[request][community] Please hold criticism of SFOS2.0 until it's actually released

My concern is not on SF2.0 : Stefano Mosconi's presentation on the Phone was very convincing. But on what was not shown : With Sailfish Secure Jolla comes on the Business field and there, the two other contenders for the third OS have presented a whole environment : MS Office as on the desktop on one side and the Blackberry experience suite on the other side.

@nodevel My argument is that you don't know the UX from the tiny scraps that pop up in reviews now. I.e. from a few minutes of video there's no way to get a thorough impression of how the tablet UX handles. Why? Because it was the same with the Jolla phone: You can watch demo videos telling you "the gestures will become natural" all day, still you will never be able to 'get' it. Only after you use the phone and the gestures become part of your muscle memory you're able to tell.

So my argument (which you didn't respond to) is that people criticize tiny parts of a whole they cannot yet understand.

@t-lo And I believe that this assumption is incorrect. You may have observed it just from the videos, but I've also discussed it with Jaakko Roppola on Twitter and I believe I have quite a clear vision of the changes.

There are no 'tiny parts' - it's a fundamental change.

To sum it up: I understand the reasons for most of the changes (the current UI didn't allow for landscape mode and also wasn't very UI-scaling-friendly), but they are a clear compromise (as Jaakko said on Twitter, SailfishOS 1.x will be faster to use and get things done on the phone than SailfishOS 2.x) - and I believe that some things could be improved upon (for example the fact that SailfishOS 2.x currently has the most difficult way to check notifications and get back to the app out of all mobile operating systems).

You should read the discussion as it brings some light on the changes.

To clarify: I know that designing system UI's is a very difficult task and I understand there will always have to be compromises, once you scale your OS between different form factors. But when compromises come into place, it is more important than ever to raise your voice ('criticism' as you say) to make sure that the changes will suit most of the users.

That's why it's good to discuss such changes and I agree with @Stefanix that they should've started the discussion before showing it off at MWC.

To illustrate how hard these compromises are: I've been trying to figure out a way to keep the cover action gestures in the new UI, but I haven't come to a solution that would be as good as the current approach in SailfishOS 1.x, which can't be used in 2.x.

Well people did propose quite a lot of possible UI changes to accommodate more running applications, using side swipes for ambiance switching for something else, etc. So maybe they used that as input even though there was actually no official acknowledgment to any of those suggestions AFAIK.

This should really be a comment on nodevel's answer ;) However: your traslation is more or less correct, but what Stefano is implying is that they listened to the feedback of the community and took action based on it, not that the community was literally involved/participating. A little but fundamental nuance. He's not saying "community asks, we exactly do what they want", but "community shares opinions, we take that into account".

One thing to take into concideration is our communitys request for landscape mode. I feel the SF2 UI is adapted to have landscape more sensefull then it would be to just turn SF1.x by 90 degrees. Then there is this big portion of users coming from n9 and pointing out app switching superiority of harmattan wherever possible. I am totally willing to give the ui a fresh start once sf2 is available. This whole "situation" is created by us again not realizing that Jolla is indeed a small team. Democratic decision on too low level kills productivity. I salute Jolla to have the GUTS to introduce theyr interpretation of our wishes and TEST major new ideas in 2.0. I beg everyone threatening to drop off the ship if 2.0 does not fit theyr personal needs "temporarily" to further contribute and have faith in being able to shape 3.0. closer to their needs. Nothing is set in stone, version numbers define milestones not an endgoal... Upfront communication nevertheless would be very welcome. How to achive without killing productivity? No company ever tried that before, so now is the time to shape jolla into that direction a little bit which could be the positve outcome of this discussion.