Re: Installer UI advices

[M. Uli Kusterer]

At 11:50 Uhr +0000 12.03.2005, Pete French wrote:
>  > have learned to drive a manual transmission car. Driving and flying
> >  airplanes is getting easier every day. Why can't computing?
>
> Are they ? Cars have remained pretty much the same in control
> terms for decadees, and automatic transmissions are starting to
> die out (thank god!). As to aircraft, I see no significant differences in
> controls between this years shiny new C172 and the 30 year old one I fly.

<cars>
 Well, remember that cars have been around much 
longer than computers. They matured long ago. If 
you look at early cars, they're *very* different 
They had manual brake handles at the side, a 
crank instead of a steering wheel. Things that 
stuck for quite a while were the transmission 
gear-shift-stick (though automatic transmission 
simplified this a lot), gas pedal and brake 
pedal, and the steering wheel.

 Apart from that, a lot of stuff came and went: 
the choke, those waving things that showed you 
were changing lanes, the instruments moved around 
a lot (and differ a lot between manufacturers 
these days), the clutch. And most of that doesn't 
work at all like they did originally. We have 
servo motors on the steering wheel, digital 
instruments, hydraulic brakes...

 There will probably be more changes in the 
future. Already we have navigation systems, brake 
assistance, parking aids, cars that correct the 
steering wheel when you veer off the lane...

 I started driver's ed on a BMW (it's a rather 
common car here in Germany). Then I got switched 
to a Volkswagen Rabbit. You won't realize how 
much of a difference usability can make until you 
almost drive into a traffic light because you're 
fighting the rough gear shift.
</cars>

 The point I was trying to make: There are 
superficial similarities (just like between 
Windows, MagiC, RiscOS etc.), but in many ways 
they differ. Many of these things have improved 
usability and safety by focusing on helping 
drivers move in the world, not by teaching them 
more about how the insides of the car work.

> But I think in your analogy the users equate to passengers. They dont
> want to know how to fly the plane or drive the car. they just want to
> get from A to B. Same with users - they just want to use the apps
> and get their work done. They dont care if the underlying computing gets
> harder or easier, thats our concern, not theirs.
>
> You have to hide the complexity, you cant get rid of it because it is
> necessary for the whole lot to work. If you have dictatorial control
> over your OS then it's easy but for GNUstep it isnt because it runs on many
> systems. So all we can do is stick to the bits we *do* have control
> over - i.e. if you install an app it goes either in your Apps
> directory or the system Apps directory. Nowhere else.

 Why restrict ourselves this way? GNUstep itself 
has no problem launching applications from other 
places. Why cater to the lowest common 
denominator when, with very little work, we can 
actually allow many applications to just be put 
anywhere the user wants them?

> Conclusion: Dont use the installer to try and package up things which
> arent GNustep stuff and we'll do fine.

 Yes, sometimes you need to hide the complexity. 
But why stop with that at the very edge of the 
GNUstep libraries? Installer.app will be one of 
the core components of a GNUstep desktop (e.g. 
Étoilé). And users of a desktop don't care about 
where the complexity comes from. If they run up 
against it, they'll just pick another desktop 
that doesn't have it. IMHO it's fairly easy to 
make the installer flexible enough to install 
system-level stuff while retaining at least a 
basic level of ease of use.


--
Cheers,
M. Uli Kusterer
------------------------------------------------------------
       "The Witnesses of TeachText are everywhere..."
                   http://www.zathras.de