From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Finney Subject: Re: Org needs your vote Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 10:31:47 +1100 Message-ID: <873a3mgy3g.fsf@benfinney.id.au> References: <87aaxu2a97.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <20091207184936.GV7652@cs.dal.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NHn43-0003kj-Oj for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 07 Dec 2009 18:32:23 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NHn3z-0003aH-ND for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 07 Dec 2009 18:32:23 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=58190 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NHn3z-0003a3-Jz for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 07 Dec 2009 18:32:19 -0500 Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:37718) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NHn3z-0004FJ-F7 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 07 Dec 2009 18:32:19 -0500 Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1NHn3s-0007Xh-Rd for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Dec 2009 00:32:12 +0100 Received: from eth595.vic.adsl.internode.on.net ([150.101.214.82]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 08 Dec 2009 00:32:12 +0100 Received: from ben+emacs by eth595.vic.adsl.internode.on.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 08 Dec 2009 00:32:12 +0100 List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Norbert Zeh writes: > IMO, the low rating of org-mode on this list shows that most people > prefer flashy GUIs over extreme power, efficiency, and flexibility. I disagree; I don't think people prefer “flashy GUIs” as you say. That may play a part, but I believe it's only a small part in comparison to a much larger issue: Rather, people (in general, and beyond adolescence) prefer to avoid any option presented which might involve the effort of learning something new. That is, if presented with a choice between using Word (which they've already gone through the pain of learning), or learning a whole new program, most adults will assume that the easiest option is to stick with Word, or whatever existing program they've already learned that appears to promise the ability to address their immediate need. There won't be an assessment of “extreme power, efficiency, and flexibility”; they're not looking for any of those, even though an outside observer might realise they can benefit from them. There'll only be an assessment of the perceived effort of “use Word, which I know and in a pinch I can call on my friend for help”, versus the perceived effort of “learn this unknown-to-me program, which nobody in my circle of friends has even heard of”. Note that *actual* required effort isn't what counts: only *perceived* effort can play a part in that decision. Merely being technically better isn't enough to win over anyone who isn't already interested in learning something new. The technically better option must *also* be perceptibly easy to learn to the point of being productive quickly, and must perceptibly have a decent support community. Otherwise, it won't even get a second glance by most people. > Then again, that seems to be the general state in today's computing > world. When looked at from the above perspective, it's a state we don't have to merely lament. We can *do* something about it; and the great part is we don't have to change anything about Org mode itself to improve the situation. -- \ “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death | `\ your right to say it.” —Evelyn Beatrice Hall, _The Friends of | _o__) Voltaire_, 1906 | Ben Finney