Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
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?
Yea, right, ever tried to explain a GUI procedure to someone over 40
(aggravating factor : over the telephone) ? They don't know what
right-click is,
That's their first week on the computer, right? But they've already
mastered vi.
they don't know conventions, they get hopelessly
confused by renamed menu entries or new themes that change icons they're
used to.
Sure, an application upgrade can be confusing. But at least the
applications can be upgraded. With configuration files, it's impossible
(try to imagine a user diffing /etc/blah.conf with /etc/blah.conf.rpmnew
to get their machine to work).
(and it seems you're advocating that applications should never change
rather than they should use config files).
GUI power is massively overrated (even when it's designed
properly in the first place, which is the exception, especially for big
proprietary offerings)
(and that's not musch easier for younger people)
Nobody but computer enthusiasts has the time to browse all the app menus
and screens to find the place where the developper moved the magic
button designed to help him not writing a text file
Please try to watch some real users. They can get by with menus just fine.
- 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.
1. No they don't
2. when they do they recoil in horror before the mass of badly qualified
checkboxes
Sigh. A badly designed UI is certainly worse than a good UI. A
configuration file is a badly designed UI.
They have no idea where the config file sits.
Unlike the GUI, the config file location is usually stable.
Where is it? My file browser doesn't show it.
It doesn't matter if its stable if I can't find it.
They can
note it down. Mapping a GUI route OTOH is a disaster
Screenshot.
- 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.
And usually you have the text explanation right next to the config
option. With examples even. You don't realise what a godsend it is after
the 3-word explanation you have next to a gui checkbox
Again you seem to think that a voyage into the application's design is
more suitable for the user's attention span than clicking '[x] Beep when
new mail arrives'.
If the configuration file omits some of the options, you have to read
the manual page.
Hint : do you actually think people grok GUIs without manuals or helpful
power users to explain them what the heck the convoluted label language
means ?
Convoluted label language is no different than config_file_keys. If the
UI is bad, fix it.
- you can google using its contents
Shouldn't you try the application's help first?
ROTFL you're hopeless
You mean, googling a database of all web pages, including other versions
of the same program, other programs, to find a poor user that
experienced the same desire as you and went to the trouble of posting to
a mailing list is better than consulting an authoritative text that
comes with the application?
If so, hopelessness is indeed in order. For desktop Linux.
- you often have useful comments in them, where the GUI equivalent
requires a number of manipulations to access
Context-sensitive help?
Right-click, what's a right click ? What's a right-clickable object ?
You seem to be against GUIs in general, not just for configuration.
People do know how to right click (or do the equivalent on Apple).
Why do you think apple gets by with a single button mouse ?
The option key?
- 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.
No. Users don't want to talk about options period. They don't want to
change them be it in the config file or in the GUI
How do I add an e-mail account? The beep on a new mail message is
annoying, can I disable it? All my friends have kittens on their
desktop background. I want one too!
Users want different things. That's why there are configuration options.
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]
That's remain to be proven. Comparing speed once users have learnt the
GUI is cheating.
With a GUI, you need a basic skill set (navigating menus) and no more.
With a configuration file, you need a lot more knowledge and time.
For system administrators and developers, text files are fine. For
normal users, let them have their GUI.
If only it was their GUI and not some monstruosity designed to show of
everything is GUI-accessible…
I don't understand this remark.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
