[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-usability
Subject:    Re: "Home" name confusing
From:       James Richard Tyrer <tyrerj () acm ! org>
Date:       2006-10-17 10:02:58
Message-ID: 4534AA52.90809 () acm ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

NO HTML MAIL PLEASE.

David Roberts wrote:
>> But it is (or would be) at least dumped into a subdirectory that
>> contains only a user's data files.
> 
> I really don't see how this is any better. It's not like the home 
> directory as it is contains much more than the user's data files. All
>  you've pointed out are:
> 
> - Desktop, which should contain data files anyway, and the icon makes
>  obvious what it is
> 
> - bin, which I don't see why the chronic newb would need this anyway
> 
>> Are you arguing that every default is something being forced on the
>>  user.  Your argument can be reduced to your saying that you think 
>> A. Well, I think B and can make the same meaningless statement:
> 
>> "IMHO, forcing the user to dump their private data files into the 
>> $HOME directory is a bad idea."
> 
> yes but it's a lot more effort for me to delete all the defaults, 
> reset my paths, and create my own directory structure than it is for
>  you to create your directory structure.

What you say is clearly untrue.

It is exactly the same amount of effort to change the Documents path
with the control center.  However, if the directory does not already
exist ($HOME always exists) you must create the directory and name it.

It takes less effort to delete a directory than to create a new one.
The difference is of no significance but it does take more effort to
create one because you must name it.

> Anyway, I don't like the term default - why not have an option in 
> kpersonalizer that asks the user "would you like kde to create a home
>  directory structure for you?" or some such.

IIUC, Kpersonalizer is being dropped.  A decision which I support.

>> You open the Control Center, go to:
> 
>> 	System Administration -> Paths
> 
>> and change it.
> 
> I don't particularly feeling like going to that effort.

If there is a default it is always going to be the case that those that
don't like it are going to have to make the effort to change it.

>> Research tends to indicate that even though they may know these 
>> things that they are very reluctant to change defaults.
> 
> So you're saying that a newbie has no folders by default so they 
> won't make any. They also don't have any files by default, so does 
> this mean they're reluctant to make any of those.

Probably, but applications create files for them.

> Do you have a link for this research?

No, others have mentioned it and I would be very interested in actually
reading it if they would please post a link.

>> As I am sure you know, Windows XP has the equivalent of $HOME and 
>> it is NOT "My Documents"
> 
> Windows also has other things (such as the registry). Does that mean
>  we have to make those.

First, you make a totally invalid analogy.  KDE has the equivalent of 
the Registry but it is a collection of human readable files.

> No. Windows and *nix have different ways they implement things.

Then you are confused about Windows vs. *NIX.  They are really not
members of the same set.  Windows is really a DeskTop that runs on an OS
that usually goes without a name (it started as DOS and then was 
replaced by NT -- I presume that they are still using NT but have 
dropped the name).  *NIX is an OS.  So it is KDE which should be 
compared to Windows, not *NIX

> That's why they are different systems.

KDE and the Windows DeskTop are both pieces of software that attempt to
serve the same purpose so I don't see your point.  Having similarities 
in how they work will make it easier for KDE to be adopted to replace 
the Windows DeskTop.

>> There is no reason to dump everything in the $HOME directory, and 
>> nobody has offered one.
> 
> Nobody has said we should dump everything in home. What we are saying
>  are users should be able to create their own structure. If someone 
> decides to dump everything in one directory, then that's there 
> problem.

Currently, dumping everything in HOME is the default.  The result of
this is certainly a newbie's problem but it is not their fault.

>> This would really be bad.  If distros do it, they will all be 
>> different
> 
>> -- more fragmentation.
> 
> The same as this idea involves fragmenting kde from other non-kde 
> *nix systems?

KDE is a DeskTop.  A DeskTop is not *NIX.  *NIX is an OS that does not
include a user interface.  KDE, GNOME, & XFCE are already different
DeskTops.  Yes other DeskTops should adopt this feature.  But, I again
point out that KDE already has this feature.  I am only suggesting that
we fix the bugs and change the default Documents path.

>> Well if we are to be flexible, we first need to fix the bugs in the
>>  use of the Documents directory.
> 
> What bugs? Is not being a clone of windows considered a bug?

Bugs are things that don't work correctly.

When you set the Documents path and start a non-KDE application using
the KDE desktop, the current directory is NOT set to the Documents path
directory.

If you use the URL: "system:/documents" and you have Documents == HOME
something will crash.

>> IAC, my distro of choice is LFS so basically I am not concerned 
>> with distros, I am concerned with KDE.
> 
> well, create your own distro with these defaults and see how it goes

I tried to make it clear that I am very much opposed to distro based
fragmentation of Linux (and by inclusion KDE) because this is what
killed UNIX.

>> To call my position an opinion really misstates the case.
> 
> What else is it then?

Do you understand the difference between opinion and facts?

I said because of fact a, fact b, ... that it would be better to do it
this way.

You said only that you didn't like my idea.

These are not equal arguments.

>> They may have simply presented their opinions, but I haven't seen a
>>  position that presents an argument that dumping a user's private 
>> data files in $HOME is better than having them in a directory tree
>>  rooted in the Documents subdirectory (whatever it is actually 
>> called).
> 
> Once again, nobody has recommended that people do this.

The default is by definition a recommendation.  If you are claiming
otherwise, this will simply degenerate into a semantics discussion.

> People just don't want the root documents directory to be moved.

As you said, do you have a link to the research for that.  Has someone
conducted a study that indicates that users that know how to do it
differently prefer to keep their user data files in the $HOME directory.

>> The arguments I have seen are all weak arguments
> 
> Your argument seems to be the weak one. All I've heard you argue is 
> that:
> 
> - It's not the same as windows
> 
> - People are too stupid to create folders

I did not say that.  Others said that most users don't change the
defaults for what ever reason.  I would say that newbies do not yet have
the knowledge to do this.

I have also cited other factual reasons which you would be aware of if
you had read my postings.

>> There might be some truth to these statements, but this doesn't 
>> mean that it is a good way to do it or that it is the best way to 
>> do it.
> 
> I don't see why your idea is any better.

Yes, I understand that this is your opinion and you are entitled to it.
  But, can you come up with some factual basis why my idea is better or
worse than the current default.  It is those facts, not your opinion,
which should be the basis for a decision.

>> I have seen no position indicating this.
> 
> Hate to say this, but the majority of people seem to be for the 
> current system.

And the link to your poll is where.  Or you referring to the self
selected sample of those that joined the reactionary (NIH) AJS to make
negative postings to this thread?

>> Nobody, certainly not me, is talking about forcing anyone to do 
>> things in a certain way.  This is currently configurable (although 
>> there is a bug in it).  What we are talking about is the best 
>> choice for a default.
> 
> "Default" is just a pretty way of saying forced system. It's like 
> saying "DRM is to protect users from piracy".

That is a large load of CRAP.  Yes, the default is a suggested way of
doing things.  But, you really support my point as well as argue both
sides of the logical premise depending on which suits your current hit
and run attack.  You have both said that defaults force users to do
things and that users can change the defaults.

>> There is certainly nothing perfect about a default which is a poor 
>> choice and not suitable for newbies that are unlikely to change the
>> default for a while.
> 
> Well, give them two options: do you want this default, or that 
> default.

And your point is what?

>> Since I had to modify the code to get what I wanted to work 
>> correctly, I wouldn't say that the current setup allows for a 
>> choice and does tend to force users to use the default.
> 
> And your idea does?

I don't think that most users would want to modify the code to change
the default setting.  So, yes I would suggest that implementing my idea 
will give users more choice.

I am suggesting two things:

1.	That the bugs be fixed so that it is possible to use the 	
	Documents directory path as whoever first added it to KDE
	intended.

2.	That as the default it point to a first level subdirectory
	of $HOME.  I would suggest that we not repeat the error in
	Windows of calling it: "My Documents".  On my system it is
	called "Files".

Are you opposed to both suggestions?  If so, please try to promote a
meaningful discussion by offering fact based reasons to support your
position.

-- 
JRT
_______________________________________________
kde-usability mailing list
kde-usability@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-usability
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]