I am using fedora or rather redhat based distribution since there was Redhat 5 ( probably in middle ninteies or something )
As far as I can tell the disk partitioning scheme under F1/20 definetly needs some kind of rework to make it unambigious to users.
The developers must understand one thing from user's perspective that:
1} The systems being installed are mostly dual boot having other OSes &/Or partitions, already having precious data in them.
2} The users are always jittery if they do not fully understand where the whole thing is leading to, especially in regard to partioning. So a bit of more verbosity & transparency of what exactly the installer is doing will go a long way in mitigating the user's complaints.
3} Developers have built the UI & know its INs & OUTs. If they try to use the UI 'as a user', it will always lead to false analysis because their knowledge will always warp the UI experience & they will always make the right decisions even if those decisions are the most difficult. So in order to understand the UI from a User's Perspective they should always listen to users & give weightage to their complaints because that is exactly what the UI is delivering & not what the developers are thinking.
But then point 3 goes for all the UI in place be it installer or full fledged Desktop GUI. In case of installer, it just becomes a very dicey from the user's point of view with so much at stake & so little information.
Developers must understand that even if what appears to be a very dumb question/complaint, it actually is not dumb but just plain ambigiousness in UI. Confusion mostly arises from inadequate info where decision making is required, which is amply available with the developers but to the users, due to bad UI.
--
On 2 April 2014 11:16, Vikram Goyal vikigoyal@gmail.com wrote:
I am using fedora or rather redhat based distribution since there was Redhat 5 ( probably in middle ninteies or something )
As far as I can tell the disk partitioning scheme under F1/20 definetly needs some kind of rework to make it unambigious to users.
The developers must understand one thing from user's perspective that:
1} The systems being installed are mostly dual boot having other OSes &/Or partitions, already having precious data in them.
2} The users are always jittery if they do not fully understand where the whole thing is leading to, especially in regard to partioning. So a bit of more verbosity & transparency of what exactly the installer is doing will go a long way in mitigating the user's complaints.
3} Developers have built the UI & know its INs & OUTs. If they try to use the UI 'as a user', it will always lead to false analysis because their knowledge will always warp the UI experience & they will always make the right decisions even if those decisions are the most difficult. So in order to understand the UI from a User's Perspective they should always listen to users & give weightage to their complaints because that is exactly what the UI is delivering & not what the developers are thinking.
But then point 3 goes for all the UI in place be it installer or full fledged Desktop GUI. In case of installer, it just becomes a very dicey from the user's point of view with so much at stake & so little information.
Developers must understand that even if what appears to be a very dumb question/complaint, it actually is not dumb but just plain ambigiousness in UI. Confusion mostly arises from inadequate info where decision making is required, which is amply available with the developers but to the users, due to bad UI.
I entirely concur. (Personally, the oldest version I used was Red Hat 4.2 on an old SPARCstation I used to have.)
-
Liam Proven -
Vikram Goyal