Re: Release notes have a launcher - maybe we should remove that

[Pete Travis]

On Aug 28, 2014 3:05 PM, "Elad Alfassa" <elad(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:
>  Hello all.
>
>  As you may know, we ship a launcher called "Release Notes" in our
>  default install.
>  During the F18 Launcher Purge[1] Allan asked the docs team to remove
>  it from the default install, but his request was rejected[2].
>
>  But now we have guidelines[3], and the guidelines state:
>  * An "app" is an application as defined by the GNOME 3 HIG[4]
>  * An app launcher SHOULD Launch software that is an actual app - see
>  the GNOME 3 HIG for the exact definition
>
>  And the release notes, well, are not an app (per the definition in the
>  GNOME 3 HIG).
>
>  Moreover, I don't really think users expect to find release notes
>  inside the OS itself - no other OS does that.
>
>  We can link to the release notes in our download page, our help page
>  on the website (which will be linked from start.fpo once I finish
>  implementing the new designs we got), and a bookmark in Firefox
>  (pointing to a local copy of the release notes) - so the release notes
>  won't exactly be invisible or inaccessible.
>
>  We could also go the extra step (of craziness) and copy the release
>  note PDF into the liveuser's Document directory (in the kickstart),
>  where it will be indexed by tracker and thus accessible via documents
>  and people who search for "release notes" in the shell would be able
>  to find it (why would they do that? I don't know). It's possible, but
>  for me it seems extremely crazy and unnecessary.
>
>  While I'm aware what I'm suggesting here might be a little bit
>  controversial, I do think it is something which we should consider.
>
>  [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Design/F18_Launcher_Purge
>  [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846316
>  [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Elad/Draft_app_guidelines
>  [4] https://people.gnome.org/~tobiasmue/hig3/application-basics.html
>  --
>  -Elad Alfassa.
>  -- 
This seems like [another] case of "we want to show all available desktop
files without filters, but that looks cluttered, so all other packages
should change so we don't have to add filters."  I appreciate the work
you're putting into the details on the default install, really, but as has
often been pointed out it will be really easy to gain that clutter back
with Software.   Two things can change here; *all* packages shipping
desktop files, or the *one* displaying them.

Okay, backseat developer hat off, docs hat on.  Yeah, I'd like to be free
of the fedora-release-notes RPM.  It's a little extra work - really just a
spec bump and rebuild at that stage - I wouldn't have to do.

That said, users *should* have Release Notes, by default, offline, and
discoverable.  Fedora changes a lot between releases, and I sincerely
believe that taking the extra measures to expose users to this
documentation helps alleviate frustration and prevents dissatisfaction when
something doesn't work as expected.  What seems obvious in context isn't
always so apparent to those on the outside of your process.  A measurable
portion of users will look for the reasoning and recommended remedies for
unexpected things they encounter.

Not everyone will simply think "oh, I can install that firewall config tool
with Software, I'm just going to accept that and not question it or look
for more information."  Some will look for RNs, some will look for
speculative forum posts, some will look for blog posts, and some will look
for *you* to *personally justify* your actions.  Our goal is to provide all
of these people the information they need to understand the behavior they
encounter and achieve the behavior they want.  It's a service provided by
the Docs team to both users *and* developers.  The benefits outweigh the
pain of having an icon that you aren't that interested in.

As a maintainer of that package, I'd welcome specific suggestions or
requests to improve presentation.

--Pete