From: Jeremiah Dodds <jeremiah.do...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 19:35:30 -0500
Local: Tues, Oct 4 2011 8:35 pm
Subject: Re: "like other editors" [was: Re: Poll about proposed change in DEL (aka Backspace) and Delete]
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 4:42 PM, ken <geb...@mousecar.com> wrote:They were based on inference, yes. I didn't quote them, as they
> Yet you believe those assumptions (which you've conveniently redacted out)
weren't relevant to what I was replying to. I can't go edit the post I
made, nor would I, anyone is free to look at the threads history to
see them if they'd like.
>>> I not only was making it sound like that, that's exactly what I wasYes, this is very common, especially in non-rigorous discussions like
>>> And it was *all* that I was saying. I said this because, in fact, two
>>> people posted in favor of the changes and for no other reason than the
>>> proposed changes complied with how 'modern editors' worked. Please
>>> my original post and you'll see I already said this.
>> What other people seem to understand is that when those other people
> "there was most likely an unstated assumption..."?! So you're saying that
the one they're having.
I don't feel that it's an improbable discussion, and I would hope that
if it was blatantly incorrect that there would be a slew of people
saying that that's not what they intended. Humans can be bad at
expressing all the necessary assumptive building blocks to a
conclusion, but hopefully do care about clarity.
>> Even if those particular people *were* just wanting to feel like theyI am in fact assuming people have additional reasons, although
>> were using an editor that "belonged", it would still be worth
>> considering the change *because* of the likelihood of there being a
>> reason other than being fashionable.
> Again, you're imagining people had another reason, even though they didn't
unstated. I do this for a few reasons:
1. It's very common.
>> .... thatI do not, and I agree that it doesn't apply when you start to use
>> principle also applies to trying not to surprise *new* users, which
>> the behavior does for some.
> No it doesn't apply. When you start to use new software, you should expect
*entirely new* software. I should clarify here -- if you're using your
first image editor, you should expect to have to learn many new
things. If you're using your tenth image editor, you will probably
have quite a bit of transferable knowledge from the first through
ninth that you learned. You should, of course, be fine with learning
new things, but it's not a one-sided argument. Software writers should
also be willing to make changes that are in line with behavior from
other software *in their category*, if there is merit to the behavior.
> You and I aren't married.Could we be though? I think we'd make a great couple!
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.