That's already know, it was formalised by Jakob Nielsen who said something like that "unless something is a 100% improvement over the previous version, it should not be changed" ( not sure of the exact wording ).
However, that's also contradicting the nature of free software, ie that's open innovation. So people do see version that are not perfect, because we do not restrict them from using ( or they would not give feedback ).
So unless you advocate to never change anything ( cause every UI change requires to relearn it ), this cannot be realistically applied to free softwar. IE, people complain when it change too much, when it change too often, and when thing are broken and do not change.
Basically, what people want is something right from the first version. And that's not how it work, not only for free software, but for most software, no one can be right at the start, or at least, not without being wrong a couple of time before. But you can have a pony if you want.
Posted Jul 6, 2012 21:33 UTC (Fri) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330)
[Link]
Of course it can be applied to free software. You fix bugs in what people are doing now, and you also do experimental work, and when you have a new feature that is a huge win, you merge it. But if you just randomly change things every time a developer has an idea or reads a paper, you only succeed in driving the users away.
DiCarlo: Everybody hates Firefox updates
Posted Jul 7, 2012 9:54 UTC (Sat) by russell (subscriber, #10458)
[Link]
Totally agree, especially lately, new free software user interfaces are a regression, taking away functionality, even to the point of not being able to accomplish the task they are intended for. That is way too early to release.