Re: Emacs Survey 2022 - design

[Philip Kaludercic]

Timothy <tecosaur@gmail.com> writes:

> Hi Philip,
>
> Thanks for the suggestions!
>
> Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net> writes:
>
>> Great to see another survey being organised!  Looking through the
>> questions I’d like to note the following:
>>
>> - Add “College” to who introduced someone to Emacs
>
> I’ve changed “University” to “University/College”. Let me know if you think 
> this
> should be two separate options.

I don't think that it should be necessary.

>> - Add NonGNU ELPA to the package repositories
>
> Done.
>
>> - The list of favourite packages should not mandatory
>
> Hmm, is it not reasonably to assume that everybody has at least a few packages
> they think look pretty good? Hmm, it doesn’t seem too bad if we were to just
> have a maximum.

I think there are plenty of people who use Emacs without any major
changes, just because it works for them.  If they have been doing this
for 20, 30 or even 40 years now they might have never bothered using
packages as such, beyond maybe a script they got from a friend or wrote
a few decades ago ^^

>> - The built-in themes should be added to the theme list
>
> If we have all the built-in themes, the list gets a bit long. The approach I’m
> taking is trying to prioritise the most popular options, and leave the “other”
> box for everyone else.

Ok, fair enough.

>> - The terminal emulator question should be rephrased “how do you use a
>>   shell within emacs”, though this is nit-picking
>
> Perhaps. I’m not sure on this.

I think everyone should get what the question in.

>> - Email clients should also have Rmail, Mew and MH
>
> The previous survey indicated a small fraction of responses for these, is 
> there
> a reason why you think the “other” box would not be good enough?

In that case no, it should be fine.

>> - Perhaps a question on what spell checking programmes are used
>
> It’s there, I think you might have missed it :)

Nevermind then.

>> - I think adding vundo to the undo package list would be nice
>
> Added!
>
>> (points like these should also be presented with some explanation, because I
>>  can imagine a lot of users don’t even know about these packages to begin
>>  with)
>
> Hmm. Not a bad idea. I won’t do this right now, but this is worth revisiting
> later.
>
>> - A general comment on the “My framework/starter kit’s default”.  Will
>>   you be able to infer what they use, from the framework or is this just
>>   a vauge option?
>
> Since we ask earlier what framework/starter kit they’re using (if any), yes! 
> In
> fact, I’m hoping this will be more informative/accurate in the case of users
> that haven’t changed the framework/starter kit default and aren’t exactly sure
> what they’re using.

Great!

>> - Perhaps mention fido-mode in the “selection” package
>
> Is it used enough to be lifted out of the “other” box? I don’t recall seeing 
> it
> much in the 2020 survey results.

I believe Fido came out in 27.1, so there probably was not much time for
people to start using it back then.

>> - Are the “gender” and “nationality” questions necessary?  I can imagine
>>   that the former one can cause a lot of complaints (especially when
>>   there is no “I’d prefer not to say”) option.
>
> There’s no “I’d prefer not to say” option as the entire question is optional. 
> If
> it seems like adding that is a good idea though, I’m happy to do so.
>
> The 2020 survey asked what people thought of adding demographic
> questions, and the response was (IIRC) overwhelmingly “sure, why
> not”. So these questions are a response to that.

I missed the "Optional" annotation, in that case forget this comment too.

>> - Are the “other” option plain text fields or a kind of “none of the above”?
>
> Text fields :)
>
> All the best,
> Timothy