Le dimanche 19 novembre 2006 à 10:53 +0200, Avi Kivity a écrit : > 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 can use gedit which is actually not too difficult to explain compared to some "user-oriented" monstruosities > > 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. Very often the "GUI applications can be upgraded" means old settings are 100% lost. They even provide registry cleaners in case the upograde process forgot to kill some settings. > (and it seems you're advocating that applications should never change > rather than they should use config files). No, I'm saying being GUI is *not* the magical bullet you're saying it is. Like the rest of the software it can be massively abused, and in fact when a proprietary offering abuses threading and other plumbing aspects it ususally abuses the GUI too. > > 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. Thank you but no. I've done enough helpdesk (both familial and professional) in my life not to need another confirmation. > >>> - 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. Again, you're generalising a manichean "GUI is good" "config files is bad" without providing any supporting evidence. > >> 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. google is your friend > 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. ROTFL # 2 It requires : 1. you have the very same app version as the user, with the same locale and theme settings 2. that you mount a screencast-film to explain every change It's not practical (and despite what you may seem to think yes I've already done it and it was massively time consuming, needed to be updated every release, and was not practical but for 1-2 core settings) > >>> - 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'. And again you seem to think checkboxes are logically labelled or logically placed. Very often a GUI settings *requires* you to understand the application design to find it/set it correctly. You really need to sit with a basic non-computer-oriented user someday to understand the *mass* of assumptions that make a GUI setting useable. (And I'm not adding localisation by people with zero idea of what the app does to the mix) > >> 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. The difference being that GUI real-estate is scarse, so you get a condensed convoluted and confused langage and settings placed hasaphardly because there was no dedicated tab/section for them and they were regrouped on the screen with some space left. > >>> - 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. It's the same for desktop windows. I've never encountered one person actively using application help. Even some who "did" find one answer there once upon a time only use it at last resort when googling fails. Application help is a need-to-have thing required in the function matrix corps use before buying software, but the way it's structured makes it rather useless (and no I've got no magic bullet either) > 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). I'm not against GUI. I love GUI. I use GUI every day. But there is a difference between being for GUI and stating that because it's GUI it's user-friendly and because it's not it's user-unfriendly. A GUI can be good or bad. Most GUI programs have the same strengths and weaknesses. A common GUI weakness is configuration settings. Another is the help system. That does not mean for other everyday operations the GUI is not a good choice. Just that on average, users choose not to use the GUI config or help system because on average it's hopelessly botched. > >> 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? You cope with it, you ask a friend, you ask helpdesk, you google for it and when all is lost you may wander in the config menu or the help system. > All my friends have kittens on their desktop background. I want one too! Ever noticed the "put picture on background" shortcut is duplicated everywhere because users could not find it in the central "logical" place ? Do you actually think it's possible to duplicate every setting twenty times in the hope users will find it ? > Users want different things. That's why there are configuration options. For power users to use or helpdesk to set corp-wide. The existence of GUI settings do not imply their wide use, in fact every single user study points users do not use them, or only for 1-2 apps they can't avoid. > >> 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. This basic skill set is les basic than you seem to think > With a configuration file, you need a lot more knowledge and time. Again I disagree so that's your opinion against mine without any hard fact between. > >> 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. Then you don't understand average users. -- Nicolas Mailhot -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
