From jfox at mcmaster.ca  Mon Oct 17 13:06:53 2005
From: jfox at mcmaster.ca (John Fox)
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 07:06:53 -0400
Subject: [Rd] [R-gui]      R GUI considerations (was: R, Wine,
	and	multi-threadedness)
In-Reply-To: <1129490486.5518.140.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <web-106811152@cgpsrv2.cis.mcmaster.ca>

Dear Marc et al.,

As the author of an R GUI, I've been following this thread with
interest. 

I think that both a session at the UseR! conference and a more informal
meeting to provide an opportunity for discussion are a great idea. It's
hard to make much progress on this kind of issue via email discussion
because there doesn't seem to be general agreement on what is
problematic. For example, some of this thread has focused on the
provision of a tools for R GUI construction, while some has focused on
the relative merits of different GUI toolkits and how to make them
available in R.

Regards,
 John

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 14:21:25 -0500
 Marc Schwartz <MSchwartz at mn.rr.com> wrote:
> Greetings all,
> 
> While recognizing that "this is easier said, than done", is there any
> logic in suggesting that for those who might be interested, a
> specific R
> GUI session of sorts be added to the UseR! 2006 meeting schedule?
> 
> Since some quorum of interested GUI users may be planning to attend
> the
> meeting or may be motivated to do so, it may be an opportunity to:
> 
> 1. Leverage face to face interaction and visualize possible options
> 
> 2. Define areas of commonality
> 
> 3. Bring some level of focus to targeted segments of the user base
> that
> would utilize a GUI and for whom there may be differing functional
> requirements.
> 
> 4. Identify cross-platform opportunities and technologies
> 
> 5. See further notes below...
> 
> 
> Some of the preliminary work could no doubt be done in advance to
> better
> prepare and structure discussion.
> 
> This could be done as a "breakout" session or if there is sufficient
> interest (and facility/funding issues can be resolved) perhaps a
> group
> session held the day before or perhaps the day after the main
> conference
> program.
> 
> If there is a core group that is interested in pursuing this, an
> announcement could be made to the respective R e-mail lists (r-help,
> r-devel, r-sig-gui, etc.) whereby, with the sufficient lead time as
> we
> have, the requisite activities could be put in place to orchestrate
> the
> session, define specific desired outcomes and identify individuals
> willing to spend their time to coordinate and make this venture
> successful (however success would be defined).
> 
> There is no business or financial motivation here for a GUI. If there
> was and a for profit company decided that there would be a
> significant
> return on investment, they would spend the money, hire the resources,
> define a team leader and put forth a single development spec for a
> GUI
> project based upon their own market research. It would be done in a
> relatively authoritarian fashion and if you didn't agree, you would
> be
> asked to find a job elsewhere.
> 
> Here, you would need to solicit voluntary resources, reconcile the
> expected differences of opinion on the spectrum of matters that would
> have to be addressed and define some common framework for operating,
> perhaps based upon targeted user segments.
> 
> This subject, as mentioned, has come up on the lists previously, with
> no
> common resolution, resulting of course in the individual activities
> that
> have emerged.
> 
> Is there a group of motivated useRs out there, who have the time,
> energy, and skills and are willing to work within the framework of a
> design and development "team" environment, where a quid pro quo for
> moving forward could evolve from the User! 2006 meeting? 
> 
> Is there an individual, who would need to emerge from that group, who
> has the respect and requisite skills to drive a consensus of opinion
> and
> keep a team focused and moving in the proper direction?
> 
> If so, that might be a step in the direction of evolving a GUI that
> might make sense for some yet to be defined range of useRs, who would
> not otherwise utilize the CLI or might need to evolve in that
> direction
> over time.
> 
> If not, then the status quo continues...
> 
> There are some 300 Linux distributions out there and multiple X based
> GUIs, which have evolved for reasons as varied as those behind the
> available R GUIs and more. Yet there are a select few base Linux
> distributions and largely two GUIs that have garnered any significant
> market share. Perhaps, over time, lacking any coordinated activity, a
> similar situation will evolve here, if the predicate that a broad
> demand
> for a R GUI is valid.
> 
> If the predicate is false, then this process is perhaps rightly done
> by
> individuals meeting narrowly focused, local requirements.
> 
> I should note, that I am not prospective GUI user, but a happy ESS
> user.
> I simply thought that I would try to provoke some discussion on this
> point, since I jumped into this thread earlier in the week.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Marc Schwartz
> 
> _______________________________________________
> R-SIG-GUI mailing list
> R-SIG-GUI at stat.math.ethz.ch
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-gui

--------------------------------
John Fox
Department of Sociology
McMaster University
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/jfox/



[Rd] [R-gui] R GUI considerations (was: R, Wine, and multi-threadedness)
John Fox