Re: 3.2 features: login screen

On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Bill Nottingham <notting redhat com> wrote:
> Matthias Clasen (matthias clasen gmail com) said:

> Initial state: a system with no users
> a) InitialSetup runs
> b) Create first user
> c) Configure first user's settings
> d) First user has full session
> e) First user creates additional users in control-center
> Questions:
> 1. How is 'c)' different from the existing control panels (including
> new ones for GOA)? Do they share any code or implementation?
> If they don't, how do we document for new users that to change these
> settings they go through a different interface than they did for
> initial setup?

It is different from the control-center in so far as it is a guided
setup, asking you the handful of questions you need to answer before
you can get going. The control-center is not offering you that
guidance. In terms of what you can configure, the initial setup is a
very tiny subset of what you can do in the control-center. And it is
supposed to remain a proper subset; we want to avoid the
install-time-only configurability that we've seen in the past with
'fat' installers.

What is shared here is a) the system and session services that are
used and b) the general user experience - e.g. the network list uses
the same icons and appearance as the combo in the network panel, and
the timezone map is the same widget you see in the datetime panel. As
far as actual code sharing goes, currently some bits and pieces are
copied. Some of it (e.g. the map widget) will end up in shared
libraries (see ongoing discussion on the control-center list), but I
don't see that as an urgent priority.

> 2. Similarly, how is 'e)' different than the current user add
> screen? How are additional users expected to configure this information
> for their login if they are created in this manner?

Additional users can use the control-center to set up the account, as
things currently stand. It is conceivable that one could write a
welcome assistant for additional users that does some of the same
things (and probably shares some of the code), but that's not part of
the current design. And considering that most systems are single-user,
and additional users are much less likely to be 'alone with the new
toy', it seems a much lower priority.

> 3. Given the 'initial setup' sort of idea, is there going to be a
> 'reset to factory defaults' button somewhere else?

I don't think we need one, really. Do you ?

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]