On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 23:50, Matt Wheeler
<m@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2 September 2010 18:30, Frederik Nnaji <frederik.nnaji@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Matt,
>
> the current situation is, that both warning and NOT warning the user are
> being practised.
> This sends the user a mixed message:
> first, upgrades / updates are afforded to the user, no warning whatsoever..
What would be the advantage of warning users before an upgrade begins
that the upgrade will require a restart to be completed? That's the
point of what I'm saying.
Good point! The next couple of lines might contain redundant ideas, do you want to continue? [Y/N]
> ..shortly before the updating/upgrading is complete, the user is warned,
> that a restart is required.
Yes, the user needs to be warned that a restart is required at some
point to actually start using the new versions of whatever has been
updated.
Really, this should be a positive notification, not a warning. If we get this right, the problem we are discussing here will dissolve imo.
I'd say WARNING is the wrong term, RED the wrong color and "REQUIRED" a totally misleading word in this context.
Affordance, better than irritatation.
As long as there is no absolutely crucial security fix among the updates that would *require* a restart, a restart is factually not required - warnings obsolete.
I see no advantage to doing this before the updates are
installed though, and some disadvantages (mainly that users may be
unnecessarily put off performing the updates).
correct. If i inform about so and so many kilobytes of diskspace will be used, perhaps it is equally fair to inform that a restart will be required to commit the upgrade finally. How to formulate that information usefully at this point is another problem, but omitting this info entirely is an option i would prefer, so perhaps we should simply consider advertising instead of warning.
> The problem with naming an action that is a menu item "Restart Required" is,
> that it is an informative phrase and not an action. The menu item should
> carry the wording that describes the action it invokes, not a description of
> its use case.
>
> The red coloring of the power icon on top of the Session Menu represents the
> warning, where previously in the process the software was designed NOT to
> issue any warning about the state "Restart Required".
> Mixed messages confuse the user and wrong labels on menu items or buttons
> make it difficult to control the system altogether.
I agree that the presentation in the session menu could be improved to
inform users better why a restart is needed. I also find it somewhat
inaccurate that the restart option is highlighted, but shut down
isn't, again I feel this could lead some users to believe they have to
restart their computer before they can shut it down, when really
either option would be as good as the other.
None of this, in my mind, gives any reason to warn users before
running updates that a restart will be required after the update.
+1