On 6 Feb 2008 at 12:20, jonathon wrote: ... > The less computer savvy somebody is, the more comprehensive the answer > needs to be, so that they can comprehend the effects of teh action. >
Maybe. Maybe not. The best place to hide a tree is probably in a forest. One way to hide the info a user needs is to tuck it in a lot of words he [thinks he] cannot comprehend and so won't read. Believe it or not, there are users who /cannot/ understand anything beyond the most simple of concepts. And there are probably users who don't /need/ to either. And the distinction between 'gratis' and 'libre' is probably too nice for many to bother with - all they want (and need, in many cases) to know is "do I have to pay to use it?". Frustrating; yes. I begin to think computer use should be like car driving - you don't do it till you've passed a basic competence test. > To take a trivial example. How would you like to explain to somebody > why they can't use a specific feature of OOo, after telling them that > OOo works on Windows Vista? From their perspective the issue is that > OOo doesn't work., not that their version of Vista is crippled. What specific limitations had you in mind here? -- http://www.scottsonline.org.uk lists incoming sites blocked because of spam [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mike Scott, Harlow, Essex, England --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
