Re: [Usability]Re: The path to 2.4 -- part 1

["Bryan W. Clark" <clarkbw clarkson edu>]

Christian Rose wrote:

> tis 2003-02-11 klockan 01.03 skrev Bryan W. Clark:
>  
>
> > > > this author suggested that when doing
> > > > file management function from within Nautilus, if an operation requires
> > > > permissions that the user does not have, then prompt for the root
> > > > password... e.g., if I want to copy a file to /usr/bin and I'm not
> > > > logged in as root, simply prompt for the root password... or if I want
> > > > to view another user's home directory but I don't have permissions,
> > > > simply prompt for the root password...
> > > >        
> > > If this happens, make sure there is a gconf key to disable even asking -
> > > admins might not want user's to even see that dialog pop up.  (I
> > > wouldn't.)
> > >      
> > I would hope that this would be option would off by default so that 
> > users who want this type of functionality simply have to turn it on and 
> > other users are never aware of it's presence.
> >    
>
> Off by default doesn't make much sense. We already have good admin docs
> (thanks to Sun) that gives hints for admins of how to customize the
> desktop for their environment and users. Admins are often technical
> people that can supposedly in most cases handle some of the basics of
> gconf with help from documentation. Adding documentation about an
> additional key is not a difficult task.
>  
I disagree, I think off by default makes a lot of sense.  Until there is 
a universal "backup" or "undo" feature I don't think that something like 
this is a good idea for the majority of users.  And by "backup" or 
"undo" I mean giving users the ability to restore files that they have 
written over or removed, similar to the idea of the "reversable desktop" 
that was talked about a while back.

> In contrast, having to educate thousands of (novice) desktop users in
> standalone environments of how to toggle a gconf key to be able to do
> some copying seems like a much bigger task, and not necessarily one we
> would like to throw at our users at all.
Agreed, perhaps.  However I disagree that (novice) desktop users will be 
needing to access protected files so often that they require this 
functionality built-in by default.  Plus I would also think that a 
(novice) user might not understand completely what a dialog box asking 
"enter your root password" is really doing when they accidentally copy 
over their /etc/passwd file.  For those users who are not (novice) and 
probably need to access protected files much more; I think they'll find 
the key fairly quickly and make use of this feature.

> Whether this should be off by default in order to prevent users on
> standalone systems from dangerous copying that will ruin their system is
> another matter, though. But I'd argue that many distributions ship
> administration tools that are just a root password away anyway, which
> could just as easily hose the system if used uncarefully. Maybe an
> advice of the dangers if copying to a system folder would be in order,
> but I don't think we should disallow it.
Distributions can make their own decisions, those developers and their 
users will have to face the consiquences of those.  I see this as a 
question of what a "sane" default would be for the majority of all users 
of gnome, without taking into consideration of what any distribution 
might do after the fact.

Which persona type are you looking at this issue for?  Administrator? 
Power User? or the _larger_ group of regular users out there in the 
world?  

> > ( I can see this as a big 
> > usuability issue, one more dialog box for users to handle! )
> >    
>
> Usability isn't about removing dialog boxes. Usability is about removing
> them when they don't make sense, and just as much about showing them
> when they make sense (when there's something really important to tell,
> like in this case) instead of being silent and unresponsive.
>
> Usability is also about allowing for users to immediately correct their
> mistakes or how to achieve the goal (or informing about how to correct
> them if it can't be made directly) instead of just plain telling them
> that they did wrong and leave it like that.
>  
Agreed, I didn't mean to imply in that sentance that usability is about 
removing dialog boxes. However, adding a dialog box for root permissions 
doesn't address the issue of users being able to correct their mistakes, 
I think it opens up a new world of mistakes for users to make.  If there 
were a universal UNDO in nautilus and gnome, then this idea being on by 
default might make more sense to me.

> In fact, Nautilus *already* displays a dialog in these cases that just
> tells "you don't have enough privileges to write to this folder" and a
> Close button. This is problematic because of several reasons:
>
> * It may be plain wrong. The user may have the necessary permissions
> (think of an admin user that wisely doesn't use his box as root).
> * It doesn't tell what can be made in order to achieve those permissions
> * It doesn't tell how to achieve the copying in some other way, or even
> that it's possible (and that the lack of possibility here is only a
> limitation of the software)
> * And, as already mentioned, it doesn't allow for input of the password
> to achieve the permissions for those users that already have access to
> the password. Instead they must go back and resort to some other (not at
> all mentioned) and totally different mechanism to achieve the goal.
>  
This is a very good point, and something that should also be addressed 
in nautilus.

~ Bryan