←back to thread

917 points cryptophreak | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.487s | source
Show context
snovymgodym ◴[] No.45761694[source]
The problem is that everyone wants a different 20% of the functionality.

Actual good UI/UX design isn't trivial and it tends to require a tight feedback loop between testers, designers, implementers, and users.

A lot of FOSS simply doesn't have the resources to do that.

replies(5): >>45761729 #>>45761749 #>>45761828 #>>45761933 #>>45763485 #
ageitgey ◴[] No.45761828[source]
> The problem is that everyone wants a different 20% of the functionality.

I'm not disagreeing with your basic take, but I think this part is a little more subtle.

I'd argue that 80% of users (by raw user count) do want roughly the same 20% of functionality, most of the time.

The problem in FOSS is that average user in the FOSS ecosystem is not remotely close to the profile of that 80%. The average FOSS user is part of the 1% of power users. They actively want something different and don't even understand the mindset of the other 80% of users.

When someone comes along to a FOSS project and honestly tries to rebuild it for the 80% of users, they often end up getting a lot of hate from the established FOSS community because they just have totally different needs. It's like they don't even speak the same language.

replies(1): >>45762711 #
bryanlarsen ◴[] No.45762711[source]
There's a good report/study about the complexity of Microsoft Word floating around somewhere.

It was something like:

- almost everybody only uses about 20% of the features of Word

- everybody's 20% is different, but

- ~80% of the 20% is common to most users.

- on the other hand, the remaining 20% of the 20% is widely distributed and covers basically all of the product.

So if you made a version of Word with 16% of its feature set you would almost make everybody happy. But really, nobody would be happy. There's no small feature set that makes most people happy.

replies(2): >>45763528 #>>45765077 #
1. uticus ◴[] No.45763528[source]
Yeah but MS Word is also designed with the guidance of an army of accountants and corporate shareholders. Your study plays into that, but there's a much bigger picture when you talk about analyzing how any product came to be that has MS as a prefix.