Re: gEDA-user: gEDA just hit SlashDotOrg

[Bill Gatliff <bgat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

spuzzdawg wrote:
>    I think that this is basically an argument in usability vs
>    flexibility.

One person's flexibility hinders another's usability.  :)

I think what's abundantly clear by this whole discussion is that there's
a grave need for a recommended, introductory-level workflow--- and
enough "glue" to make that workflow as simple as possible for a new user.

A new user probably doesn't care initially about the gobs of cool stuff
gEDA can potentially do, I bet they just want to get from schematic
capture to fabricated board with as little effort as possible.  Once
they've completed that cycle once, if the experience is pleasant then
they'll be motivated to try some of the more sophisticated workflows
that gEDA's flexibility makes possible--- even if that means a higher
investment in effort.  If the initial experience is unpleasant, they
won't come back and all that flexibility is wasted on them.

I came to gEDA with no experience whatsoever, other than doing schematic
"captures" with pencil and paper, and "fabrication" on a solderless
breadboard.  I'm three or four designs in now, but getting to where I
was even competent with the tools hasn't been easy--- my first board run
cost me $500 due to a footprint screwup that forced me to toss the whole
lot in the bin.  I don't like having to demand that level of effort from
the new users that I recommend the tools to.

A tool as powerful and important as gEDA needs an active user and
contributor base, which is something I don't see reflected in the
geda-user mailing list activity: the same few names come up over and
over again.  That's a bad sign.  We can't grow a user base if we can't
create a pleasant out-of-the-box experience that keeps the first-timers
around for a second, third and successive designs.  Even if their
designs aren't substantial, and even if they don't require all the power
that gEDA has to offer, we have to make sure that their efforts have a
high probability of success if we're to keep them around to learn about
all the better ways that gEDA can solve their problems.

For the record, I don't think gEDA is *that* hard to use.  By far the
biggest obstacle to me to date has been a lack of clear direction on and
support for an introductory-level workflow: a basic set of pre-existing
symbols and footprints for some common parts, and end-to-end guidance on
how to use them to get through to something you can submit to a board
house.  (In fact, it took me a while to even figure out HOW to submit to
a board house).  As it is now, most of my symbol and footprint library
is basically junk because I totally didn't get the idea from the
beginning about the kinds of information I need in my symbols vs. what I
thought I needed.  I'm not talking about a "heavy-vs.-light debate", I'm
talking about "if you are going to do a heavy symbol, then do it like
this...".

I think the root of the Slashdot article poster's problem is gEDA's
out-of-box experience, but we've let that discussion (de)evolve into the
relative merits of flexibility vs. usability.  I think we should go back
to defining tasks that would improve the out-of-box experience without
necessarily breaking gEDA's flexibility in situations where more than
documentation is required to address the issue.  Once we've worked down
that list, we can decide at that point if the time we get back is best
spent on abstract discussions or more tasks.  :)



b.g.

-- 
Bill Gatliff
bgat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user