Re: [installer] One more template change?

Hi,

Justin B Rye <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm on the record as wishing we could rip out this whole terminology
> of "low priority installs" and start again with something else
> (Bug#796662), but at least here it is in principle possible for it to
> make sense...
> 
> Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > Holger Wansing wrote:
> >> I would propose to simplify/improve that like this:
> > 
> > I would suggest using consistently "question" instead of "item", and
> > avoiding "reasonable default" as I'm not sure how widely that term is
> > understood:
> > 
> >> You can select the priority of question you want to see:
> >> - 'critical': you will only see items that will probably break the system
> >>    without user intervention.
> > 
> > "only questions that are essential for a successful installation"
>  
> >> - 'high': items are shown, that don't have reasonable defaults, additionally
> >>   to those from critical.
> > 
> > "also questions for which the default often needs to be changed"
> > 
> >> - 'medium': also show normal items that have reasonable defaults.
> > 
> > "also questions for which the default sometimes needs to be changed"
> > 
> > > - 'low': even show trivial items that have defaults which will work in
> > >   the vast majority of cases.
> > [...]
> > 
> > "all questions, even if the default only rarely needs to be changed"
> 
> In other words 
> 
>   You can select the priority of question you want to see:
>    - 'critical': only questions that are essential for a successful installation
>    - 'high': also questions for which the default often needs to be changed
>    - 'medium': also questions for which the default sometimes needs to be changed
>    - 'low': all questions, even if the default only rarely needs to be changed
> 
> Or perhaps putting some words back in:
> 
>   Please select the questions you want to be shown by priority level:
>    * "critical": only show questions that are essential for a successful installation;
>    * "high": also show questions for which the default often needs to be changed;
>    * "medium": also show questions for which the default sometimes needs to be changed;
>    * "low": show all questions, even if the default only rarely needs to be changed.

What worries me here is, that the description for high, medium and low only differs
in just ONE word/term ("often", "sometimes", "only rarely").

I fear that users might get overstrained with finding the difference within the
lines... ?


> Some alternatives that people might like more than I do:
> 
>   Please select the cutoff level for questions that you want to be asked:
>    * "critical": only show questions that always require user attention;
>    * "high": also show ones for which the default often needs changing;
>    * "medium": also show ones for which the default sometimes needs changing;
>    * "low": show all questions, even if the default only rarely needs changing.
> 
> >> "For example, this question is of medium priority, and if your priority were "
> >> "already 'high' or 'critical', you wouldn't see this question."
> >>
> [...]
> >> For example, this question is of medium priority, and if your actual priority
> >> would be 'high' or 'critical', you wouldn't see this question.
> 
> (I think that's a false-friend use of "actual". and it's definitely an
> unidiomatic "would", though personally I wouldn't use "were" either.)
> 
> I don't like this idea that it's "my" priority that's "high".  It
> isn't even the installer's priority - it's the degree of filtering
> applied to questions in *terms* of priority, and that's a horrible
> thing to have to explain concisely.  Maybe we can just say:
> 
>     For example, this question is of medium priority, so if you had chosen to see
>     only questions of 'high' or 'critical' priority, it wouldn't be shown.

That sounds good to me.


Holger