[darcs-users] Re: [wish] interactive selection should cycle through W selections

Junio C Hamano junkio at cox.net
Tue Apr 5 04:18:28 UTC 2005


>>>>> "TZ" == Thomas Zander <zander at kde.org> writes:

TZ> Your code and your precise explanation tells me you are
TZ> attacking this like a coder; very analytical. While thats
TZ> not inherently wrong, its not really usefull to write a UI
TZ> that expects people to think like that, not very many people
TZ> will be able to work with it.

I am not sure I agree with you on this point or not.  I'd grant
that the mental model I presented may not be the mental model
majority of users of darcs would form and use the tool under,
and if that is what you are saying I would agree that designing
the UI around that model is a mistake and indeed not very many
people will be able to work with it.

TZ> The darcs interface provides a workflow and basically takes
TZ> you by the hand after you typed 'darcs record', something
TZ> very un-analytical since most unix tools just make you type
TZ> all the switches on the command line and allow almost no
TZ> input after that.

On the other hand, I would argue that the tool still needs to
have a coherent, easy to understand model it bases its
operations upon.  If the tool has such a model, people would not
be surprised by its behaviour once they understands the model.
I do not presume that you are suggesting we should make darcs
operate chaotic and unpredictable since people are chaotic and
unpredictable anyway, but your argument above does sound like
so ;-).

TZ> With this image of the tool in mind; I just go with the
TZ> flow.

I think we are saying the same thing about this point to a
certain degree.  All I am saying is that the "image of the
tool", once understood, should be logical and coherent.  The
model at the same time also should be easy to understand for new
users, as you imply.  But I do not yet understand what the logic
behind your model is (iow, how your model works).








More information about the darcs-users mailing list