#57: Seeking Council feedback/input on draft third party software policy
-------------------------+---------------------
Reporter: pfrields | Owner:
Status: new | Priority: normal
Component: General | Resolution:
Keywords: workstation |
-------------------------+---------------------
Comment (by mattdm):
Replying to [comment:18 aday]:
> Some comments from your friendly local UX designer... (sorry I'm late to
the party). First, some general comments:
> * Please try and state your requirements in abstract terms as much as
possible. I realise that it's difficult to avoid any mention of UI, but it
is far better for us on the implementation side if you stick to abstract
requirements rather than specifying UI.
I have tried to do this, at least in terms of specific UI, but I think
there are some requirements which need to apply to any UI. I want to avoid
being so abstract that Richard comes back with "I have no idea how any of
this applies". :)
> * Please remember "third party" is a distribution specific concept
which will not necessarily fit into the world view of users (since not all
users have the role of the distribution firmly established in their
minds). While it is obviously fine to use this terminology in your own
policies, please don't inadvertently mandate its use in UI: there are ways
that we can communicate that software is from a third party without having
to specifically use a label that says "third party".
Understood. The relevant part of my proposed statement is: "The policy
must specify that the distinction between software provided by Fedora and
external software is clear to non-advanced end users." If we can ''help''
make the role of the distribution more clear in the users' minds through
this, so much the better.
I realize this wording is a bit awkward, but note that we're trying to
establish overall guidance for the specific policy, not the specific
policy itself, which can go into more details.
> * My impression is that you are mandating the use of confirmation
dialogs as a part of this policy. I wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't
point out that these are generally considered to be rather poor UX, not
just because they are an inconvenience for users, but also because they
are often skipped over without being paid attention to (precisely because
they are an inconvenience, I think). Generally speaking I would encourage
clear, prominent and easy to understand information about software rather
than putting barriers in the way (as Paul has already argued).
I don't know why you have that impression. I said "I'd really like the
designers to think about truly advancing this goal through UX design -
something beyond annoying pop-up dialogs." I absolutely agree with you
here.
> > mattdm proposal part 1:
> > The Fedora Council is generally in favor of a policy like this for
third-party software which conforms to Fedora's definition of free and
open source software. The policy must specify that the distinction between
software provided by Fedora and external software is clear to non-advanced
end users. The process for selection/curation of third-party software by
Working Groups or SIGs must be community-based and transparent.
> ...
>
> It's not practically possible to solely apply the policy to novice or
advanced users. It might therefore be better to talk about the kinds of
interface the policy should be applied to. For example, you could apply
the policy to any GUI that presents software installation options.
Alternatively, you could talk about "the primary software installation
interface" or similar.
The above doesn't say that there should be different policies for novice
and advanced users. It says that the distinction must be made clear in a
way that non-advanced users can understand. I think you basically make
this point as well, which is that just having a small label which says
"third-party" probably isn't sufficient as that doesn't necessarily mean
anything to many people.
> ...
> > mattdm proposal part 2:
> >
> > The Council recognizes including select third-party non-free
software in search results as a valid experiment in advancing Fedora's
mission. Search results should prioritize free and open source software,
clearly specify that there is no endorsement, and offer links to Fedora-
prepared educational information. Additionally, default configuration in
Fedora Editions and Spins must not show non-free search results initially
without an additional user interface action. This action need not be
onerous, can be persistent, and the interface can indicate that these non-
free results are available upon action.
> ...
>
> Why the sole focus on search? What about other ways that software can be
presented and discovered? In general it would be better if the mechanisms
through which software might be present weren't specified at all.
The emphasis on search is because that's the software and shell interface
I've been looking at, but I definitely agree with you here too: this
should apply to all presentation, not just search.
> The part about endorsement of non-free software is unclear. Is the
requirement that Fedora's position on free versus non-free software be
communicated to users as an explicit policy statement? Or is it the case
that the UI should communicate that free/open software is preferable to
non-free software in a more general sense, and therefore communicate
Fedora's policy in a non-explicit, implied manner? For what it's worth, my
personal preference is the latter option: it is more effective than an
official pronouncement and can be done in a way that more effectively
promotes free/open software.
It's currently Fedora's position that we don't present any non-free
software at all. We're talking about changing that, which is a big move. I
think that if we do make such a change, an explicit statement is
important. I'm concerned that a "non-explicit, implied manner" to one
person may be "oh, I didn't notice that at all" to... most people.
Additionally, there is significant value in Fedora being seen as taking a
stance here.
Again, I don't want a big horrible dialog box, but the position should be
unmistakable.
Without committing to a specific implementation, can you give an example
of what a non-explicit, implied manner might look like, and particularly
how it might more effectively promote free/open software?
> What is "Fedora-prepared educational information"? What is its purpose?
Why does it have to be Fedora-prepared? Why are you specifying that it
should be linked to, rather than being presented in some other way?
(Apologies if I've missed the answers to these questions somewhere.)
It should be Fedora-prepared because Fedora's particular stance and voice
on free and open source software is not necessarily 100% the same as that
of organizations. While we respect and value the FSF, OSI, SPI, GNOME, and
other organizations, we don't have exactly the same positions and might
explain things in a different way. The use of SPDX resources for license
tags is an example; they mean something different than Fedora does when we
use "License: MIT".
> I'm generally unconvinced by the idea of prioritising apps in search
results based on whether they are free or not. In terms of the Software
app, I doubt very much that the position of an app in the results will
influence user behaviour or communicate anything worthwhile: we don't have
many apps and the lists on-target search results are never than long. I
mean, how many web browsers do you expect to show up?! And again, a more
abstract statement would be desirable from my point of view, like "when
presenting equivalent software options, an effort should be made to ensure
that free/open software alternatives are given prominence alongside non-
free options". This captures the intent behind the policy and ensures that
it will be implemented across whatever UI comes up, rather than being
restricted to a particular part of the UI.
Right now, I count 11 results for "web browser" in Software. Not all of
them are "good" results.
I like your general approach here, but I'd like:
* something wider than "equivalent" (because I don't want to get into "oh,
Firefox isn't equivalent to Chrome because it doesn't include
$somefeature")
* something stronger than "an effort should be made" (because "an effort"
could be anything, and I don't want to get into quibbling over whether
some token reference counts)
* "over" instead of "alongside". That's kind of the point.
> I don't understand the final sentence. It seems to say that users are
required to explicitly enable non-free software before it is made visible
to them, but then it goes on to state "the interface can indicate that
these non-free results are available upon action". Are you suggesting that
the UI should indicate that there are hidden results, somehow? Again,
please state your requirements in abstract terms if possible.
My proposal is that by default, non-free software must not be shown, but
when presenting software options, it is okay to indicate that non-free
software ''could'' be shown by changing those options — and again, with
some faith that you can come up with an elegant way to do this.
Previously, I gave an example ''"Other results appear in the [nonfree]
tag, which is currently filtered out. Click to reset this filter. Fedora
does not endorse non-free software. Learn more about [free software and
open source software and why this matters....]"''. This is obviously
implementation, but I hope it's illustrative. Or, if someone searches for
particular software and there is an exact match by name, that could show
up as ''"{Chrome} appears in the [nonfree] tag, which is ... (then same as
above)"''.
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/57#comment:19>
council <https://fedorahosted.org/council>
Fedora Council Public Tickets
_______________________________________________
council-discuss mailing list
council-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/council-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The Fedora Project's mission is to lead the advancement of free and
open source software and content as a collaborative community.
