@imani i think there is no correlation between the used software license and the design "by comitee" or by an individual. i am also pretty sure there is not a single major prorietary software out there which is designed by only one person.
@imani your theory is based on either a fallacy or gross generalization or simplification.
@andyeb It is my experience that often a lot don't care to try and even if they can't perfectly expect an end users needs trying does count for a lot.
@imani I suggest you read on design systems. There are many that work very well, like HIG and Material.
@imani I think you may be on to something here!
But I also think often OSS is terrible to use, simply because nobody made an effort to make it otherwise.
The really successful OSS, the OSS that has funding and full time devs, is mostly developer or admin tooling and user interface is relatively low in the priority list for such things. Techies are used to figuring stuff out.
OSS end-user facing software is created by a much more constrained and limited talent pool.
@imani I think that's mostly true. There are a few exceptions to the theory, and maybe I have that view point because i'm witnessing the holistic process and it feels like design by committee?
I'll cite the work purism is doing to upstream UI/UX on the gnome platform.
@chuck any examples you can point me toward? I’m curious to see how this is manifesting.
The one part of this thats the most compelling is the Guadec talk by Tobias about upstreaming the responsive work, and the resulting QA. You get a real sense of the design by committee, and its continuing to mature but its looking good imho. Has room for improvement, but as all things, its experimentation until its finalized
There's a few progress reports on the blog:
> each piece of FOSS software is designed in isolation, ignoring other software that will interact with it or be used alongside it.
Not in the fediverse or in the https://www.loomio.org/g/exAKrBUp/open-app-ecosystem
Another way to think about it is that a certain (very high, actually) proportion of software is horrible. It's just that horrible open source software can find niche users that keeps the project going. Horrible commercial software probably won't make much money and is therefore more likely to be dropped.
We're just seeing the survivors, and open source software is more likely to survive.
@imani pretty much correct. Each piece of FOSS software is designed in isolation, ignoring other software that will interact with it or be used alongside it.
Interesting perspective, although the beginning statement is a bit too categorical. So we need more visionaries, but maybe a different kind, open source design visionaries?
@imani oh yeah.
Believe me, I tried.
There’s also some contempt for the user there... some disrespect.
Social is the primary social media platform for the forth coming fourth version of Play Vicious, a new initiative built to bring attention to the plethora of creative acts that don't get the shine they deserve.
For more details about the project and how to support, go here.