On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Daniel Stonier <d.stonier@gmail.com>wrote:

> There is another point I'd like to bring up about usability. To me
>
> *usability* != *ease of use for beginners*.
>
> I wouldn't consider something usable if, despite being brilliant for a
> newbie, it isn't capable of doing everything that it's specified to do.
>

Your point is important, but the lecturer in me can't let that inquality
uncommented, because it's really not about personal value judgements --
there is an accepted body of knowledge that applies here, which comes with
a set of terms that are helpful in discussion such as these, I would think.

The aspects you're differentating here are usually called *utility*
(roughly => how much functionality is present) and *learnability* (roughly
=> how easy it is to use for beginners) in the usability literature. *Both*
of them are aspects of usability, so I while it is technically correct that
usability is not the *same* as learnability, it is an important component
of it.


> I think it's very important for people to sit down and work out the
> fundamental set of things that ROS must do, make everyone aware of these
> and THEN consider how to best make ros easy to use whilst being capable of
> that fundamental set of things. Only then do you have what I'd call a
> *usable* system.
>

Well, but what do you do when the question of what is "fundamental" is not
that easily answered? I would argue that that is exactly what is going on
here. IMHO, particularly in those cases, but also in many others, a more
*concurrent* consideration of utility and learnability might be helpful to
decide.

cheers

-- 
Ingo Lütkebohle, Dr.-Ing.
Machine Learning and Robotics Lab, IPVS, Universität Stuttgart
http://www.ipvs.uni-stuttgart.de/abteilungen/mlr/abteilung/mitarbeiter/Ingo.Luetkebohle
+49-711-685-88350

PGP Fingerprint 3187 4DEC 47E6 1B1E 6F4F  57D4 CD90 C164 34AD CE5B