Well, that might be the cause. Kinda scary you get recommendations like that just due to no history.

Wow your YouTube recommendations are very different from mine.

It’s not that bizarre when you think about it. As a technical piece of software, Sims is actually quite complex.

You need a sophisticated character editor with a vast array of clothing options. You need a house editor that allows you to build any house you can imagine. You need a huge array of possible interactions between people and all kinds of objects. You also need lots of randomized interaction and AI (as in traditional game AI) to control NPCs. You need to have all these things be affected by the characters traits and you need them to go through life stages while still being interesting.

It’s a whole lot. It’s basically impossible to build a game like that as an indie developer. You really need a large team and that means funding. And that’s where it gets hard cause you are up against Sims and I don’t imagine many sources of funding want to make that bet.

no global admins, and no way shut down communities-meaning true censorship resistance.

“True censorship resistance” is not a desirable property. No normal user wants to deal with moderation. You need to have a structure for delegating moderation and such tasks to other people.

Yes, Lemmy is dominated by people with a certain propensity towards tech. You can’t use Lemmy users as a gauge for what is good UX I would say.

I couldn’t agree more and I see it everywhere as well. It’s systemic.

Which would you choose based on their website?

Problem is, people on Lemmy are techies who might actually prefer the Gimp site. But any “normal” person would not.

You can make your own alternatives, that’s the difference. If you think the mods/admins of those comms/instances aren’t doing well, then you could do better yourself. That’s the freedom that the fediverse gives you. You could not do the same on Reddit.

Not sure about that one but the following one:

In each language, the words for yes and no never change, regardless of which question they are answering.

This happens in Danish actually. Example:

Kan du lide is? (Do you like ice cream?)
Ja
Kan du ikke lide is? (Do you not like ice cream?)
Jo

So in Danish we have “ja” which means “yes” but “jo” is used instead when answering a negative question, so as to confirm what the negative question asked. This is kind of annoying in English cause if you ask “Do you not like ice cream?” then if you say “yes” does that mean “yes I like ice cream” or does it mean “yes I do not like ice cream”? That’s what “jo” disambiguates.

There’s also a link to Matrix, which I’m guessing is the preferred way to jump in and ask questions about how to contribute.

Yes but asking directly instead of consuming already-written guidelines is a much higher psychological hill to climb and doesn’t feel welcoming. You need to be very passionate to go to Matrix. Also, frankly speaking, UX people are very unlikely to have a user on Matrix or even know what it is or how it works. Developers on the other hand can easily figure this out. You need to be mindful of tech literacy when you’re trying to cater to UX people - they won’t know anything about Matrix probably.

In general, I recommend coming with the intention of being assigned work

I don’t think that’s bad, but for developers this is very easy with all the guidelines and the “good first issues” and all that. For UX people, none of these resources exist.

Where would you naturally look for this? With developers it’s easy, you look for “CONTRIBUTING.md” or similar in the repo, as well as hints from templates in issues and PRs. Some will have extensive style guides and whatnot, but most are pretty bare bones.

Should this go on the main website? Somewhere at the start of the technical docs? In the repo in a special place linked from the root?

At the very least this could be in the contributing guidelines on GitHub, but I think having it on the main website (a place much more familiar and friendly to non-technical people) is much better.

What about tooling? Should projects set up something like penpot (found after a search for FOSS Figma)? Or are designers okay with images on a wiki or something? Is it reasonable to ask them to submit a GitHub issue and engage that way (they could link to something else)?

I don’t know, I’m not a UX person. Ask them when they arrive. But I would think they can probably figure out to interact on GitHub issues if directed to do so. Developers intuitively know “Oh I want to contribute so I’ll need a GitHub account and then need to go look at issues” but UX people don’t know this.

To me, linking a chat and the repo is enough, but maybe it’s not.

I definitely don’t think that’s enough - UX people probably don’t even know what a “repo” is.

What do you mean by “invite”? What would that look like?

I don’t mean a literal invite - I mean that projects are rarely inviting for product managers and designer (let’s call them “UX people”) and rarely do they encourage those people to contribute.

Let’s take a look at Lemmy as an example (and please don’t misunderstand, this is not to bash Lemmy specifically, this happens for so many FOSS projects). Let’s put ourselves in the shoes of a UX person who wants to contribute to Lemmy. How would I (the imaginary UX person) do that?

Well, on join-lemmy.org there’s not really any links to anything to do with contributing but there is a link to “GitHub” in the contact information. As a UX person, I may have a vague idea what git and GitHub is, but obviously that’s not a tool that I use. So then I land on the git repository on GitHub. Oh great, there’s a “Contributing” section! It says:

Read the following documentation to setup the development environment and start coding

Oh. So that’s contributing code and stuff. So that’s not me. But okay since there’s nothing else, let’s try and go to the contributing guidelines anyway. But this just gives a technical overview of the different software components of Lemmy, and then goes into how to setup local development. This is all mumbo-jumbo to me, I know nothing about coding, I am a UX person.

My point is (and again, Lemmy is just an example here), none of these contributing guidelines are helpful unless you are a developer, and the fact that the contributing guidelines only caters to developers makes any UX person feel out of place, as if their expertise is not wanted or needed. This is what I mean when I say it is not very inviting to UX people. It is very inviting to developers though.

That’s how it should work for design as well. Contribute some designs that you think will improve the UX and if they’re desirable, someone will take up implementing them. If it’s easy (e.g. a new logo), it’ll get done right away, and if it’s more involved, it’ll get done as devs get time.

I agree! But how are designers supposed to know where to even start? There are “good first issues”, but those are also only for developers. Where’s the contributing guidelines for non-developers? You say “Designers and product managers are certainly welcome”, but this doesn’t look that welcoming to me!

My perspective of designers and product managers is that they like to own projects.

I think this is a bit of a mischaracterization. I don’t think a product manager has to “own” the project to help and be valuable to a project.

One project that does this quite well is bevy. See this video from one of the product manager contributors to bevy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3PJaiSpbmc

people good at UX don’t seem to care as much about FOSS and the open web

I’m not sure this is true - at least I have an alternative explanation.

People who do the UX design and all that are rarely invited into the process. Open source projects often look for “maintainers” but this almost exclusively means “developers”.

There’s documentation and contributing guidelines for developers. Where is the same material for product managers or designers?

We don’t get product managers and designers in FOSS because they’ve never been invited.

The major platforms are convenient.

But the open web offers something better: genuine ownership, community governance, and independence.

This has a kind of underlying connotation that the open web can’t be convenient. This is not true.

It is true that lots of platforms on the fediverse (Lemmy included) don’t have the best user experience and user journey flow. But that’s not how it has to be. We don’t have to accept that as a given.

It’s the same problem that Linux faces, where UX issues aren’t prioritised because the user base is technical enough to deal with the bullshit. We can’t let the same thing occur to the fediverse.

Some people are trying: https://github.com/LadybirdBrowser/ladybird

Honestly I kinda wish the Rust devs would rather go and support a project like Redox OS and then maybe we can have less drama about all this.

I like the optimism, but I’d see it before I believe it.

Damn! If only someone could’ve predicted that Meta would eventually do something stupid like this! If only we had defederated from them from the start /s

C++ is a very old, extremely complex language. There are arguably objectively better modern alternatives, such as Rust.

It attracts a different audience, so in aggregate it seems like your community is suddenly bigger because 1+1=2 right? What you don’t realize is that you’ve divided your community into two separate groups with possibly different wants, needs and cultures.

Obviously… to you.

No. I’m sorry but if you are logged in with a desktop environment, obviously the UI of that desktop needs to stay responsive at all times, also under heavy load. If you don’t care about such a basic requirement, you could run the system without a desktop or you could tweak it yourself. But the default should be that a desktop is prioritized and input from users is responded to as quickly as possible.

This whole “Linux shouldn’t assume anything”-attitude is not helpful. It harms Linux’s potential as a replacement for Windows and macOS and also just harms its UX. Linux cannot ever truly replace Windows and macOS if it doesn’t start thinking about these basic UX guarantees, like a responsive desktop.

This is one of the cases where Linux shows its history as a large shared unix system and its focus as a server OS; if the desktop is just a program like any other,

Exactly.

You say that like it’s a good thing; it is not. The desktop is not a program like any other, it is much more important that the desktop keeps being responsive than most other programs in the general case. Of course, you should have the ability to customize that but for the default and the general case, desktop responsiveness needs to be prioritized.

“they never know what you intend to do”

I feel like if Linux wants to be a serious desktop OS contender, this needs to “just work” without having to look into all these custom solutions. If there is a desktop environment with windows and such, that obviously is intended to always stay responsive. Assuming no intentions makes more sense for a server environment.