Olivier Galibert wrote:
On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 08:37:16AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
Users want to configure using a gui.
That's a common misconception. Lots of users are perfectly ok with
text configuration files, and even often like them more, because:
How many of these users are IT workers or computer enthusiasts?
- it's easier to find a file in a specific place than to find the
configuration-application-of-the-day
It's only easier for developers. Users know how to open Tools|Options.
They have no idea where the config file sits.
- it's easier to find what you want in it, especially when your setup
is nonstandard in any slight way. Things hidden in the new tab of the
day which appears only when you click on allow advanced in a dialog
box coming from a menu can be quite frustrating. In other words, the
interface part of a text configuration file is much harder to fuck up.
If the configuration file is of any size at all (postfix, apache) you
have to read a huge text file to find something.
If the configuration file omits some of the options, you have to read
the manual page.
- you can google using its contents
Shouldn't you try the application's help first?
- you often have useful comments in them, where the GUI equivalent
requires a number of manipulations to access
Context-sensitive help?
- you can grep a bunch of files to help finding where is the
configuration concerning <x>
I'm a user. What's grep again?
- it's way easier to talk about it in email
Especially for developers who dislike html mail. Users don't want to
talk about options, they want to change them.
- you don't need to leave the keyboard for all your configuration and
A good GUI will allow you to do everything through the keyboard (yes,
I've used one that does).
you can see all the configuration options on one screen
Again, assuming a short file, in which case the options dialog will be
short as well.
Of course, that breaks down if your "text" file is actually
computer-oriented xml crap with a randomly generated name hidden 3
levels down in a dot-directory.
In that case it's probably designed for machine writing. Hopefully
there's a GUI for it.
Debutant users don't want to configure, period. Advanced users want
efficiency. Efficient GUI configuration tools are extremely rare.
Efficieny for configuration? Do you measure it in configs/sec?
A configuration task is usually one for which you don't know all the
details, since it is rare. In that case the most efficient interface is
one that has visible hierarchical grouping so you can learn your way
through it.
An example: Thunderbird's Edit|Preferences|Display, "Plain Text
Messages" group, 'Wrap text to fit windows width' checkbox, vs prefs.js
mail.wrap_long_lines (it isn't there, you have to google for it or look
in Thunderbird's config editor)
[yes, it's easier to type in an email. but you'd get unwrapped text
much. much sooner with the GUI]
For system administrators and developers, text files are fine. For
normal users, let them have their GUI.
--
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
