Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2010 14:19:53 +0200 From: Dominic Fandrey <kamikaze@bsdforen.de> To: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> Cc: David DEMELIER <demelier.david@gmail.com>, FreeBSD Ports <ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: OPTIONS Message-ID: <4CA874E9.2070807@bsdforen.de> In-Reply-To: <4CA860E2.2080402@quip.cz> References: <4C93AA31.5080202@DataIX.net> <AANLkTik%2B1rvY4ZYgzHRjaX8PBfD1UqNCNeadHqg3KBfo@mail.gmail.com> <20100918223933.GB85995@dragon.NUXI.org> <AANLkTi=vPKpaPL9L=pQN9EdWdEN3sf1pos6uGtJU7ybV@mail.gmail.com> <20101002002605.GA8018@dragon.NUXI.org> <AANLkTinkasFFQ8ssbTSdbYUS%2BJ-tYMc1U3w9rkUCk9Gd@mail.gmail.com> <4CA844E5.7060303@infracaninophile.co.uk> <AANLkTimLqUaZMyDs-mhc-cQbASU%2B_1XqRjd=2=N%2BVSsR@mail.gmail.com> <4CA85617.7060503@bsdforen.de> <4CA860E2.2080402@quip.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 03/10/2010 12:54, Miroslav Lachman wrote: > Dominic Fandrey wrote: >> On 03/10/2010 11:45, David DEMELIER wrote: >>> 2010/10/3 Matthew Seaman<m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk>: >>> I don't want something complex, checkbox, textbox, radiobuttons is >>> enough. >> >> Textbox is _very_ complex. Think of all the code you'd have to >> add to ports to check what was entered by the user. >> At the very least you have to verify that whatever was provided >> is valid. For the feature not to become annoying you'd have to >> be a lot more fuzzy and complex, though. > > You don't need to. It is the same as if user put something wrong in to > make.conf, ports.conf or even if somebody do: > > cd /usr/ports/databases/mysql51-server > make WITH_CHARSET=UTF13 WITH_XCHARSET=1 WITH_COLLATION=true No, it's technically the same, but from a usability standpoint this is entirely different. In your examples a user makes an educated and competent change, the user acted on his own behalf. When you pop up a dialogue and ask the user for something you better have a) a good reason, b) good defaults, c) give thorough guidance and explanation and d) offer a way to roll back the changes made. Or you can kiss your users good bye. > All of them are invalid and not checked by ports framework, so if > somebody implements textbox in to OPTIONS framework, the situation will > not be worse! Situation will be better for those users not familiar with > WITH_XXXX knobs. You're mistaking a usability issue with a technical one. Jef Raskin's Humane Interface is a good starting point. Regards -- A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4CA874E9.2070807>