Re: Session Properties and Crack up Programs

[textshell neutronstar dyndns org]

On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 06:45:01PM +0100, Glynn Foster wrote:
> Hey,
> 
> > Do you have log of it? I couldn't find them;-)
> 
> Working on it, hopefully we'll have something up in an hour or two...I
> just have to find the right guys to get the log off.

Ok, If i find them, I will look at the arguments.

> 
> > I'm not sure, that this is the right aproach. I don't think is that confusing,
> > and it is an advanced capplet, anyway.
> 
> Try documenting it ;)
Hmm, Documentation (Sorry definitly not my hobby)

> 
> > Well not the average user, but the average(ENOENT) poweruser, that has to get
> > something fixed!
> 
> Yes, as James Cape commented this afternoon -
> 
> "That's the only reason I've ever been to this dialog, because I'm
> trying to work around some other problem in GNOME that should be fixed"

Yes and we should not remove tools to fix broken stuff before we have a perfect
world ;-). But seriously no body can make perfect software(yes, really) and even
if gnome is not breaking all by it self, 3rd party software, strange users, etc
*can* make this importent.

> 
> > Why? It won't hurt, it doesn't make internal logic overly complicated, and nnotr
> > every body like session managment as of today. (Yes in the start trek future we
> > might just like it;-))
> > I'm happy to see the same screen every time I log in, no matter how much I
> > messed it up last time. I really searched for such an option with
> > Explorer(windoze) quite a long time before giving up on it.
> 
> I think consistancy should be our number one priority...that and
> usability. Yes, I'm definitely of the 'fewer options are better' camp.
> How many users actually care what is in their session? If you are happy
> to see the same screen every time you log in, then it won't make a
> difference if you are on 'Autosave' or not.
> 

Yes if you want to remove auto save (not the option to disable it), I
*personally* have not trouble, but session management is nice for many people
(my brother who is roughly as experienced as i, uses them all the time(KDE2)).

And i care to disable session management, because I don't like the stuff come up
as messed up as last time. I like it that my computer tidies up after me(I would
just end with a 30Minutes Startup time ;-)). Yeah session management is a good
thing, but You don't want to implement it with the requirements i have in mind.

> > Yeah, I'm not the usual user, but why chop this option for "useability"
> > conserns?
> 
> Okay, you try and document this feature...and then I'll tell you the
> various subtleties ;)

Hmm, "This disables automatic saving of what Application are running(technically
session saving). You can still save this informations manualy either in the
logout dialog or by running the program "save-session". If this all makes no sense
to you just leave this option off."

should be something that tells the user what it's about. Users should just learn
not to change settings they don't understand on a productivity system.
And for the rest we might someday get a gnome nanny that just looks through the
settings and complains about anything that might be "not for the john doe".
(Yes, If somebody wants this I might do some code!)

> 
> > Ever heard about "splash screens are bad"? Do it if you have to, but most likely
> > some kiosk-systems will suffer, or some other thing.
> 
> So we make it a hidden from the UI GConf option. Problem solved. We
> shouldn't have this type of thing in the UI - especially since a large
> amount of companies shipping this would rather prefer it it was on and
> the users didn't have an option...and I'm not speaking only Sun here.

Well I'm not the one to advocate for some Hardware companies, and yes i
replaced the ugly win98 splash screen with some nice animated fractal(Windoze
defenitly doesn't deserve a glow like some holy person!).
Short, I don't care about such issues.

> 
> > If it's so broken, we should fix it (or make something better). Till then it
> > should be hidden. So I agree on this point.
> 
> It should be in the login manager.
> 
> > Hmm, well it could be much nicer than having to edit a dot file in your
> > homedirectory to get something started. I personaly use the dot file approch,
> > but... It would be useful to know the current uses for it.
> 
> Yeah, I'm not too sure which is the best option for this.

Ok, if we have support, or a wrapper for KDM...

> 
> > Definitivly a BAD idea. We need this to fix stuff. Maybe some program is out of
> > control (UI hidden, no way to stop, whatever) and we need a way to get out ouf
> > the session. Or I might want to get one of the autorespawn programs out of it,
> > because it crashs or I have to debug it. (Yes you might think users debuging
> > gnome is bad).
> 
> Yeah, we do need to fix it...which is why this mail came about....are
> you volunteering? See quote from James above.

I say there is no way to fix the world. I agree that options that exist only to
cover up concrete bad decisions are bad. But this is another thing, there is an
infinite big number of stuff that can go wrong. So it's nice to have a place to
fix things that get broken. No there is no way to get all bugs and problems
fixed in the right way, which can be fixed with this option. No way.
A good system is useable and maintainable. 
<rant>
(You don't want to know how ugly windows get if you have a lot of pupils and
teachers and etc poking around in it, and sometimes it is not feasable to lock
everthing down, or just use "backups", I'm so tired of hidden settings in the
registry that need massage to get some stuff to work!)
</rant>

> 
> > And it's a nice way to see what going on in my session. To mislay this to
> > $(prefix)/lib/bonobo/monikers is a bad idea too, because we should not try to
> > shield the users from useful tools!
> 
> Um, I was kinda joking on that point..
>  

Ok, but you see my point.

> > Let the people grow into their OS/Desktop and don't keep them in a sand box
> > forever!
> 
> Yes! Let's also show them how to get around broken things in our Desktop
> too...since, well, we're not all perfect are we?

Yes, we won't be perfect. And yes, it's much better if the user fixes his system
than if he has to call the helpdesk and then poke some gconf-editor that can
heavily break the system. (Take a stop at alt.sysadmin.recovery ...)


> 
> > We should not try the mimick Microsoft in making things obscure, undocumented,
> > intransparent.
> 
> Um, well, you kinda miss the point about this. We have been doing the
> UI/String review with some the documentation and usability folks...so
> making things obscure definitely isn't our plan.

Not your plan, but maybe what will be the result of to much hidden complexity.
As long as things are complex and known to get wrong we shouldn't pretent we
have solved the problems.
My view of options is that a) out of the box all should be working nice (maybe
you have to fill in your name and emails server etc), and b) if something isn't
working smooth enough in some situation there is an option to change.
The user isn't supposed to go through the options just to tweak them.
On the other hand userlevels are a choice to to get some ppl a really unoptioned
interface.

still beliving that Gnome will be a desktop for newbies, hardcore tweakers,
hackers and the intermediate that want to learn in the near future,
	Martin H.