Re: Installer UI advices

[Sheldon Gill]

Jesse Ross wrote:
> > Am I right in thinking that your primary objection to an installer 
> > application is user feedback and ability to organise files?
> >
> > If that's so then I think you're looking in the wrong place for a 
> > solution.
> >
> > Consider:
> >
> > Flexibility in organising where your applications go is limited by the 
> > OS. Additionally, it's actually nice for anyone who needs to work with 
> > many different machines if they can find their way around easily. 
> > Standardised places help this a lot. It also helps less sophisticated 
> > users by helping them with the decision. Users can be free to install 
> > the actual app anywhere they want if they tell the installer where to 
> > put it.
> >
> > If you want immediate feedback on where the application has gone I'd 
> > have thought the right thing to do is provide that feedback. The 
> > desktop/workspace should do something appropriate.
> >
> > For example; at the end of installation, the icon of the installed 
> > application quickly moves from the installer window to a place on the 
> > dock.
>
>
>
> I'm going to blame all of this on how I was raised. :)

Hmm.. let me start off by saying I, too, have used MacOS classic since 
the early days. Much regular use from System 6 although the first Mac of 
my own was System 7.

At the same time, I was using Amiga at home. MS-DOS, Unix, Solaris and 
VMS elsewhere in varying amounts and level of sophistication.

> <rant>

*Rant mode engaged*

> I know that this list has it's share of Mac users, but I don't know how 
> many of them were Mac users before OS X. If there are any, maybe they 
> can tell me if my memory is bad. I grew up on Macintosh. My first 
> computer was an Apple Centris 650 and I've used "classic" Macintosh OSs 
> (7,8,9) more years than I've used OS X. In that system, there was a 
> System folder, which you only touched when you needed to modify the 
> system. Everything else was up for grabs. You could organize it however 
> you saw fit. Of course it was a bitch for standardization, but it was 
> more about freedom of organizing _your_ space, _your_ computer. Once I 
> started using OS X and Linux, I was abhorred by all these folders that 
> meant nothing to me, and were taking up _my_ mindshare and field of 
> vision when I went looking for my files. Why should I have to see any of 
> this crap? Does it have any bearing on just getting my work done? Why 
> can't I throw them away? Why, when I try to put things in them, does it 
> tell me I'm not authorized? It's _my_ computer... shouldn't I be able to 
> put things where I want and move what I want where I want?

Yes, been there. By the same token, how many machines did you support?

Many users would complain about their application not working anymore: 
Looking at the issue, they had kept the "app" they wanted and thrown out 
the other "junk" in the folder that they didn't know about and didn't 
think they need!

Anyone trying to use someone else's computer had a very interesting time 
trying to discover what apps were or were not installed and where they were.
Someone wanted to create a Photoshop document on a machine. There was no 
Photoshop icon on the desktop. There was no Photoshop icon in the Apple 
menu. There were several mounted volumes. Where was it? Was it even there?

Oh yeah. Do you have any idea how many copies of SimpleText existed on 
the average classic Mac file system?

The other thing was organisation and productivity. Many times I showed 
people my filing system which led them to promptly change theirs. They'd 
not had the training or information needed.

If its *your* computer for entirely *your* use, you are free to do 
whatever you want with it. Put stuff anywhere you want. Of course, you 
need to know what you're doing or it'll break horribly under OSX and 
Linux and many other operating systems.

If its a *company* computer then its a different matter all together. 
Corporate documents are filed in the company filing system. That 
compactus is put in a particular spot and you are expected to put the 
documents into specific places. Its not *your* decision anymore because 
it effects others and you need to work together! That means common 
standards.

There are technical reasons for the file system layout and the 
impositions. These are outside the scope of GNUstep and difficult to 
fix. If you want to do it properly and reasonably, you need to 
re-engineer the operating system and the applications which run on it.

Essentially, if you *choose* OSX or Linux then you've *chosen* their 
impositions as well as the power.

Sure, you don't know what those other folders are there for. You think 
they look ugly because they've got short names which are meaningless to 
you. That the hell is "/etc" ???  Why are there two trashcans?

But think, for a minute, of the classic Mac. Most Mac users had an inate 
fear of the System folder. That was the place of special Mac magic and 
only "Admins" and "Geeks" went there! So now you have a few more sacred 
places. So a few more places aren't up for grabs. A bit messier granted 
but still conceptually similar.

> This is mindset of the typical user. Put the power in their hands to do 
> what they want with their computer, and don't make the computer invade 
> into their lives and space.

Thats right. Thing is, the computer is a complicated device. If you know 
nothing and sit down to try and use one it's not going to be very easy 
and its probably not going to be a satisfying experience. Would you let 
someone get behind the wheel of a car and just go?  Using a computer is 
actually a much more general task and so much more complex. It'd be more 
like putting someone in a cockpit and letting them try to fly.

The solution many have gone for is to present a *User* level view which 
tries to hide and manage the underlying complexity. Its certainly easier 
than trying to re-engineer the OS and the incompatibilities that'd bring.

> This invasion of the computer's world into the user's world is not 
> exclusive to *nix. Windows is the same way, so countless people get used 
> to having to see their workspace littered with things they shouldn't 
> have to deal with. I don't think that's right. They should be able to 
> manage their computer as they see fit, not how the computer sees fit. 
> The computer should be invisible.

Not entirely. They should be free to manage their computer within the 
guidelines and doctrines of the system. If you see your workspace 
littered with things you shouldn't have to deal with then it's a design 
flaw. Those things can be hidden. It doesn't mean they don't go away.

> This is my biggest qualm with package managers and installers and 
> software you have to use first to get the software you really want 
> (Frederico, I'm not trying to down your work -- you're doing a good job 
> and don't stop because I get into a rant about usability and 
> user-empowerment). I don't know how many times I've done apt-get install 
> somesoftware, and then I can't figure out where my software went to. 
> Maybe it's in /usr/bin, maybe it's in my home folder, maybe it's in the 
> start menu. I have no idea, it doesn't make sense to me. Maybe that's 
> because I grew up on a Mac, and so I see where it was at its best (drag 
> and drop and done) and want to use that everywhere. It's ridiculous how 
> much _work_ I have to do just to set up a Linux machine, and how much 
> hunting around the system I have to do. I've learned a lot about how it 
> all works, but the point is, I shouldn't have had to, and your average, 
> web-surfing end user isn't interested enough and won't take the time to. 
> They will say "this is too hard" and give up.

Hmm.. you were using apt-get. On the command line. You're in an entirely 
different space to the GUI discussion. So you don't know where things 
have gone. Thats because you don't know enough about your environment to 
use it effectively. Its not one designed to hold your hand and pat your 
head. You decided to use it so deal with it.
If you want to make your life easier, install aptitude and use that instead.
Or forget Debian and go SuSE and YaST.

Setting up Linux and hunting around does require a fair bit of work and 
knowledge. Yes, it's too hard for a average end-user. It can be made 
much easier to work with by presenting a better "shell" to the end user.

Choose your OS, choose your consequences.

Why aren't you also complaining that you can't move your files around 
and change their name while simultaneously editing them?

Why not also complain that if you create a link to a file and then move 
it, the link breaks?

Why not also complain that you can't use certain characters when you 
name your file or directory?

(I can go on and on here)

> There are ways to make this stuff easier on the end user. It can be 
> done. If it means more programming, or more effort up front for the 
> developers, but it means an easier life for end users, then it's worth 
> it. We tend to do this for ourselves, but if we want to make something 
> that changes how everyday people work and communicate and live and 
> interact, then we need to think of them.
>
> No, better than that. We need to think _like_ them.

When considering the use of our systems, yes. In designing them, no.

> They HATE computers. They just want to get some work done. They don't 
> want to think "I'm using a computer" -- they want to think about the 
> paper they're writing, or the photos they're organizing, or the web site 
> they're looking at. They don't want to think about compiling software so 
> that it works for their machine, or hunting down dependencies, or adding 
> repositories to a sources list, or finding out where that installer put 
> their app. They want to be able to download an app, drop it on their 
> machine, and use it and have it work.

Yes, Users want to use. The system should be helpful and supportive and 
largely get out of their way. You're talking about a Humane Interface ;)

> These are big problems to try and solve. I'm not saying I have all or 
> any of the answers. I just think that there is a way to make all of this 
> easier, more invisible. Wouldn't making an open source system that is 
> easier to use than a Mac be an amazing and worthy feat? I want to make 
> something I could give my mom, and have her understand. She's frightened 
> of computers, and I want to make something she can manage and not be 
> afraid of. If I didn't think GNUstep was a great base for that 
> "something", I wouldn't be here.

Yes, its a great base. There is an incredible amount of work to do, 
though, to get things powerful and yet humane.

GNUstep, though, can't directly address many of the issues because they 
are incredibly platform dependant and GNUstep is used on many platforms.

There are things which can be done within GNUstep. There are other 
things which require solutions outside it. For a User, it may not be 
apparent where an issue lies.

> </rant>

Sheldon