From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EBC0C433F5 for ; Fri, 20 May 2022 16:22:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S241143AbiETQWr convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 May 2022 12:22:47 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:38662 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1351562AbiETQWm (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 May 2022 12:22:42 -0400 Received: from elephants.elehost.com (elephants.elehost.com [216.66.27.132]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD3D6170F13 for ; Fri, 20 May 2022 09:22:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Mazikeen (cpe00fc8d49d843-cm00fc8d49d840.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [174.119.96.21] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by elephants.elehost.com (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPSA id 24KGMcVR008345 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 20 May 2022 12:22:38 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from rsbecker@nexbridge.com) Reply-To: From: To: "'Alice Merrick'" , "'Emily Shaffer'" Cc: "'Jonathan Nieder'" , "'Git List'" , "'David Aguilar'" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: Let's have a user experience workshop Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 12:22:33 -0400 Organization: Nexbridge Inc. Message-ID: <028801d86c65$d2785db0$77691910$@nexbridge.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Content-Language: en-ca Thread-Index: AQFz2vmS2SKxDSIWIk7j/fBGjCh5MQHAbuKkApbb2NcBvxu0YgD9B1oeAhjL1W2tp7NIcA== Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On May 20, 2022 12:18 PM, Alice Merrick wrote: >>"3. Testing ideas >> with users" I would find it worrisome if getting user input would >>require reviews on a given patch stalling out until the next monthly >>meeting. (Reviews are already slower than they should be as it is!) I >>don't know that that's what you meant to suggest; I'm just aiming to >>understand what you mean about the "all 4" above. > >I agree, you wouldn't want to wait until something is in review to get user >feedback or testing. I think a Lean UX >(https://www.scaledagileframework.com/lean-ux/) approach would be more >appropriate especially when there is no designated UX person. You might need to >lean more heavily on design standards and instrumentation for feedback, but >sessions with users would still be important for developing standards and could be >used as needed if it's not possible to do them on a regular basis. > >> > > I'd envision it as something between a working group and a book >> > > club - we could learn different aspects of UX design and research, >> > > and apply them in various ways. > >I like this idea. A working group could work on developing design standards and >work out what to measure and how to measure it. I would imagine that some patch series do not directly impact UX while others do. Figuring out which are what might be a starting point. In some places, an API change would be UX - if the users are developers. Just a thought. --Randall