Hi,
Justin B Rye <justin.byam....@gmail.com> 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
--
Holger Wansing <hwans...@mailbox.org>
PGP-Fingerprint: 496A C6E8 1442 4B34 8508 3529 59F1 87CA 156E B076
