose everything configurable so that power users can customize the application to their optimal experience. I think that "old school Windows" aka Win95-Win7 (where you could still use the classic Windows UI) and "old school MS Office" was the perfect balance between "keep it easy enough for users to get started, with clear visual distinction to aid them" and "allow power users to work as well", and that was a large part of why MS Windows and MS Office became so utterly dominant. Only when MS started to go bonkers with Vista and then the disasters that followed from a design perspective, users suddenly started to look for alternatives.
    - klabb3 4y ago
      > That is because designers usually tend to push for "making stuff easy for users" by removing options Yeah, although I think product managers are worse offenders. I think neither extreme is good. Customization is important but hard to get right, and creates rigidity and burdens for developers as well. One thing that engineers ignore, is the cost of mandatory customization or learning curves. Most users, even technical ones, may never get around to customizing so the defaults are more important than the full set of options. And engineers often underestimate the importance of sensible defaults. Google, for instance, had entire products that people didn't know about because they couldn't make users aware of them, despite them being free and good. > "old school MS Office" was the perfect balance between "keep it easy enough for users to get started, with clear visual distinction to aid them" I think that was an extremely cluttered UI, far more than saturation the attention of a new user. But otherwise I agree that hiding everything in menus or omitting features is not the solution either.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
    If FOSS culture is bad at design, then one could imagine it being beneficial to just blindly copy an existing good design
    - klabb3 4y ago
      Yeah, and there's no shame in that. Better copy something good than create something terrible. However, if you can only copy, you're limited to creating copycats of commercial software. In many cases, FOSS has strengths that others lack, where design and UX can be the difference between success and failure.
      - pjmlp 4y ago
        Except they only copy the look, not the feel, nor the development experience.

> given the volume of staff at Apple Unrelated to RavynOS, but I see the size of the Apple staff more like a weakness not a strength. They became terribly inefficient in the recent years.

pjmlp 4y ago

And still they will perform better than any FOSS attempt to clone their work.

klabb3 4y ago
Yeah, FOSS culture is unfortunately neither very good at design, nor attracting good designers for collaboration. Many engineers don't even respect design and/or designers.
- meltedcapacitor 4y ago
  I find Gnome has been doing quite nicely with design (despite the haters).
- mschuster91 4y ago
  That is because designers usually tend to push for "making stuff easy for users" by removing options, whereas engineers tend to like to expose everything configurable so that power users can customize the application to their optimal experience. I think that "old school Windows" aka Win95-Win7 (where you could still use the classic Windows UI) and "old school MS Office" was the perfect balance between "keep it easy enough for users to get started, with clear visual distinction to aid them" and "allow power users to work as well", and that was a large part of why MS Windows and MS Office became so utterly dominant. Only when MS started to go bonkers with Vista and then the disasters that followed from a design perspective, users suddenly started to look for alternatives.
  - klabb3 4y ago
    > That is because designers usually tend to push for "making stuff easy for users" by removing options Yeah, although I think product managers are worse offenders. I think neither extreme is good. Customization is important but hard to get right, and creates rigidity and burdens for developers as well. One thing that engineers ignore, is the cost of mandatory customization or learning curves. Most users, even technical ones, may never get around to customizing so the defaults are more important than the full set of options. And engineers often underestimate the importance of sensible defaults. Google, for instance, had entire products that people didn't know about because they couldn't make users aware of them, despite them being free and good. > "old school MS Office" was the perfect balance between "keep it easy enough for users to get started, with clear visual distinction to aid them" I think that was an extremely cluttered UI, far more than saturation the attention of a new user. But otherwise I agree that hiding everything in menus or omitting features is not the solution either.
- yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
  If FOSS culture is bad at design, then one could imagine it being beneficial to just blindly copy an existing good design
  - klabb3 4y ago
    Yeah, and there's no shame in that. Better copy something good than create something terrible. However, if you can only copy, you're limited to creating copycats of commercial software. In many cases, FOSS has strengths that others lack, where design and UX can be the difference between success and failure.
    - pjmlp 4y ago
      Except they only copy the look, not the feel, nor the development experience.