On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 23:50, Matt Wheeler <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2 September 2010 18:30, Frederik Nnaji <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Matt, > > > > the current situation is, that both warning and NOT warning the user are > > being practised. > > This sends the user a mixed message: > > first, upgrades / updates are afforded to the user, no warning > whatsoever.. > > What would be the advantage of warning users before an upgrade begins > that the upgrade will require a restart to be completed? That's the > point of what I'm saying. > Good point! The next couple of lines might contain redundant ideas, do you want to continue? [Y/N] > > ..shortly before the updating/upgrading is complete, the user is warned, > > that a restart is required. > > Yes, the user needs to be warned that a restart is required at some > point to actually start using the new versions of whatever has been > updated. Really, this should be a positive notification, not a warning. If we get this right, the problem we are discussing here will dissolve imo. I'd say WARNING is the wrong term, RED the wrong color and "REQUIRED" a totally misleading word in this context. Affordance, better than irritatation. As long as there is no absolutely crucial security fix among the updates that would *require* a restart, a restart is factually not required - warnings obsolete. I see no advantage to doing this before the updates are > installed though, and some disadvantages (mainly that users may be > unnecessarily put off performing the updates). > correct. If i inform about so and so many kilobytes of diskspace will be used, perhaps it is equally fair to inform that a restart will be required to commit the upgrade finally. How to formulate that information usefully at this point is another problem, but omitting this info entirely is an option i would prefer, so perhaps we should simply consider advertising instead of warning. > > > The problem with naming an action that is a menu item "Restart Required" > is, > > that it is an informative phrase and not an action. The menu item should > > carry the wording that describes the action it invokes, not a description > of > > its use case. > > > > The red coloring of the power icon on top of the Session Menu represents > the > > warning, where previously in the process the software was designed NOT to > > issue any warning about the state "Restart Required". > > Mixed messages confuse the user and wrong labels on menu items or buttons > > make it difficult to control the system altogether. > > I agree that the presentation in the session menu could be improved to > inform users better why a restart is needed. I also find it somewhat > inaccurate that the restart option is highlighted, but shut down > isn't, again I feel this could lead some users to believe they have to > restart their computer before they can shut it down, when really > either option would be as good as the other. > > None of this, in my mind, gives any reason to warn users before > running updates that a restart will be required after the update. > +1
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
