This is truly a debate of religious intensity. Did anybody spot Brecht’s response btw? Post #22. If not don’t let me bother you, you are doing quite well… <leaves though back door>
Nah, why read the post when you can add fuel to the flame…
Seriously, I really happy that Brecht is been put in charge of the UI improvements. Can’t think of anybody more suitable of the job.
Agreed. A perfect choice in my opinion. I think jonathan williamson also has a good eye for usability as well, since he uses the software.
Yes it was a good response. 
Oh my, it appears it is lost on the previous page, where nobody will ever go to read again. The only way to save it from oblivion is to quote it, in its entirety, which I shall hereby do:
Very well, let’s see if I can elaborate.
How does one misread “you make me sick”?
I was trying to say that “the rest of you makes me sick”, not aimed at you, I would assume you’d have recognised that this may have been the case if you tried to look at it objectively.
Please, explain. How does opposing such wording “crack” the supposed “mask” of objectivity? Cmon now. Read what you are typing here. You are bordering along the lines of ad hominem, seen here and in the quote below.
Ah let’s redefine then. I don’t consider your statement to be objective, because I can not recognise any of it. Therefore, I’m assuming you’re being subjective, but haven’t realised it yet, but that’s okay, because subjective arguments are valid too. I also think you’re being silly for not realising.
“An objective un-emotion-driven person writes differently”
This is exactly what a confirmation bias is. By making that claim you have admitted to such. A bias in this case is the interference of rational thought. You are trying to prove your bias by giving clearly subjective statements in the guise of objectivity.
Feel free to elaborate on how an “un-emotion-driven” person has to write.
Well considering the amount of self-reflection one needs to be objective, I would also have thought you’d also take the time to edit your post to be more coherent. Perhaps, yes, this would be an expectation I have of you considering you have mentioned before you write technical texts, but I don’t really see how this influences the discussion?
I mean, how far can I have no expectations before I’m allowed to discuss? It’s very vague, and therefore I’m having trouble to see why it is so important to you whether it is happening or not. I mean, humans try to consider the world deterministically, so there’s a good chance most people do have confirmation bias, and I think trying to abolish it is way more effort than you’d ever want to spend in life.
That is mere sentiment. What does it objectively mean? Especially in this context? Are you trying to prove your subjective response true with empathy? Empathy is the ability to recognize the emotions of another. What does that have to do with anything outside of perhaps, me recognizing your post for what it is, and responding accordingly. Empathy is closely tied to compassion, so you will have to then explain what compassion has to do with the nature of our discussion…in which you said “you make me sick”. Doesnt that show a lack of compassion? Really I dont think you are arguing anything substantial here with the empathy comment.
In this case it means similar to what I said above. I think the topic at hand is subjective, and it’s futile to pretend it’s objective because you’ll lose a lot of important information. By emphatising with each other we can learn the most from the discussion.
See, here’s my confirmation-bias again: you’ve had behavioural sciences. My expectation would be you’d know that emphathy and symphathy are not the same, yet you conflate them. Emphathy means to understand what the other person is feeling, but it doesn’t mean you have to have compassion with them.
But see, what you are admitting to is error on your end. You are approaching comments with emotion rather than reason, and seek to confirm the bias that people “think they are in some kind of war with eachother and are trying to vilify and deify each side”. That is not rational. You are creating a “war” by categorizing certain posters as being on one side or another. If you havent been paying attention, I have been trying to encourage critical thought, not side based warfare.
And how is it wrong for me to say that this is what I feel and what worries me? If we never said things make us feel angry or sad, how are we ever going to find correlation in things that may be offensive to someone? How would we even come up with basic ethics? Human thinking is largely deterministic, feedback is part of that.
As for name calling? Who am I calling a name that makes you sick or is deemed “sickening”? How much are you really assuming here? If you are unsure, isnt it smarter to ask a question instead of burn someone at the stake because you perceive them in a biased manner? You are usually better than this based on what I have seen.
See, and this is why I know this is upsetting you. I haven’t actually accused you of that, I hadn’t intended to. Objectively there is a bit in my first post that can be construed like such, but not in my second post. Not objectively. Not without confirmation bias. But I can understand that it is upsetting you, and that’s alright with me, because I know you are a human being.
So my apologies for upsetting you.
You quoted my post, and asked a sarcastic question, whether or not we watched the same video. By quoting me and starting off your post with that approach, how can it be seen as anything other than being aggressive? When you specifically say “you make me sick”, its hard to read that any other way. Granted you began that sentence opening it up for more than one person, but you need to remember you are quoting my post and leave little room that I am not part of that “rest” you are insulting. I’m not sure its much better saying you intent to let the rest of the forum goers know they make you sick as well. Its just not a good way to respond to anyone unless you are trying to make enemies and or start an argument. In some circles they call this trolling. I just dont understand what you were trying to accomplish by saying that and assuming theres a kind of internal war going on with ton vs price, and that each one has people putting them up as “dieties”.
I guess what I am trying to say is that nothing good can come from that kind of vitriol. If you need to make a general statement, try not to quote people and use wording that can be easily written off as extremely strong ad hominem attacks.
As for me being upset, i am not. Why would you make that assumption? What you said didnt upset me, but I did feel a sense of disappointment because you usually post better stuff than that. It was like seeing someone you respect stoop to a low you didnt think was possible. That said, feel free to attack my manner of articulation all you want, it is a bit of low blow and it doesnt really mean anything, however it is your opinion and you are entitled to it.
Continuing on with this back and forth wont do much in the way of constructive posting however, and if no specifics can be given on who is calling who names, or who is vilifying or deifying who, then the best course of action is avoid a thread like this entirely, comment on the US or perhaps the videos specifically which involve the UI in question.
On another note, I have been meaning to comment on this and I apologize to those who feel our discussion some how “ruined” Brecht’s post.
I agree completely that on the subject of doability. I thought it was kind of assumed that a complete overall full of changes would not happen over night or even if they should happen, but that it might be a larger goal in the longer run. Such changes also need constant usability testing. However, also that the subject of usability seen in the mockups and proposals can help generate a certain mindset and bring back to light both convention and innovation in which to help both immediate and long term changes. We actually talked about this briefly on IRC. I go under a different user name there though.
Andrew did offer quite a bit of good, conceptually. While the mockup was a bit fisher price (pun intended) the goal of increasing usability was quite good.
It would be interesting to discuss what kind of changes can happen within how blender currently operates, as well as what convention is good and worth implementing via change.
Btw, kind of curious to see when that mythological pie menu will get finished. =) It might need to be looked at once more within the scope of these UI discussions.
As for Ton rejecting the UI team, it was more of how he seemed to respond to Price’s UI team presentation. I believe he said that it wasnt the best approach in the Q and A after Price’s presentation, and that he was leaning more towards teams focused on specific parts of blender and the UI would fit in with that. SO a modeling team with its lead would also work on the modeling UI…ect Part of this reaction could have been due to the slide which Price presented which showed the users getting bounced off a wall that blocks them from the developers.
Ultimately I think it comes back to communication, on both ends. Ton was quite correct when he talked about subjects that create uncertainty and doubt, and in your last paragraph you are presenting the side effect of such uncertainty and doubt. Thus I think its a good discussion to have regarding how to send a clear and coherent message/communication, from developers to users and vice versa.
Also, at risk of putting off a few people, I think its important to keep in mind that long time and or advanced blender users, as much as some might complain or resist change, will not leave Blender if and when change does come. Its painfully clear you have a great head on your shoulders when it comes to the development side of things, and you really havent come across as inconsistent. I hope that Jonathan W. can also have some UI input since I think he has both the exposure to some other applications and can articulate well the rougher area’s he see’s in usability.
We already have UI discussion threads. We don’t need another.
Closed