[Usability] Re: Proposal + RFC: Improving the Bugzilla layout

[Ryan McDougall <ryan mcdougall telusplanet net>]

On Sat, 2004-03-13 at 23:25 +0100, Danilo Segan wrote:
> Hi Ryan,
> 
> I've got only minor comments.
> 
> Ryan McDougall <ryan mcdougall telusplanet net> writes:
> 
> > Would you like to register with the software quality system a:
> [snip long list of options appearing page-by-page]
> 
> As someone who's accessing bugzilla through dial-up, the one thing I'd
> hate most is to have to go through a bunch of pages (as everybody
> probably knows, time to initiate HTTP connection on dial-up is
> usually greater than time necessary to actually transfer data once
> connection is up -- of course, depending on the amount of data).

You have a point. Perhaps we could have a link to the old page directly
from the new page, somewhere near the bottom, with something like "To
access the advanced bugzilla interface, please click here." Bugzilla is
not a problem there since advanced users will know what that word means.

> 
> Step-by-step reporting of "bugs" is what bug-buddy provides.  Perhaps
> the entire idea is to improve that instead (though, it is very
> similar to the outline you gave, except that it's faster because it's
> client side).  Bug Buddy appears in a Gnome menu as "Bug Report
> Tool".  Also, whenever a crash happens, Bug Buddy appears by itself.

For some reason beyond me, bug-buddy has *never* worked for me. It
always gets to the part where it asks me to do something with sendmail,
or to send it in later manually. Right about there I give up and either
forget submitting the bug, or simply use the http interface. IMO bug
buddy needs to be redone to "just work" (somehow), before we can
consider it a replacement for the http interface. 

Also, the http interface works on non-GNOME platforms (Win32).

> 
> On the terminology front, I don't see a one good reason to walk away
> from "bug", even though it is not very clear (with even some ambiguity
> for translators) -- we don't want to completely dismiss our "hacker
> heritage", and to pretend to be a "commercial company" in every way.

I have no doubt that "bug" will *never* disappear, its too ingrained in
our psyche. However, we should eliminate the use of it on the _main_
interface that we expect "normal" users to use to submit reports to us.
This is the main avenue for new users to take a hand in improving their
own system, and as such it should be as friendly usable as possible, and
therefore we need clearer terminology.

When they graduate to "intermediate hackers" they can use "bug" as much
as they please. :)

> 
> Well, maybe "we" do, but I surely don't.  It's a funny term, short
> term, and I'd rather keep it that way.  As for "Bugzilla", it can
> also give funny translations, if one is up to it (and as you might
> have guessed, I am :).

I agree with you, and I'm not suggesting we refrain from using it in
conversation, IRC or even in the bug report itself. However in the case
of the main bugzilla we need better. Part of the problem with "bug" is
it is currently *way* too loaded with meanings. It means errors,
malfunctions, build errors, documentation errors, performance requests,
a way to remember in perpetuity some idea you had one day, a way to
complain that the world doesn't work as you think it should, a way to
flame lazy developers, etc, etc. Part of the removal of "bug", is to
allow more fine grained definitions of the things we want in bugzilla
(specifically: malfunctions, features, enquiries).

I think that change of definitions is pretty key, and on the main page
we should have: 

Bugzilla -> GNOME Quality System Somethingorother
bug -> { malfunction, feature, enquiry }

> 
> Cheers,
> Danilo

Cheers,
Ryan