> > I don't think people should ever have to read documents in > > order to use a product. Requiring people to read the docs > > suggests that the product itself isn't designed well enough > > that it explains its own usage. > > So? Why should a product have to explain it's own usage?
Why not? > > And it allows programmers > > the luxury of being lazy in their UI design. We should > > assume that people won't read the docs, and build our > > products with that assumption in mind. > > Fine in theory. In practice, any product that is easy enough to use > without reading documentation is not likely to provide an optimally > efficient way to accomplish the task at hand. You can't please all of > the people all of the time. That depends on the nature of the task. In most cases I believe you can have a default behaviour which satisfies most newbies but still provide a lot of options and control for the experienced users. Unless we want to make Linux/GNU software so difficult to use that newbies or people who are not willing to read through pages of documentation are "filtered" out. I'm not too familiar with the new installer, but couldn't there be a question about whether or not a GUI should be installed and have the GUI as the default option. People who know what they are doing can select the non-GUI option and the rest will probably be happy with getting a GUI. -- Olle Eriksson [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.olle-eriksson.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
