On 10/12/2010 03:56 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote: > On 10/12/2010 02:52 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: >> On 10/12/2010 02:16 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote: >>> On 10/12/2010 10:28 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>>> Striving for usability and pleasantness for the untechnical users certainly is >>>>> a good thing. It gets problematic when you choose to make things technically >>>>> inferior just to please those kind of users. >>>> >>>> We don't have to make things inferior to improve usability. To stick >>>> with the "advanved storage" example: IMHO the selection screen between >>>> basic and advanced storage is confusing and superfluous. First it >>>> should probably be named "local storage" and "SAN storage". Second >>>> anaconda can default to local storage if a local disk is present (option >>>> to add SAN storage needs to be there of course). If no local disk is >>>> present it can go straight to SAN setup. One screen and one mouse click >>>> less for most of the users. >>> >>> If you want to appeal to the same audience Ubuntu is going for then you >>> have to remove choice. >> >> Why? All that would be required would be to move it out of this >> audience's way (the "defaults"). > > Now we are really talking semantics. I don't think so. > The point is that users should not be > confronted with choices they don't really need to make or they don't > understand. My point is to offer users who want choice the choices they want and not to force them into something they do not want. >> As Gerd mentioned in another mail, SUSE's installer seems interesting >> wrt. this. Its "defaults" cater the demands of "uneducated desktop >> installers", while still allows many kinds of complex setups outside of >> the "defaults" in "advanced menus". > > As long as most of these defaults and menus are not displayed initially > that would probably be fine. Please get yourself a SUSE DVD and try yourself - I was very positively surprized, esp. about SUSE's "disk partitioner's work-flow". It is easy to use for beginners (Click-through), while it still allows complex setups. > The problem here is that every time you present the user with data dumps > (e.g. lists of defaults) or menus you create a cognitive hurdle where the > user wonders what he's supposed to do or gets worried that he breaks > something. Minimizing that is really key to creating a streamlined > installation interface. > > The second aspect is that you want to talk to the user in terms of his > "problem" and not in terms of the underlying technology. Correct, ... my needs differ from that of others, ... therefore the tools being provided by a distro need to cater my needs, otherwise the distro doesn't fit my needs. > For example a user > wants to either replace the current System completely or install the > distribution into free space on his HD and but into either the old or the > new installed system. Correct, that some user's demand .. but definitely not all, and could not be further away from my demands. > The user doesn't care at all about "partitions", > "LVM" or "mountpoints". This is different from the more apt user who wants > to actually have control over these details (where exactly to put > partition(s) on the disk for example). Correct ... The latter for instance is what I had needed. I wanted to compare SUSE against Fedora. So I installed SUSE in parallel to other OSes (amongst them Fedora and Windows) on to the same machine. If my only choice would have been erase Fedora and/or Windows, ... this distro would have disqualified itself. > The issue here is that keeping these advanced features available could have > a negative impact on the "easy-mode" experience.If you manage to prevent > that from happening than more power to you but if not then creating two > distinct workflows is really the only option. I can't avoid to disagree. Spawning different installers means duplicating work and wasting resource. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
