On Wed, 2013-04-17 at 13:10 -0400, Jesse Hutton wrote:This example is not an usability study, it was a debate between 2 people
> Lets consider a concrete example.
>
> Before Gnome Shell was initially released, I (like many others) didn't like
> the lack of a power off option in the system menu (or anywhere on the
> desktop). I've been an on and off lurker on IRC for a while. I brought up
> the concern a few times perhaps. At one point, I got into a small debate
> with owen about the design/user experience trade-offs of the issue. He made
> multiple specific arguments *against* having it in the menu and for having
> suspend (which I found completely unconvincing). I made multiple arguments
> *for* including it in the menu. It ended with him saying he'd wasted enough
> time debating the issue.
having different opinions.
I could also make the case in opposite direction, debates that proven to
be right with the time, in both 2.x and 3.x cycles. The most famous
that comes to my mind is workspaces versus viewports. Today nobody
cares.
Does this prove anything? I do not think so.
What makes you think that Owen changed his mind? or what makes you think
> Three release cycles later, all of a sudden, there's a power off option in
> the menu right where suspend used to be (with the inverse behavior now!
> Alt-click -> suspends). I'm glad for it; don't get me wrong. But, what I'd
> like to know is, what arguments were made to finally convince owen and
> whoever else pushed through the change? Were the arguments he mead before
> somehow obsolete? I'd be fascinated to know, since I did my best to make a
> persuasive case before and was ultimately shot down. (Seriously, if anyone
> knows of a record of this, I'd like to see it)
that he did the changes? or what makes you think the change was done
because of your arguments? I do not know, but it could have been all
coincidence and -perhaps- the 'I told you so' argument does not apply
here.
This seems to be the relevant bug:
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=647441