Mailinglist Archive: yast-devel (108 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [yast-devel] GUI for services management
  • From: Ancor Gonzalez Sosa <ancor@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 15:20:21 +0100
  • Message-id: <5475E1A5.2000404@suse.de>
On 11/26/2014 02:03 PM, Josef Reidinger wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 13:54:37 +0100
Ancor Gonzalez Sosa <ancor@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On 11/26/2014 09:27 AM, Josef Reidinger wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 18:48:41 +0100
Ancor Gonzalez Sosa <ancor@xxxxxxx> wrote:



c) Server is running and “start when booting” is not marked
Ask the user if they would like to stop the server now.
If they decide to keep it running, reload the server.

Why? If server running then simply reload it. Or do you think it is
common use case to run old server and wait with reload to next boot?

That's exactly the point which started the whole usability discussion.
Currently when you configure the server as disabled ("manually" radio
button) and you click "ok", the running server is stopped. We got a
bug report about it and I agree is unexpected to me. But turns out
that is implemented in that way to meet expectations from some users.

So the point in (c) is not whether to keep server running with the old
configuration (as you can see in (b) that's never an option). The
point is whether disabling should mean stopping the currently running
service.


I am probably not common user. If I uncheck "start server during boot",
then I really do not except to stop already running service.

Neither do I. Neither do the QA guys according to
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QeVFspHYGMPtEZtkVkOO_WsoEoTNrtIlDvyLOJkqrTE/edit#gid=0

But that was the implemented behaviour. And it was by user request.

The good point about Ken's proposal is that it does not only target
common user (let's assume for a while that we can consider ourselves as
such) but it tries to target all users (even those with a strange
mindset that leaded us to this point).


[...]

As you may guess from my comments I do not prefer to ask user to
something unless it is really critical like that computer will
explode or if beer getting warm.

I'd normally agree. But the problem with this approach is that several
fields and field combinations has proved to be understood in different
ways by different users. Ken's solution was to add extra checks. I
think it makes sense even if I usually dislike pop-ups.

Still I think we maybe just need to separate action buttons ( like
start/stop service ) from configuration options ( like start during
boot ). This should help with confusion without pop-ups.

Do you mean in a completely different section (with "section" I mean
those at the left like "start-up" or "forwarders")?

Would it be an option to add them in the same row that other actions
like "cancel" or "ok"?


--
Ancor González Sosa
YaST Team at SUSE Linux GmbH
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: yast-devel+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To contact the owner, e-mail: yast-devel+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >
List Navigation