On 10 April 2011 21:03, Anthony Lieuallen <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2011-04-09 10:21 AM, Sally Kennett wrote: >> >> being able to specify exactly where some scripts work is a very >> important part of the way I use the add-on, something I've been used >> to doing for several years. I understand that it's possible to edit >> the metadata of the script in some way > > Indeed. Just edit the file and specify @include and/or @exclude rules. Is > this really so much worse/more difficult?
I've kept quiet on the issue for quite a while but for the laymen person, I believe that yes it really is. Perhaps because so many people are/were accustomed to the simple two-click / type / save work-flow, any form of editing the code directly strikes fear into the heart of the non-technical people I know. The difference is the feeling of 'safety' - something along the lines of "if I just edit the text in this box everything will be okay, I can't break anything.." and that If anything goes wrong it will just be this part that I've badly defined rather than broken. Not the most comprehensive survey in the world and maybe not what is consciously being thought at the time I'll admit but I'd be willing to put my neck on the line to say that it is a common feeling. The situation now it is that the non-technical laymen are suddenly being told to hunt through 'scary programming stuff' (actual quote) and pages of text that likely doesn't mean anything to them and they're being asked to a) identify the metadata block b) identify exactly what part of the metadata block needs editing c) be confident enough to risk breaking so much more than the includes/excludes and d) successfully change it without breaking anything. Whether it is so much worse / more difficult depends on who you are asking, but it is definitely different. Change and up-skilling scares people and causes confusion and questioning - why is it necessary to do this? Why can't I just do it the way I used to do it? I guess that at the end of the day it is a confidence issue and those who have done it before may look at the above and be dismissive but I believe that the difference between editing just a single input field that looks very similar to other form input fields that probably gets seen/used commonly (web forms) vs opening up a file in a language they've never seen/used before into a text-editor that has likely rarely been used before (notepad?) and then being expected to edit is actually quite large. I don't suppose that any of the users in question will disagree. Maybe though, it will turn out that the people will be / are installing scripts onto a non-default browser after installing a non-default addon *and* want to edit the metadata are actually sufficiently technically proficient at editing the scripts and genuinely prefer the old way.. I'm not holding my breath. Of course, I don't have conclusive answers to the points I have mentioned but I do know that it would be a shame to alienate these people. What would be the actual impact of not having these people in the user-base? Will there be much gain from a) making it excessively obvious in the UI or b) providing obvious documentation? Meh, again I don't have the answers but fingers crossed I'll have some spare cycles to have a play with the Greasepot wiki over the next few weeks :) Regards, kwah -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "greasemonkey-users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greasemonkey-users?hl=en.
