Re: OS questions partial draft, II

["KimBoo York" <kimboo@watermarkonline.com>]

Here's my reply to a reply...personally I think things are looking 
very, very good for this survey. Again and as usual, my comments are 
bracketed in <<blah blah blah>> beneath the question!  


> From:          Roger Dingledine <arma@mit.edu>
> To:            seul-research@seul.org

> This is with Kimboo's comments compiled in. Kimboo: please look
> through here and tell me where I failed to incorporate them. Your
> comments were applied to a fairly old version of this doc.
> 
> This survey is starting to solidify. We're stalling on the technical
> side of it until Omega finishes the revamp of sdoc, a document parser
> that will make the technical side considerably easier.
> 
> We still need user-type-specific questions, though. Hm.

Sorry, you lost me on this one. What would consitute a 
user-type-specific question? We have seven basic user groups (as of 
now, including the hotly debated laptop user...), and they each have 
different needs, but I guess I'm just not clear on how the general 
questions below don't, in some form or another, address those 
needs.....

> 
> Following is the draft of the main of the survey. Comments are in []s.
> There are still a lot of things left to be considered, but this should
> be the latest thoughts on it...
> 
> Rank the following in terms of importance (foo, bar, baz, quux, squee,
> unsure):
> [Consider an 'unsure' for people who know they don't have enough information
> to answer the question accurately. We might generate a third page of survey
> with more detailed descriptions of the questions they were 'unsure' about,
> if we feel like it. I'd like to minimize the 'unsure's through good wording.]

Just from my own experience, not being really strong technically, if 
I am unsure about something I get really annoyed if questioned in 
depth about what I am unsure about, to the point of yelling "I don't 
KNOW what kind of modem it is and I DON'T care!" or something to that 
effect. If we are going to have an 'unsure' page, with detailed 
descriptions....hmmm, I don't know, I think I agree with Roger. The 
unsurity should be based on that indiv. respondee's 
ignorance/antipathy -- in which case a more detailed wording of the 
question would simply be annoying to the respondee --  and not 
because the questions are not well worded or unclear. 

> [define 'important' as 'would influence decision of using'. This way we get
> things they need to do their work currently, and we also get things that they
> don't currently do but would want to. Thoughts?]

Yes, I agree with including a simple definition of what the survey 
means by use of the word 'important.' And it certainly can't *hurt* 
to include it, right?   :-)

  
> * local networking (connecting computers to each other at my office, home,
>   or other location).
>   [was: local networking (connecting to other computers at my office, home,
>   or other location)]
<<n/c>>

> * having your computer automatically configure and test your local ethernet
>   connection
>   [was: being able to auto-setup local ethernet connection]
<<n/c>>

> * networking two or more locations (home to office, office to off-site
>   location)
>   [was: wide area networking (connecting two or more locations)]
<<n/c>>

> * ability to connect to the machine from a remote location
>   [was: being able to connect to the machine remotely]
<<n/c>>

> * ability to run graphics from a remote location (rather than just text)
>   [was: being able to run graphics remotely]
<<n/c -- nice compromise on my questions, Roger! :) >>

> * ability to run servers for email, web pages, file access, telnet, file
>   transfer, etc.
>   [was: running servers (mail, httpd, samba, telnetd, ftpd, etc)]
<<hmmm...a server can be both a machine and software, right? I have 
heard the phrase used interchangeably. Since the survey is simply 
ranking items in order of importance (as opposed to asking: what 
would you like your OS to do? which would be comepletely different 
survey..  ;-), I think it might work to tweak this. A quibble, I'll 
grant, but better clarity than confusion....unfortunately, I can't 
think of a way to phrase it more clearly. Suggestions?>>

> * Using a direct connection (eg ethernet, cable modem) for connecting to the
>   Internet.
>   [was: internet connection (direct)]
<<n/c>>

> * Using a modem for connecting to the Internet
>   [was: internet connection (dialin)]
<<n/c>>

> * When using a modem, having the connection established automatically when
>   needed
>   [was: internet connection (auto-dialin)]
<<n/c>>

> * Adequate ISP support for technical questions
>   [was: ISP support]
<<At first this was okay, but then the word 'adequate' started 
rankling me. Let me put it journalistically: why is it there? The 
survey asks to rank XX  in order of importance, therefore XX is 
assumed to be standard or adequate. In other words, if we start 
putting adjectives to these things, each question suddently becomes 
three questions: rank "adequate support," rank "lousy support," rank 
"excellent support." Maybe I missed the point; this is simply my 
observation. >>

> * Adequate usergroup support for technical questions
>   [was: usergroup support]
<<again, I'd just dump the word "adequate;" otherwise it stands 
fine.>>

 
> * telephony (integrating computers and communications) [needs help]
> 
<<This most certainly needs help, but no one seems to be jumping into 
the fray here! I think the average end-user would look at the word 
"telephony" and start laughing (I know in my office you'd get blank 
stares...). What's wrong with the long version? Eg: "Ability to 
integrate computer with various communications devices (telephone, 
video conf., etc.)">>

> * multimedia (integrating computers and audio/video) [needs help]
>
<<Not that much help. As opposed to telephony, 'multimedia' is a 
catchword these days. Of course, that leads to the problem that it 
can mean different things to different people. The long version might 
work here too: "Multimedia support -- ability to integrate computer 
with audio/visual devices (CD player, etc.)>> 

> [games, graphics manipulation, sound - Should this be split further? Or is it
> already covered in earlier "what do you want to use your computer for"
> sections?]
<<I personally think it is already covered. Between the above 
questions on multimedia, the question concerning avail. of apps., 
etc. However, I don't play games on the 'puter, so I don't know how 
specialized gamers' needs are....>>

> * being able to use (read/write/convert) files saved in industry standard word
>   processing file formats
>   [was: being able to use (read/write/convert) industry standard word processing file
>   formats]
<<n/c>>

> * being able to use (read/write/convert) files saved in industry standard graphics
>   file formats
>   [was: being able to use (read/write/convert) industry standard graphics file
>   formats]
>   [was: being able to use (read/write/both) industry standard word/graphics file
>     formats
>   [was: being able to convert from one word/graphics file format to another]
<<n/c>>
 
> * ability to read/redistribute the os/application source 
> [I have a problem with 'ability' here. I don't want to involve 'skill'.]
>   [was: being able to read/redistribute the os/application source]
<<I'm stalled on alternatives for ability, and I do agree with you 
that is implies skill on the end-user's part. Perhaps "Availability 
to read/....." Or perhaps 'accessability'? Or, simplistic but to the 
point: "Freedom to read/....." Suggestions?>>

> * ability to modify the os/application source
>   [was: being able to modify the os/application source]
>   [was: being able to read the os/application source 
>     being able to modify/redistribute the os/application source]
<<Again, the "ability" bugaboo. This is more about access...hmm, how 
about "Unrestricted access to OS/application source code (for 
modification, configuring, etc. purposes).>>
 
> * Cost of hardware for your computer, including initial purchase price and
>   upgrades
>   [was: cost, hardware]
<<n/c>>

> * Cost of software for your computer, including cost of pre-installed software
>   [was: cost, software]
<<n/c>>

> * Cost of software upgrades for your computer
>   [was: cost, upgrades]
<<n/c>>
 
> * security C2
> [I vote this should go. Other votes?]
<<Pitch it.>>
 
> * being able to transparently encrypt data going to and from your computer
>   via the network.
<<Can we find another word for 'transparently?' Since I don't deal 
with encryption much at all, I'm not a good person for suggesting 
alternatives, but I have the feeling that 'transparently' is standing 
in for part of process that people might do regularly but not 
identify as 'transparently encrypting.' Just a thought.>>

> * being able to transparently encrypt data stored on your computer
>   [was: encryption]
> ["transparently" probably needs some help here]
<<ah, had I read but one question down! ;-)   I assume 
'transparently' means that you see the encryption and the data being 
stored at the same time, or some such arrangement. Perhaps if someone 
explains this better to me I can suggest a clearer altnerative 
phrase?>>
 
> * security (ability to prevent unauthorized people from using your
>   system(s))
<<n/c>>

> * secure banking and commercial transactions
<<n/c>> 

> * privacy (ability to keep other users from reading/deleting your files)
<<n/c>>

> * automatic virus protection (the system takes care of it for you)
<<n/c>>

> * manual virus protection (you run a program to scan or detect)
<<n/c>>

> * able to obtain up-to-date virus information
<<n/c>>

> * using a system which protects the user from making potentially dangerous 
>   changes to system configuration 
<<n/c>>

> * being able to make a backup of your system
<<n/c>>

> * being able to make backup copies of large data files
<<n/c>>

> * being able to undelete files 
<<n/c>>

> * computer stability (computer runs without crashing or requiring restart)
> [kimboo: the reason we have "or requiring restart" here is that we want to
> include situations where the machine is unbelievably slow and restarting it
> cleans it up enough that it's fast again. Maybe this should be a separate
> question. But I don't think that's worth it.]
<<No, that makes sense to me. I agree, not worth seperating it out 
either. One quibble: computer is not the OS is not the apps. If we 
are going to ask about the hardware being run (computer) and below 
we ask about the software being run (applications) then I think we 
should ask about the OS being run....unless we are assume the OS 
falls into either category, which technically it can but I don't 
think should. While many people see their OS as fundemental to 
their computer, due to the large number brands with WinXX on their 
desktop, people also have a concept of the fact that the two are 
not the same. As well, people in WinXX world tend to see the OS as 
well removed from apps, in the sense that God is removed from 
humanity. <g> Seriously, I do think the  OS stability issue 
deserves its own question.>>

> * application stability (applications run without crashing or requiring
>   restart)
>   [was: stability (computer and applications run without crashing or
>    requiring restart)
<<n/c>>
 
> * prompt bugfixes 
> [proposal to nuke this question. opinions?]
<<I'm going to propose we either nuke it or address it thoroughly. 
Are we asking the relative importance to the user that the OS they 
are using will alert them to a problem and prompt a bugfix? I assume, 
in any case. So, this is really a question on how well the OS holds 
the user's hand. If we keep this (personally, I kind of think it 
should stay), perhaps we can break it out into manual/automatic, as 
with the 'dialup' series of questions. That would give us something 
like:
-- Opportunity to manually find and fix bugs/glitches
-- Automatic bug/glitches find-and-fix features (the system takes 
care of it for you)
 Which are both kind of rough, but you get the idea. 
Suggestiosn?>> 
> * adding/removing software in an easy and familiar way
<<n/c>>

> * upgrades, ease of installation
<<n/c>>

> * upgrades, ease of finding/getting
<<n/c>>

> * having the installation stage for a program verify that all necessary
>   components are present and functional
<<n/c>>

> * PnP support in hardware 
<<n/c>>

> * I2O support
> [kill?]
<<Kill.>>
 
> * multiterminal support
<<quibble: "Multi-terminal support." Easier to read.>>

> * multiprocessor support
<<Same -- "Multi-processor support.">>

> * speed of overall machine
<<speed of overall, or overall speed? I suggest "Overall speed..." 
simply because it reads better. Hey, that's why I'm an editor!>>

> * speed of graphics rendering
<<n/c>>

> * speed of internet connection
<<n/c>> 

> * compatibility with existing systems [hardware]
<<n/c>>

> * compatibility with prior versions [software]
> [should reword]
<<Okay, howabout "Compatability with existing software, including 
prior (older)  versions.">>

> * being able to switch easily between running applications
>   [was: being able to switch between running applications easily]
<<n/c>>

> * ability to run many large applications at once
>   [was: having many large applications open at once]
>   [was: supporting >64 megs ram]
<<n/c>>

> * ability to run a dynamic disk compressor (for example, doublespace)
>   [was: able to run disk compression program]
<<n/c>>

> > * automatic hard drive defragmenting (the system takes care of it for you)
<<n/c>>

> > * manual hard drive defragmenting (you run a program to defrag)
<<n/c>>
 
> * being able to automate certain administrative tasks (backups, 
>defrags,  virus scans, send/receive email via ISP after hours, 
>update software database)
<<n/c>>

> > * being able to rapidly obtain a list of resources used by the system and
> >   hardware (IRQ's, DMA's, I/O ports, device names, chip type, speed,
> >   RAM present, amount used by system, by processes, free, current 
> >   VRAM, max VRAM, average VRAM used)
<<n/c>>

> > * getting a good measure of performance of the system (don't know if this is
> >   possible since all marks are relative to some extent) 
<<Perhaps: "Ability to get a relative measure of performance of the 
system.">>

> > * getting a list of all installed software, fixes, patches, version numbers,
> >   etc.
<<n/c>>
 
> * multi-users (several people have ability to use one 
>   machine at different times)
>   [was: multiple-users (several people can use machine at different times)]
<<n/c>>

> * conncurrent users (several people can use one machine simultaneously)
>   [was: multi-user (several people can use machine simultaneously)]
<<n/c>>
  
> * customized applications to run specific tasks
>   [was: customization of applications to run specific tasks]
>   [was: applications (I need to run specific applications on my computer)
<<n/c>>
 
> > * uses (I need to use my computer for specific tasks.  Specific
> >   applications don't matter as long as they fill the need).
> [kimboo said: <<this strikes me as an obscure rewording of the `avail. of wide
> variety of apps.' question. If a person just has a specific task that
> needs to be done and the software is readily available, they're
> happy.>>] 
> [I don't mind asking the same question twice, if it's an important one]
<<Perhaps you're right. And I guess it is that important.>>

> > * availability of a wide variety of apps (commercial, freeware?) 
<<n/c>>

> > * support, applications [this needs more thought]

> > * application stability 
<<This question was asked earlier, was it not? Scroll up to where I 
went on the little diatribe about comp/OS/application stability being 
seperate questions...>>

> > * intuitive user interface
<<n/c>>

> > * consistent user interface (things behave the same way even comparing 
> >   between two separate applications) 
<<n/c>>

> > * consistent graphical and/or textual user interfaces, and the ability to
> >   exploit both to the user's advantage
<<I'd dump the "...ability to exploit both..." part. Redundant, I 
think, since everything in the survey we are asking about we are 
assuming the end user will want to exploit to their advantage. Just 
an observation...>>

> > * dumping error messages to a text file as well as to the screen
<<n/c>>

> > * having a program which explains error messages
<<n/c>>

> what about intuitive error messages from the OS and applications from the
> beginning? Rather than an interpreter...
<<huh? Is this a question? Help!>>

> > * being able to access context-sensitive help information
<<n/c>>
 
> > * having a graphical interface to applications and system
<<n/c -- except that this should be placed next to the 'intuitive 
user interface' question, for congruency purposes.>>

> > * having a command-line interface to applications and system
<<n/c>>

> > * multiple-languages (support for several languages)
<<n/c>>

> > * multi-language (support for several languages simultaneously)
<<n/c>>
 
> * Unicode support
> [proposal to nuke this question. opinions?]
<<No opion here. I leave this in the hands of those who use it...>>

> * printed documentation that comes with the software
>   [was: printed docs from distribution]
<<n/c>>

> * printed docs from the internet (and a directory of said docs)
> [directory? huh?]
<<How about: 
-- "Documentation on the internet that can be downloaded 
and/or printed." and....
-- "Easy access to a directory listing documentation on the 
Internet."

> * printed docs available at book stores
<<How about: "Availability of printed documentation and other printed 
support guides at book stores.">>

> * having the os send each new user an email containing 'how to use MAN,
>   APROPOS; where to find docs, how to read docs etc.'
> [proposal to nuke this question: opinions?]
<<Uh, yeah, nuke it. If MAN, APROPOS, etc. are not within easy reach 
to being with, then the user will not be pleased. You think M$ sends 
an e-mail to all new users explaining where to find help? No. That 
should be addressed by the OS interface and accompanying 
documentation from the git-go. The reason I propose nuking the 
question is that it is kind of disconcerting...it makes the "OS" 
sound kind of omnipatent, and people who don't know what MAN is are 
going to wonder what we are talking about. Well, those are my ideas 
on it.>>

> [Perhaps a question of bootstrapping initial users by having an intuitive
> introduction (tutorial) program?]
<<How about a generic "tutorials" question? eg: "Tutorials that 
intuitively guide users through use of the application." Rough...just 
a suggestion.>>
 
> * support, software vendor
<<n/c>>

> * support, computer vendor
<<n/c>>

> * support, hardware vendor
>   [was: support, vendor [what is a 'vendor' for an end-user, anyway?] ]
<<n/c>>
 
> * accessability of support over the Internet or www
<<n/c>>
 
> * brand reputation (good or bad)
>   [was: corporate reputation]
<<n/c>>


Whew!!!! Keep it coming! Can we see the light at the end of the 
tunnel yet?????


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
KimBoo York
Staff Reporter/On-Line Editor
Waterfront Editor
Watermark Media, Inc.
kimboo@watermarkonline.com

***************************
* NEVER tell me the odds! *
*       -- Han Solo       *
***************************