[topfs2]

I apologise if I came across as overly critical. However the point I was making isn't moot and has nothing to do with being paid.

So how do you wish to solve this conundrum, all devs prefer the new version and no-one wants to maintain the old. If no-one wants to do it and none get payed to do so (if anyone even wants to get payed to do it) how will it be maintained (which is critical for official support) ...

Unless you solve that problem any point is moot. When you have solved it you can make a point towards if we have made the right choice, which we still most likely would think...

[djmcnz]

I don't know a think I answered why it changed pretty well back on page one and any way to reduce your impact as you say you can download the version with the old home screen in the addons manager.

Acknowledged and it was a helpful pointer thank you.

Without sounding argumentative, and I appreciate it's a fine balance, I like the OP were asking "but why?". I think we were both asking - why not have the new skin as an option rather than assume it's superior - it's a 'disruptive' change (for better or worse) and apparently not an essential one.

Effort. I understand this. But perhaps the priority order should be to bring the existing one up to Eden spec before committing to the new one.

At this point though I fear I'm sounding unappreciative when really I do very much appreciate your effort. :o

Please simply accept my comments as they were intended - as support for the nature of the OP's concerns as well as identifying some opportunities from lessons I've learnt in the past as a successful commercial software developer/publisher.

[djmcnz]

So how do you wish to solve this conundrum, all devs prefer the new version and no-one wants to maintain the old. If no-one wants to do it and none get payed to do so (if anyone even wants to get payed to do it) how will it be maintained (which is critical for official support) ...

Unless you solve that problem any point is moot. When you have solved it you can make a point towards if we have made the right choice, which we still most likely would think...

Well, I think the devs need to prioritise their effort not based on what they like but rather, based on what users want. This is the unfortunate reality of the increasing maturity and expanded popularity of XBMC and the answer can't always be "do it yourself".

As little as 18 months ago I would have said that 'dev opinions' = 'average user opinion' but now, now that XBMC is far more mainstream (unintended consequence?) the divide between XBMC devs and the average user opinion is likely to be somewhat wider. Simply because the average user is now less technically astute (I have anecdotal evidence here only of course).

This is a connundrem that many open source or community driven development efforts face (a parallel example is CyanogenMod on Android) - as it becomes more popular developer influence decreases and user influence increases. And it's a cycle that the devs have to embrace or their product dies.

Having said all this - the new skin may actually be the popular user choice. But my opinion is that it would have been smarter to introduce it as a non-default, just in case it's not the popular choice and to ease the transition for existing users.

See previous post for anti-antagonising statements. I don't want to appear troll-like, just trying to answer your questions honestly.

[topfs2]

Well, I think the devs need to prioritise their effort not based on what they like but rather, based on what users want. This is the unfortunate reality of the increasing maturity and expanded popularity of XBMC and the answer can't always be "do it yourself".

You can't get anyone to do anything they do not want for free. I have done tons of stuff which I rarely use because I wanted to as it helped people. But the key there is I _wanted_ to do it. It is impossible to force anyone to do anything they do not want (nor should we) for free.

This is what normal companies can as they pay people, hence the devs then "want" to do it.

As little as 18 months ago I would have said that 'dev opinions' = 'average user opinion' but now, now that XBMC is far more mainstream (unintended consequence?) the divide between XBMC devs and the average user opinion is likely to be somewhat wider. Simply because the average user is now less technically astute (I have anecdotal evidence here only of course).

First, sorry I have to as I simply can't stand anyone saying 'average' user, there is no such thing, if you study HCI this is one of the first important realizations one must do. You CANNOT develop against an average joe, there is no such thing. You have a target audience and thats it.

That said, we have a target audience, the devs is a small subset of that and all our choices are to our target audience. If you search developers responses you will see that we turn down features based on this constantly, features which would be loved by forum goers but is not our target audience.

Having said all this - the new skin may actually be the popular user choice. But my opinion is that it would have been smarter to introduce it as a non-default, just in case it's not the popular choice and to ease the transition for existing users.

As said, with floss this discussion if its "smarter" or not is moot as no one wants to maintain the old. And to be frank, the difference is minimal from a usability standpoint, its big in visual. I have never seen anyone have a single problem adapting to the new interface in less than a minute or so. Then you need to start discussing what is best _after_ that silly little confused minute. Is it worth having one minute or not, we strongly believe yes on this, hence the choice.

[djmcnz]

You can't get anyone to do anything they do not want for free. I have done tons of stuff which I rarely use because I wanted to as it helped people. But the key there is I _wanted_ to do it. It is impossible to force anyone to do anything they do not want (nor should we) for free.

This is what normal companies can as they pay people, hence the devs then "want" to do it.



First, sorry I have to as I simply can't stand anyone saying 'average' user, there is no such thing, if you study HCI this is one of the first important realizations one must do. You CANNOT develop against an average joe, there is no such thing. You have a target audience and thats it.

That said, we have a target audience, the devs is a small subset of that and all our choices are to our target audience. If you search developers responses you will see that we turn down features based on this constantly, features which would be loved by forum goers but is not our target audience.



As said, with floss this discussion if its "smarter" or not is moot as no one wants to maintain the old. And to be frank, the difference is minimal from a usability standpoint, its big in visual. I have never seen anyone have a single problem adapting to the new interface in less than a minute or so. Then you need to start discussing what is best _after_ that silly little confused minute. Is it worth having one minute or not, we strongly believe yes on this, hence the choice.

In principle I think XBMC developers are probably motivated not so much by what they want to develop but rather by having their efforts recognised and included in the base and to make that base as desirable as possible. On this basis I think you could provide equal motivation for any UX. Your point however is clear here, there's no desire to develop standard Confluence and no external motivation has been provided. I accept this.

Adapting is not a problem; having to adapt often is...

Thanks for your balanced comments though, sometimes it's easy to get emotionally tied up in this type of discussion.

[topfs2]

In principle I think XBMC developers are probably motivated not so much by what they want to develop but rather by having their efforts recognised and included in the base and to make that base as desirable as possible. On this basis I think you could provide equal motivation for any UX. Your point however is clear here, there's no desire to develop standard Confluence and no external motivation has been provided. I accept this.

Yeah this sums up the problem quite clearly. Ofcourse ideally perfect backwards compability might be wanted but its rarely the most beneficial option. At one point one have to accept how many wasted hours on maintaining old which could be used on creating new, better stuff (if we assume the new actually is better that is). In this case It feels like the only solid reason to keep old is so that old users doesn't feel frightened, which I must question if thats valid enough to waste months worth of manhours on.

Adapting is not a problem; having to adapt often is...

Hehe, very true. However this is how I picture it:
1) Upgrade
2) OMG its different
3) Oh so thats how it works.

They get an initial scare but then the realization comes that its all very similair but just looks a bit different. i.e. Looking different != complete redesign and working different

Thanks for your balanced comments though, sometimes it's easy to get emotionally tied up in this type of discussion.

Sure, I love discussing design in applications (kindof my major in my degree, comp. science). I could discuss for hours on the pro's and cons on the old vs the new but with floss it is (for good and bad) the person who does the work who needs to decide, otherwise one looses the devs. Questioning their work to much and it might just make them wanna leave Its a delicate balance