Re: [Ayatana] What most people would find useful (was: Re: Updates on Login )
I think the biggest problem with automatic updates is that it puts systems at some non-zero risk for the sake of fixing something that probably isn't relevant to their systems. Wonderful point. I don't upgrade my system at all while I'm traveling. Stefano ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login (was: Re: [Fwd: Update manager])
People who auto-login or never restart can be handled differently.
Personally, I auto-login, so I would not use this feature, but let's not
think of gurus like us, who participate on Linux mailing lists, and let's
think instead about the average user, who might be made uncomfortable by
computers in general, and may be nervous about their first venture into
Linux.
The core of the idea is, at the face browser, there is a present icon when
you have updates already downloaded and ready to install. They might even be
unpacked already. Beside the present is a simple description like 13
updates available, requires restart. Click to update. The user either logs
in as usual, ignoring the icon (maybe it's at the bottom/corner of GDM), or
clicks the present. Clicking the present prompts for a password, and then
shows an elegant progress bar, installing the updates. If the updates
required a restart, the machine simply restarts, and our new 10 second boot
time brings the machine back up before the user even notices it's
restarting. We don't have to confirm shutdown, because nobody is logged in.
Then, the user logs in to her newly updated desktop.
There are drawbacks to this approach, sure, but do you honestly not see any
merit? I think it delivers a much more pleasant experience than asking the
user at shutdown. At GDM, the user is not in a hurry, and they can take a
moment to decide if they would like to update or not. Asking the user to
update at shutdown feels like a rushed decision; the machine is shutting
down, and you have a brief moment to either opt-in or opt-out of updates.
David, don't think I want to discourage you in any way. I'm pretty
happy with initiatives like yours.
But, of course, one has to see which advantages those effectively bring.
Frankly, seems to me that the only merit you cite ('more pleasant
experience') is highly subjective as it is the consideration that at
login the user is less in hurry than on shutdown. The hurry factor, by
the way, varies depending on the platform (desktop/notebook/netbook).
I'd frankly consider a netbook/notebook user always in hurry, and that
brings down both the login/logout alternatives. For a desktop, though,
the shutdown is nicer.
Sure everything can be ignored, but that also means that such feature
would affect a lower percentage of users, making it less compelling.
I also think that doing things at start up will require much more code
respect of the shutdown option and increased complexity in the
configuration panels (see for example the proposed configuration panel
that will be needed for handling the pop-under intrusiveness
http://tinyurl.com/koommq . are we sure we need that?)
A few more points:
- auto-downloading the updates is already there, but it's optional and
opt-in - and for a reason. I couldn't afford to use that in my current
situation for example (pay for bandwith). Slow connections may not
afford it. And so on.
- I think that making the user wait for uploads to complete before
login will lead to quite of a backslash, no matter if it's opt-in.
You're proposing opt-in to an undesiderable feature. I still would
have no problem with that, but I'm sure many people would not like it.
- I have the feeling it will be more difficult to code and would
re-use much less of the existing infrastructure.
As a side note, I don't like having update opt-in even on shutdown,
but for sure I think it would be much better than in GDM and may be
helpful for some.
Let me iterate it again, I don't want to bash you or your idea. I just
think it's not good and I encourage you to find some other good point
about it or come out with something different.
Stefano
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login (was: Re: [Fwd: Update manager])
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 12:02 AM, David Siegeldavid.sie...@canonical.com wrote: I think this is the ideal, but every time I start to bring up implicit updates, I get smacked :) Understandable. I should also say that browser upgrades are different from whole OS upgrade (not to mention we have PPA's and similar stuff). That said, the setting for automated upgrades already exists (system-administration-software sources-updates). If you feel this is important, consider proposing a more prominent place to let users opt-in automated upgrades. (like, say, Ubiquity. We may place a Perform the upgrades for me checkbox just under the 'autologin' checkbox) Stefano ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Getting users to care (was Re: [Fwd: Re: Update manager])
Would you mind showing us some evidence of said overwhelmingly negatively reaction? From what I've seen on the mailing lists so far, those complaining about the update pop-under mostly belong to a small, yet very vocal group of power users. Are you joking ? Count the unique users on this https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/update-notifier/+bug/332945?comments=all and the number of duplicated bug. Then compare with what an average a bug gets. Stefano ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Fwd: Getting users to care (was Re: [Fwd: Re: Update manager])
Awesome, right? Not sure about what your whole reply meant. I think that notifying on startup has many disadvantage and it's not applicable in some cases (kernel upgrades, autologin). It's not wonder windows why asks for it at the shutdown. ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login (was: Re: [Fwd: Update manager])
We should definitely consider as many update scenarios as possible in order to find the one that users will prefer. We are very quick to start implementing updates and shut down without considering something radically different because many of us have experiences updates at shutdown when using Windows. Neither solution is perfect, both have their merits, and this is the perfect place to discuss them. May I ask which merits may the Updates-at-login-time have ? It's not that Windows is perfect, but some times there's a rationale behind the choices done by it. (and, btw, I hated the way Windows tried to trick you into upgrading at shutdown) The drawbacks of updates in GDM are many: - some people auto login, they won't see anything (not big issue, but also not nice) - perceived bigger lag between power on and operability (due to the need to perform a choice) - being reminded to reboot right after having just powered on is not nice. - increased delta with Gnome and possible loss of compatibility with existing GDM themes - increases the workload startup (while the updates are being performed), in a timeframe when there's already load (as the gnome desktop is loading, and the first applications you'll launch will load). I don't think we really need to think different at all costs. Stefano ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Interactive notifications idea
I fully understand my idea came in a time where everything was decided, but you have to let people express their vision, only afterwards you can point out things out. We're very interested in morphing windows, so thank you for exploring the idea! In general, morphing windows should let us deliver simpler, clearer user experiences, because people are confronted with just the specific information they need at any given time, and don't get lots of popup windows as that changes through the course of a workflow. If we thought there was a compelling use case for actions on notifications, your suggestion would be a very useful one! Summing up, my idea, rather than being interactive notifications vs morphing windows, was simply related to the use of the screen edge as it's an easier target respect a small button. As you already guessed, it could applied to morphing windows as well. I won't discuss the morphing windows, since the entire concept is not entirely clear to me. Still, there's one thing that strikes me: morphing windows behave much differently than notifications. They expand on mouse hover, instead of disappearing. Even if they look different, having them be semi-transparent may trick the user into expecting the same behaviour as notifications. (I should also note that pretty much nobody likes popups nor popunders ) The reasons that we think actions on notifications are a bad idea have been documented elsewhere, I'll just focus on one of them which is the poor interaction between the short-lived nature of a notification and the need to reach it to interact with it. Allowing actions on notifications means that people HAVE to rush to get to them before they expire. We view that as broken by design, so we won't have any actions on notifications, and that in turn means there's no need for this. I fully understand that. But let me point another consequence which I consider broken by design. The hands follow the eyes. If you see a mail notification you expect to be able to click on it and open the incoming mail. Thus, in some way, the non-intrusiveness, breaks something else. Currently the problem is solved by the Indicator applet. If you miss something, you can find it there. That removes the urge to reach the notification in time. Still the dissonance between seeing a mail notification here and having to click there to get to the mailbox is present. My take is that having the indicator applet removes part of the frustration of missing a notification/morphing window (and using an easy target like the screen edge may make it so much easier not to miss it !) as, if you miss it, you can always find it in your catch all indicator applet. rumbling There is still some problem with the indicator applet... - the icon is pretty small to click and the indicator applet is meant to be an often accessed item. I would make it larger. An hotkey would also be appreciated. - also the context menu is just a normal menu. In my ideal world, clicking on the indicator applet would fade out the screen and make appear again all the missed notifications, in a dashboard-like fashion. ...but i guess it's fine for now. /rumbling Unrelated question: is a roadmap to be found anywhere ? What is the work group working on, currently ? ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
