On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 14:41 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> This version still contains an explicit statement that the target
> audience is made up of developers. I've explained why I think this is
> damaging, and Christian obviously disagrees with me. However, I'm
> disappointed to see very little feedback from any other members of the
> working group.
I understand what you're saying, but the product is called
Workstation not Desktop. :)
The first paragraph of the Mission Statement does mention "user-friendly"
twice and ends with "system that can appeal to a wide general audience".
I think changing "Other users" to say "Case 5: General Technical
User"
(or Hobbyist Developer) would help to make it a little more balanced:
eg someone who builds/makes/admins but doesn't consider herself an application
developer.
I don't think we can assume RHEL Workstation and Fedora Workstation
to have the exact same target audience.
Owen makes some good points though below I think: focus is important.
Of course, if "for developers" is read as "can have
wires sticking out
all over the place", then we're in trouble. But to me, having polish and
coherency and quality is something that proceeds and is a prerequisite
for any sort of target audience. Targeting developers doesn't mean
giving up on the basic design principles we have:
* The user has better things to do with their time than fiddle with
the operating system.
* Configuration options have cost.
* Understand the real problem that the user is having, don't
stop at their feature request.
Server side application development is really the primary target,
though
other types of application development - embedded, hobby, etc. are
within scope.
(It might be clearer if the PRD separated developers by what they were
doing rather than concentrating on their employment status.)
True, User Stories might work better than User cases.
Otherwise I feel the Hobbyist case is worth an explicit mention.
Conversely I feel Matthew's draft might be too soft on developer focus.
a soft focus in that direction seems to me to be
a productive way to guide the initial development of the product.
Agreed. But it seems some people are reading it as too hard focused though.
Overall I think the PRD is well written and I can live with it in
its current form.
I do wish we had a draft already on the wiki though
to allow WG members to make small tweaks and changes
more easily, etc.
Jens