Am Freitag, den 29.08.2014, 16:26 +0300 schrieb Elad Alfassa: > On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Pete Travis <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > This seems like [another] case of "we want to show all available desktop > > files without filters, but that looks cluttered, so all other packages > > should change so we don't have to add filters." I appreciate the work > > you're putting into the details on the default install, really, but as has > > often been pointed out it will be really easy to gain that clutter back with > > Software. Two things can change here; *all* packages shipping desktop > > files, or the *one* displaying them. > > If your criticism can't be constructive, don't say anything. Actually I think this is a constructive statement. Pete correctly pointed out that the activity view tends to be cluttered as it does not provide a filter mechanism. We now have folders, but we hardly make use of them yet. Please try to look at the bigger picture. Do we want something that works in the default install or also on a poweruser's desktop with tons of applications installed? Do we want to limit ourselves or do we want a solution that scales? I think we want the latter. I want the dash to look good everywhere. I want to be able to quickly find any app no matter how many apps are installed. > > That said, users *should* have Release Notes, by default, offline, and > > discoverable. Fedora changes a lot between releases, and I sincerely > > believe that taking the extra measures to expose users to this documentation > > helps alleviate frustration and prevents dissatisfaction when something > > doesn't work as expected. What seems obvious in context isn't always so > > apparent to those on the outside of your process. A measurable portion of > > users will look for the reasoning and recommended remedies for unexpected > > things they encounter. > > No other operation system comes with the release notes bundled with > the OS. This is not really a thing users *expect*. As mentioned earlier, comparing to other OSes is moot. We are talking about the expectations of *our* users, not other OS'es users. > > Not everyone will simply think "oh, I can install that firewall config tool > > with Software, I'm just going to accept that and not question it or look for > > more information." Some will look for RNs, some will look for speculative > > forum posts, some will look for blog posts, and some will look for *you* to > > *personally justify* your actions. Our goal is to provide all of these > > people the information they need to understand the behavior they encounter > > and achieve the behavior they want. It's a service provided by the Docs > > team to both users *and* developers. The benefits outweigh the pain of > > having an icon that you aren't that interested in. > > I don't understand what's the problem with having the release notes > available on the web and linked to in the download page and in the > support page. Currently it would violate our final release criteria, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Final_Release_Criteria#Release_notes Note: I'm not saying we cannot adjust the release criteria, but if we change the workstation product, we must make sure the release criteria get updated, too. > > As a maintainer of that package, I'd welcome specific suggestions or > > requests to improve presentation. > > Few options: > * Instead of installing a launcher, make it available in > gnome-documents or yelp. This will still result in less visibility, but sounds like a viable solution, at least for the workstation product. > You can separate the launcher to a subpackage While this is technically possible, I consider it problematic. * A single file in a package means the rpm metadata is bigger then it's content. * If we have fedora-release-notes and fedora-release-notes-launcher, we cannot be sure the launcher actually gets installed. fedora-release-notes would need to contain the launcher and the release notes would have to become fedora-release-notes-data or -common. Highly confusing. While I'm not a friend of it, I think that "NotShowin=GNOME;" would be the best technical solution. But it still does not solve the community aspect, that is the danger of devaluing the work of the docs team by no longer giving it the necessary visibility in our default product. > for desktops that don't care about the application model or having a > consistent user experience. Don't you see how biased your reasoning is? Just because other desktops do something different than your favorite desktop, that does not mean they "don't care" of have no "consistent user experience". If you want all stakeholders to agree to your proposal, please try to convince them. Try to come up with a technically compelling solution and a convincing reasoning. With a biased reasoning you will convince nobody. > * Do nothing. We can exclude the release notes from the Workstation > media. It will still be available in the web. Release criteria, see above. Best regards, Christoph -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
