Re: A new update viewer

On Sat, 2009-02-28 at 09:22 +0100, Sebastian Heinlein wrote:
> Am Freitag, den 27.02.2009, 18:29 +0100 schrieb Adrien Bustany:
> > Very nice, just a small remark : to my eyes, the "system restart 
> > required" pixmap is a bit misleading, one could think it would prevent 
> > the update from being installed...
> 
> The user interface is quite busy and a lot of widgets pop up and
> disappear. You should try to use a screen reader and most likely you
> will get a bad result by using this approach. 

Sure, this is worst case scenario just to test all the functionality.

> You should not put the close and install button next to each other. The
> first one affects the whole application and the other one only the
> updates. The buttons should be next to the modifying object.

I've hidden the close button, unless there are no updates to install.

> I would propose to look at update-manager of Ubuntu/Debian since we
> already invested usability work.

Yes, I've been modifying my work copying some of the features. The
explanation header and the distro upgrades section is a good idea, and
so I've "borrowed" that.

New screenshot attached. Comments welcome. I'm going to start merging
bits of this into master, but with a new executable name
gpk-update-viewer2. When we're all happy with the way it works we'll
remove the old one.

Re: A new update viewer

On Mon, 2009-03-02 at 14:49 +0000, Richard Hughes wrote:
> New screenshot attached. Comments welcome. I'm going to start merging
> bits of this into master, but with a new executable name
> gpk-update-viewer2. When we're all happy with the way it works we'll
> remove the old one.

Hi Richard,

What are the icons in the left-most column? My best guess is that this
is "reboot required" and "session restart required", but I feel that 
they are too difficult to express as icons, and perhaps not important
enough to be given that positioning.

If that information was moved to be a general thing, "Installing these
updates would require a reboot" it would give you the information you
would generally be interested in, without the clutter, but it would
make it harder to know what to hold at the current version to avoid
that if you need to. Would the message listing which updates were 
causing it to be shows be good?

On a similar note, does there need to be an icon for each package 
explaining what stage that update is at? It seems to me that just
having the progress bar would be good enough. I assume the progress
is per-stage though. While the icon suggests that there are multiple
stages to go through, it doesn't give a clue as to how many stages there
are going to be, so it doesn't give much benefit in that respect.

What is under the "More details" drop-down?

Thanks,

Re: A new update viewer

Hey Richard I found the idea pretty nice,
as imo the updater needs some changes,
but i would suggest to gnome (and to kpackagekit) a thing
that i was thinking would be very interesting, 
instead of populating the updater ui, why not
modifying the transaction dialog to show a list of packages (in a detailed mode),
which imo would be much cooler, and the user could safely
close that dialgo and the transaction would be kept running and having it's state stored
safely, but that would also require to packagekit store the 
packages of the transaction and problably theirs state too,
this way the user can close, logout login click on transactions-icon
and see a pretty nice transaction status.

This imo is much better than doing only in the updates ui,
that'd work for all of them (installing/removing).

Regards,
Daniel.

      Veja quais são os assuntos do momento no Yahoo! +Buscados
http://br.maisbuscados.yahoo.com

Release next Monday

As usual, normal release next Monday.

Richard.

Re: A new update viewer

On Mon, 2009-03-02 at 15:43 +0000, James Westby wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-03-02 at 14:49 +0000, Richard Hughes wrote:
> > New screenshot attached. Comments welcome. I'm going to start merging
> > bits of this into master, but with a new executable name
> > gpk-update-viewer2. When we're all happy with the way it works we'll
> > remove the old one.
> 
> Hi Richard,
> 
> What are the icons in the left-most column? My best guess is that this
> is "reboot required" and "session restart required", but I feel that 
> they are too difficult to express as icons, and perhaps not important
> enough to be given that positioning.

We were thinking that some people avoid updates if a restart is
required, and it was quite important data.

> On a similar note, does there need to be an icon for each package 
> explaining what stage that update is at? It seems to me that just
> having the progress bar would be good enough. I assume the progress
> is per-stage though. While the icon suggests that there are multiple
> stages to go through, it doesn't give a clue as to how many stages there
> are going to be, so it doesn't give much benefit in that respect.

Yes, it's because package systems suck. Most do this:

download a
download b
download c
install a

Moving the refresh stats out of the update viewer

Opinions wanted to attached screenshot.

In the new update viewer, there's no proper place for refresh or the
update stats. In an ideal world we wouldn't need to refresh ever, but we
don't live in an ideal world, and sometime people might want to do this.

I'm not overly happily where it is in the mockup, but I'm out of better
ideas. Do you guys ever need to refresh manually? Are the stats
interesting or useful? Should we just remove this functionality?

Thanks,

Richard.

Opinions wanted to attached screenshot.

In the new update viewer, there's no proper place for refresh or the
update stats. In an ideal world we wouldn't need to refresh ever, but we
don't live in an ideal world, and sometime people might want to do this.

I'm not overly happily where it is in the mockup, but I'm out of better
ideas. Do you guys ever need to refresh manually? Are the stats
interesting or useful? Should we just remove this functionality?

Thanks,

Richard.

Re: Moving the refresh stats out of the update viewer

<div>
<p>Hi <br><br>I feel that there could be scenarios where we need to refresh manually though the chances could be less but we should not discount it is what i feel .<br><br>Just my thoughts <br><br>Cheers,<br>Balaji<br><br><br><br></p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Richard Hughes <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:hughsient@...">hughsient <at> gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote">
Opinions wanted to attached screenshot.<br><br>
In the new update viewer, there's no proper place for refresh or the<br>
update stats. In an ideal world we wouldn't need to refresh ever, but we<br>
don't live in an ideal world, and sometime people might want to do this.<br><br>
I'm not overly happily where it is in the mockup, but I'm out of better<br>
ideas. Do you guys ever need to refresh manually? Are the stats<br>
interesting or useful? Should we just remove this functionality?<br><br>
Thanks,<br><br>
Richard.<br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>
PackageKit mailing list<br><a href="mailto:PackageKit@...">PackageKit@...sktop.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/packagekit" target="_blank">http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/packagekit</a><br><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>

Re: A new update viewer

On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 11:59 +0000, Richard Hughes wrote:
> We were thinking that some people avoid updates if a restart is
> required, and it was quite important data.

OK, I don't think it's as important as the placing would suggest, and
I think icons are not a great way to present it.

> > On a similar note, does there need to be an icon for each package 
> > explaining what stage that update is at? It seems to me that just
> > having the progress bar would be good enough. I assume the progress
> > is per-stage though. While the icon suggests that there are multiple
> > stages to go through, it doesn't give a clue as to how many stages there
> > are going to be, so it doesn't give much benefit in that respect.
> 
> Yes, it's because package systems suck. Most do this:

Well yes, but you didn't really address my concerns.

> > What is under the "More details" drop-down?
> 
> Screenshot attached. We've thinking some of the bugzilla type data
> belongs in the textbox as clickable links. Ideas welcome.

I think that's fine. A couple of points if I may:

  * It took me a moment of reading the version string to 
    understand what "Updates:" meant, would "Installed Version:"
    or something do?

  * "Vendor: Bugfix release for gtkhtml" seems wrong to me, what
    does it link to?

Thanks,

James

Re: A new update viewer

On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 12:26 +0000, James Westby wrote:
> > Yes, it's because package systems suck. Most do this:
> 
> Well yes, but you didn't really address my concerns.

My point was, because we do dddiiiccc we have to show the state in the
package -- if we just show a percentage bar then it'll just get to 100%,
sit there a few minutes, and go back to zero and then 100% again. We
know what it's doing, but I'm sure the users wont.

> > > What is under the "More details" drop-down?
> > 
> > Screenshot attached. We've thinking some of the bugzilla type data
> > belongs in the textbox as clickable links. Ideas welcome.
> 
> I think that's fine. A couple of points if I may:
> 
>   * It took me a moment of reading the version string to 
>     understand what "Updates:" meant, would "Installed Version:"
>     or something do?

Installed version is indeed better.

>   * "Vendor: Bugfix release for gtkhtml" seems wrong to me, what
>     does it link to?

It's the vendor bugzilla. I'm thinking of adding this to the update
text, and removing this from here, something like:

For more information about this update please visit:
* Bugfix release for gtkhtml

With the "Bugfix release for gtkhtml" a hyperlink to the bugzilla bug.

And also do the same for CVE links:

For more information about this security update please visit:
* CVE1321231

Comments?

Richard.

Re: A new update viewer

On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 12:57 +0000, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 12:26 +0000, James Westby wrote:
> > > Yes, it's because package systems suck. Most do this:
> > 
> > Well yes, but you didn't really address my concerns.
> 
> My point was, because we do dddiiiccc we have to show the state in the
> package -- if we just show a percentage bar then it'll just get to 100%,
> sit there a few minutes, and go back to zero and then 100% again. We
> know what it's doing, but I'm sure the users wont.

Yes, but it doesn't help to give a clue as to how long it is actually
going to to take, is there one more stage, or 100? The icons don't help
you to understand that, certainly for the first update.

Would it be possible to number the stages instead?

> >   * "Vendor: Bugfix release for gtkhtml" seems wrong to me, what
> >     does it link to?
> 
> It's the vendor bugzilla. I'm thinking of adding this to the update
> text, and removing this from here, something like:
> 
> For more information about this update please visit:
> * Bugfix release for gtkhtml
> 
> With the "Bugfix release for gtkhtml" a hyperlink to the bugzilla bug.
> 
> And also do the same for CVE links:
> 
> For more information about this security update please visit:
> * CVE1321231

Ah, so it's the bug title? Calling that "Vendor" certainly seems to be
wrong to me.

I think your proposed approach would work well.

Thanks,

James