Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 21:26:34 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: tom@sdf.com (Tom) Cc: capriotti@geocities.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: X based Free installation Message-ID: <199801072126.OAA08825@usr06.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.95q.980106113410.22841C-100000@misery.sdf.com> from "Tom" at Jan 6, 98 11:40:38 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> How would a graphically install help? I don't think it would in the > examples you've given. If the CDROM can't be accessed, why would a > graphical install indicate why, and a non-graphical install not? Why > would concepts (info and language) displayed in a graphical dialog box be > lessing confusing if those concepts where displayed in a non-graphical > one? > > Don't get stuck in the trap that GUI is better, because. If the > language is not understandable, it will not become understandable in a > GUI. I like graphical installs because: 1) They tend to be procedurally linear. Unlike a menu, which you can choose to do out of order, and maybe forget something or accidently leave it out, when something is procedurally linear, it forces the person who is installing to go through the same procedure as all other people who are doing the install. 2) They tend to hide complexity. Many people call this "dumbing down", which isn't really a fair call. You can still allow for an "Advanced..." button to expose additional options. But if you design so that the "Advanced..." button is not used in the default case, then you, the designer, have to take into account a lot of things that you would otherwise force the user to have to think about. And the user may not be qualified, like you supposedly are... 3) They tend to make it so you answer questions only once. For a network install, it always pisses me off that I have to set up my network twice... once for the install, and again for the post-install. If I give a computer some information, I damn well expect it to remember it for me, or I would be using 3x5 cards, not a computer. 4) They "fold" installs for the lowest common denominator. This may seem like a repeat of #2. It's not. #2 hides _unnecessary_ complexity. Folding also hides _necessary_ complexity. This is the difference between the Windows 95 "Default", "Portable", and "Custom" options. Only in the "custom" case do you even expose non-default possibilities for even "non-advanced" settings. You ask the minimum number of procedurally linear questions to get the user up and running with the default settings. In other words, "option + next/back/cancel" for all dialogs, with the smallest possible number of dialogs. Now with all this said, it IS possible to make non-graphical installs that do this. The Windows 3.1 install is a good example. But such examples do not abound in the real world; they are few and far between. In practice, if you give a programmer the option of doing something three different ways, then they will make them all work, and you won't be able to point at any one of them and say with authorit "this is the one true way". For an end user, this sucks. All the end user wants is for you to tell them "the one true way", and then get the hell out of their face with your "or you can..."'s, go back to your cubicle, and put your propeller-beanie back on your head, and hibernate until the next time they need to know "the one true way" (this is their point of view I'm representing here; I'm sure few of us actually own propeller-beanies). Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199801072126.OAA08825>