RFC: System Settings categorisation overhaul

[Darío Andrés]

On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 9:09 PM, Aaron J. Seigo <aseigo at kde.org> wrote:
> On October 3, 2009, Darío Andrés wrote:
>> > i'm not saying it couldn't be better, but let's be sure it gets done
>> > better instead of trying and running the risk of probably ending up with
>> > another not- great arrangement.
>>
>> That's why we are discussing it here, to come up with something
>> better, which should be easy and discoverable.
>
> kde-core-devel is not a good place to find out how average computer users
> perceive hierarchies of data that reflect the technical details of the system.
> it's probably one of the worst, actually, because it is populated by deeply
> advanced users who know all the details from the inside.
>

Ok... we choosed a bad place to discuss this..
This whole thing started on forums.k.o , may be it should continue
there.. (lots of users, not so much devs)

>> If it is done properly, it should help us to get something better; and
>
> i don't actually share the same confidence :)
>

Bah, to be sincere ... I don't have confidence at all about this ... nevermind.

>> the "relearning" process should not hurt at all.
>
> it does hurt. every time we change this structure, we cause problems for
> users. we hear about it. and it's the kind of problems that are really hard to
> justify. it doesn't really provide any new advantage to these people, it just
> discards their hard earned knowledge and exchanges it for another arcane set
> of hierarchical modules.
>
> (and yes, search is a far better approach here :)
>

I like the search approach too

>> > "Plasma Containments" is two jargon words put together. we should not be
>> > using jargon _anywhere_ in our UIs that the average user is meant to go
>> > through. in this case the name should be "Desktop Activities". it's a
>> > moot point in thi case, though, as this panel doesn't belong there at all
>> > (unless it's something other than what the name suggests?)
>>
>> Agreed. (I never liked "Plasma Containments", but it was the first
>> name that come to my mind to describe it, sorry about that)
>
> what settings does this panel contain?
>

That KCM would be: http://www.notmart.org/images/netbooksettings.png ?
( http://www.notmart.org/index.php/Software/Trying_the_netbook_project_made_ )

>> > what's the difference between "Connections Manager" and "Connection
>> > Settings"? what "Resources" are being "shared"?
>>
>> "Connections Manager" is just a dummy group for NetworkManager/WiCD ,
>> as I don't have such KCM I don't know how to group them nor name them
>> properly.
>> "Connections Settings" is the former "Network Settings" , proxy and
>> other connection preferences, timeouts and so on. Ben pointed that it
>> would make sense to merge this into "Connections Manager"..
>
> probably; use testing would help us with that.
>
>> "Resource sharing" should be "File sharing"
>
> probably a bit better; user testing would help us with that.
>
>> > is "Multimedia" really hardware?
>>
>> "Multimedia" includes the Phonon KCM which is about configuring audio
>> and video output and settings, that kind includes hardware
>> configurations ("to which speaker should X category sounds be
>> played..."). but it is not strictly about hardware.. Where would you
>> put it.. ? could it fit on "Workspace"?
>
> i don't think so as it isn't exclusive to the workspace. my point here was
> that it's ambiguous, and so we really need to test this on actual people.
>
>> > would it make more sense to have Workspace / Applications / System
>> > instead of Personal / W & A Behaviour / Hardware?
>>
>> Yes, as I said before it would make sense. The problem could appear
>> when defining which settings is from Applications, which one is from
>> Workspace and which one could be related to both.
>>
>> About the last category, are you suggesting to merge "Hardware" +
>> "System Administration" ?
>
> perhaps; it would require user testing. :)
>
>> > i really think this needs to be done with a greater amount of usability
>> > input and principles applied and with subsequent rounds of testing.
>>
>> Agreed. Should we redirect this to kde-usability ?
>
> yes and no. yes in that kde-usability is the right area, and no in that we
> really shouldn't be discussing this on a KDE mailing list, we should be
> testing people.
>
> these kinds of tests are actually pretty easy to do compared to other kinds of
> usability research. we could each go out and test 3-5 people and have a great
> sampling. Celeste could help set up some of the parameters. i think card
> sorting would be perfect here.
>

OK, agreed on doing some user testing to resolve this.... (or should
we just implement the "improved searching" function and forget all the
mess about reordering SS ?)

Regards
Darío

> --
> Aaron J. Seigo
> humru othro a kohnu se
> GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA  EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43
>
> KDE core developer sponsored by Qt Development Frameworks
>