Re: [9front] PATCH: click-to-focus in fgui

[kvik@a-b.xyz]

Quoth khm <khm@sciops.net>:
> It's also somewhat of a pattern in this community to get into an
> argument with hiro (or me) and assume he speaks for everyone, then get
> mad at "#cat-v" despite the fact that some of the people who commit to
> 9front don't even participate there.

Yes, that is a very common thing to happen.  It is something that I
try to explain to everyone in the wider community who happens to
complain about "#cat-v" being mean and scary.

Maybe I could've made it clearer that the complaint part is about
hiro's method of dealing with people who lack the insider knowledge
only available by studying endless #cat-v chat logs.  What I appeared
to demand is that an #cat-v states *their* assumptions sometimes,
instead of simply demanding everyone instinctively understand how
to approach 9front and discussions around its parts.

(ACHTUNG: on-topic paragraph follows)

An example pertaining to the thread at hand would be a set of UI
design guidelines and goals listing that: text user interfaces are
prefered whenever possible; widget-like things á la libcontrol are
discouraged; click-to-focus is prefered; text input elements should
try to implement similar set of interactions as found in sam or rio;
themeing is a waste of everyone's time; you are free and encouraged
to theme the living shit out of your system just don't expect people
to be as thrilled about it; and so on.

I don't think that's overly "philosophical" or useless or a stretch
to ask for. And no, I'm not volunteering to write such a document
simply because (1) I haven't wrote a single coherent GUI application
in my life and (2) I don't enjoy Plan 9 UI nearly enough to bother
encoding these rules myself.


Quoth Stanley Lieber <sl@stanleylieber.com>:
> the solution is to write the document that’s missing and make it
> available to the community.

I didn't mean to imply the insufficiency of FQA and your work at all.
The only thing I want is for people who have strong feelings about
things to communicate about it effectively.  That may take making
contributions to FQA or the wiki for a more methodical approach, or
just not being too much of an ass to people while trying to educate
them in discussions.

Here's my initial contribution about the topic I feel "strongly"
about: http://wiki.9front.org/fqq


Quoth hiro <23hiro@gmail.com>:
> Kvik, with more documentation about our religion won't it become too
> hard for the zealous batch of our new users to break those same strict
> rules?

No. Knowing the rules is a prerequisite for breaking or improving them
in a reasonable manner.  It helps everyone involved to know where we
are and why.  More so, I don't demand strict adherence to any rules
that are stated.  That'd be a shot in my foot if anything at all
since I'm not nearly sold out on Plan 9 being a godly selection of
great ideas and would like many things to be changed.

> Looking from the other direction: Is there anybody who disagrees that
> consistency is more important than which of the 2 options are
> selected? I might have been quick to assume no.

Yes, consistency is very important -- and is also a great rule to
state clearly for anyone that might not have picked up on this
instinctively by what they saw in Plan 9. You will have to
admit that even though Plan 9 is better in that regard than many
other systems it is not nearly where it could be.

> You might claim there's a third choice, to use both. I pointed out
> that this is inconsistent. Maybe you have a complex reason why it is
> not?

No, I'm all for consistent choice and approve of this change fully.

With "trival and complex matters" I was talking about discussions
ranging from rio's -b flag up to discussions about the details of
9p9999-ioagent or whatever.

> I highly approve the urge of learning to be an idiot.

The art of teaching by this method requires a lot of patience and
understanding from both sides, something that you can't apply in
general and expect great results.  I personally learn the best when
I'm attacked for my idiocy, it is something that I'm used to and that
feels like a sensible repercussion for being an idiot.  But I've not
seen many other people take it the same way, while they *did* take a
more civilized approach in a good way -- meaning they weren't the type
of idiots who demand being served answers on a golden plate, they just
don't hate themselves enough to feel that extra portion of suffering
is a neccessary and acceptable part of their learning.

I'd like if you and some others who are quick to attack would not
assume the worst about people like that, or would at least help them
avoid walking into a trap where they are bound to be pounced on.


P.S. I'm exceedingly sorry for producing this wall of text.