Re: [Papercuts-ninja] Common situations where a bug isn't real

[Alberto Salvia Novella]

Brian Murray:

I feel like there should be more information about how to determine if a
bug is a "support request" or a "misconfigured system". Do you have
plans to add more details or link to details about these types of
situations?


The original idea behind how the One Hundred Papercuts wiki is written is:

- To hide complexities, till the user explicitly asks for them by 
clicking on links.


- To provide only the 20% of documentation that solves the 90% of 
situations.


So, what you feel it would be good to mention if we included links for 
those cases?




--
Ubuntu-quality mailing list
Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality

Re: [Papercuts-ninja] Common situations where a bug isn't real

[Brian Murray]

On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 03:19:41PM +0200, Alberto Salvia Novella wrote:
> On 24/06/14 15:14, Thomas Ward wrote:
> >Rather than restate the same thing it's easier to say it once.
> 
> Okay: removed!
> 
> 

I feel like there should be more information about how to determine if a
bug is a "support request" or a "misconfigured system". Do you have
plans to add more details or link to details about these types of
situations?

--
Brian Murray
Ubuntu Bug Master


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- 
Ubuntu-quality mailing list
Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality

Re: [Papercuts-ninja] Common situations where a bug isn't real

[Alberto Salvia Novella]

On 24/06/14 15:14, Thomas Ward wrote:

Rather than restate the same thing it's easier to say it once.


Okay: removed!





--
Ubuntu-quality mailing list
Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality

Re: Common situations where a bug isn't real

[Dario Ruellan]

>
> > "Its software has not been packaged by Ubuntu, but by a third party."
> Agree
> > that can't be fixable by Ubuntu, but, it is still a Pepercut
> If and only if you work with upstream/third-party to fix it.  That's
> outside the realm of Ubuntu bug triage and probably papercuts...
>
>
No, it was a confusion from my part: you can have a third-party app
packaged by Ubuntu, like Rhythmbox, and its OK to contact upstream to try
fix a bug. But if the app is not in Ubuntu repositories it is pointless. I
agree that this kind of bug not worth the effort.

-- 
Darío Ruellan [image: Google Profile]
 [image: Linkedin]
 [image: Twitter]

Information Technology Professional
 17CC 5A20 2F75 610F BB0F
57A2 9D7F 54F3 5705 DDD3
-- 
Ubuntu-quality mailing list
Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality

Re: [Papercuts-ninja] Common situations where a bug isn't real

[Thomas Ward]

To be honest...


> On Jun 24, 2014, at 9:06, Alberto Salvia Novella  
> wrote:
> 
> Thomas Ward:
>>> "The user mangled the "/etc/apt/sources.list" file" is not the same as "The
>>> >user misconfigured the system"? Looks redundant.
>> Looks kinda redundant, in my opinion, yes.
> 
> Alberto Salvia Novella:
> > It is. Just this one is so usual I thought it could save time having it
> > in sight, as done at
> > .
> >  
> 
> So you think we can remove this with no real difference?

Yes I think so, If both cases point to converting a report to a question.  
Rather than restate the same thing it's easier to say it once.  If it becomes 
an issue then we can show these separately, but for now I don't think we 
particularly need both things listed since they're basically the same statement.
-- 
Ubuntu-quality mailing list
Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality

Re: [Papercuts-ninja] Common situations where a bug isn't real

[Alberto Salvia Novella]

Thomas Ward:

"The user mangled the "/etc/apt/sources.list" file" is not the same as "The
>user misconfigured the system"? Looks redundant.

Looks kinda redundant, in my opinion, yes.


Alberto Salvia Novella:
> It is. Just this one is so usual I thought it could save time having it
> in sight, as done at
> 
. 



So you think we can remove this with no real difference?



--
Ubuntu-quality mailing list
Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality

Re: Common situations where a bug isn't real

[Alberto Salvia Novella]

Alberto Salvia Novella:





Dario Ruellan:
> "Its software has not been packaged by Ubuntu, but by a third party." 
Agree

> that can't be fixable by Ubuntu, but, it is still a Pepercut?

The aim of the One Hundred Papercuts project is to gather papercuts that 
can be freely fixed by anyone.



Dario Ruellan:
> "The user mangled the "/etc/apt/sources.list" file" is not the same 
as "The

> user misconfigured the system"? Looks redundant.

It is. Just this one is so usual I thought it could save time having it 
in sight, as done at 
.



Regards ○o。.


--
Ubuntu-quality mailing list
Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality

Re: [Papercuts-ninja] unicode / emoji in documentation (was Re: Common situations where a bug isn't real)

[José Antonio Rey]

Maybe then we would fall into the situation where people who use other
OSs and don't have the Emoji font installed in their systems cannot see
them properly, or even the same stuff as with the Android/iOS example
that was given before.

On 06/22/2014 11:07 AM, Alberto Salvia Novella wrote:
> On 18/06/14 18:00, Adolfo Jayme Barrientos wrote:
>> I would say it’s because you have the font. Ubuntu doesn’t display
>> emojis out-of-the-box because it has no fonts supporting those
>> characters.
> 
> Shall we ask to include these by default?
> 
> 
> 

-- 
José Antonio Rey

-- 
Ubuntu-quality mailing list
Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality

Re: Common situations where a bug isn't real

[Thomas Ward]

*Sent from my iPhone.  Please excuse any typos, as they are likely to happen by 
accident.*

> On Jun 23, 2014, at 7:48, Dario Ruellan  wrote:
> 
> I was following this discussion passively, trying to filter-out the emoji
> situation ;)
> About the final "Common situations" I have two questions:
> 
> "Its software has not been packaged by Ubuntu, but by a third party." Agree
> that can't be fixable by Ubuntu, but, it is still a Pepercut
If and only if you work with upstream/third-party to fix it.  That's outside 
the realm of Ubuntu bug triage and probably papercuts...

> "The user mangled the "/etc/apt/sources.list" file" is not the same as "The
> user misconfigured the system"? Looks redundant.
Looks kinda redundant, in my opinion, yes.

> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Alberto Salvia Novella <
> es204904...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> I've been writing a list of common situations where a bug isn't real:
>> 
>> <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/One%20Hundred%20Papercuts/Work-flow/Triage/Real>
>> 
>> Do you know of some other?
>> 
>> Regards.
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Ubuntu-quality mailing list
>> Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com
>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/
>> mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Darío Ruellan [image: Google Profile]
> <http://www.google.com/profiles/dario.ruellan> [image: Linkedin]
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/darioruellan> [image: Twitter]
> <http://www.twitter.com/druellan>
> Information Technology Professional
> 17CC 5A20 2F75 610F BB0F
> 57A2 9D7F 54F3 5705 DDD3
> -- 
> Ubuntu-quality mailing list
> Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality

-- 
Ubuntu-quality mailing list
Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality

Re: Common situations where a bug isn't real

[Dario Ruellan]

I was following this discussion passively, trying to filter-out the emoji
situation ;)
About the final "Common situations" I have two questions:

"Its software has not been packaged by Ubuntu, but by a third party." Agree
that can't be fixable by Ubuntu, but, it is still a Pepercut?
"The user mangled the "/etc/apt/sources.list" file" is not the same as "The
user misconfigured the system"? Looks redundant.

Thanks!


On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Alberto Salvia Novella <
es204904...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I've been writing a list of common situations where a bug isn't real:
>
> <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/One%20Hundred%20Papercuts/Work-flow/Triage/Real>
>
> Do you know of some other?
>
> Regards.
>
>
> --
> Ubuntu-quality mailing list
> Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/
> mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality
>



-- 
Darío Ruellan [image: Google Profile]
<http://www.google.com/profiles/dario.ruellan> [image: Linkedin]
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/darioruellan> [image: Twitter]
<http://www.twitter.com/druellan>
Information Technology Professional
 17CC 5A20 2F75 610F BB0F
57A2 9D7F 54F3 5705 DDD3
-- 
Ubuntu-quality mailing list
Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality

Re: unicode / emoji in documentation (was Re: Common situations where a bug isn't real)

[Alberto Salvia Novella]

On 22/06/14 18:12, José Antonio Rey wrote:

Maybe then we would fall into the situation where people who use other
OSs and don't have the Emoji font installed in their systems cannot see
them properly, or even the same stuff as with the Android/iOS example
that was given before.


I have emailed the Unicode consortium about this issue of the standard 
not being practicable.


The message says:

As seen  we, 
the Ubuntu Community, are finding some problems while trying to include 
Unicode Emoticons, Symbols and Pictographs as standard; as they're 
presented very inconsistently across platforms.


The reason behind that is operating systems have their own 
implementation of the standard, which can be very different from the 
other's, or not have implementation at all.


Personally I see he root cause is reference emoticons, symbols and 
pictographs in  to be under a 
restrictive license; forcing every party to implement themselves the 
standard. This can have no problem when speaking about glyphs, where 
changing shapes doesn't break the meaning of the character, but in these 
particular cases makes the standard not to be workable.


So these charts need to be under a libre license for the Unicode 
Standard to be feasible in the long term.


Thank you.



--
Ubuntu-quality mailing list
Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality

Re: [Papercuts-ninja] unicode / emoji in documentation (was Re: Common situations where a bug isn't real)

[Alberto Salvia Novella]

On 18/06/14 18:00, Adolfo Jayme Barrientos wrote:

I would say it’s because you have the font. Ubuntu doesn’t display
emojis out-of-the-box because it has no fonts supporting those
characters.


Shall we ask to include these by default?



--
Ubuntu-quality mailing list
Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality

Re: unicode / emoji in documentation (was Re: Common situations where a bug isn't real)

[Adolfo Jayme Barrientos]

> Can someone clarify the support situation for at least these characters?  
> Does it work for me
> in Ubuntu Precise 12.04 using chrome because I have the font, and Chrome 
> knows how to
> use the font?  Or is Chrome using some other approach to get them to work?

I would say it’s because you have the font. Ubuntu doesn’t display
emojis out-of-the-box because it has no fonts supporting those
characters.

We could ship Noto Color Emoji (an open source font from Android), as
our FreeType/HarfBuzz stack is recent enough (in 14.04) so it supports
color fonts, but I’m not sure about the support in Chrome. Firefox
must support it, as Noto Color Emoji is included in Firefox OS.

-- 
Adolfo

-- 
Ubuntu-quality mailing list
Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality

unicode / emoji in documentation (was Re: Common situations where a bug isn't real)

[Neal McBurnett]

I'd like a better understanding of the Unicode issues here, with more specific 
guidance for documentation, etc.
And I want to start off giving an appreciation to the author of the pages who 
took the time to try to make them more engaging and fun, even though it seems 
it led to problems for some readers.

The term "emoji" covers a lot of ground, as seen at Wikipedia:

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emoji

Some emoji are images, some are encoded as characters in the Unicode Private 
Use Area, and some have been standardized in Unicode as of 6.0 as of October 
2010.

The wiki page that started this conversation was
  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/One%20Hundred%20Papercuts/Work-flow/Triage/Real

It is moved now, but I seem to also see some emoji / unicode characters e.g. 
here:

 https://wiki.ubuntu.com/One%20Hundred%20Papercuts/Work-flow/Triage/

some of them work in my browser (Chrome) but not in my editor (emacs).  I 
expect the user at least needs the right fonts, but I'm curious to hear that a 
firefox add-on also works - perhaps via some font wrangling?

Can someone clarify the support situation for at least these characters?  Does 
it work for me in Ubuntu Precise 12.04 using chrome because I have the font, 
and Chrome knows how to use the font?  Or is Chrome using some other approach 
to get them to work?  How would I determine that for a given character / image?

In general, non-ascii characters can be problematic under various 
circumstances.  I imagine that the doc team uses a wide variety of non-ascii 
characters to write documentation in various languages.

And, back to the topic, what exactly is the proposal for Ubuntu folks?

Is it to avoid using unicode characters that aren't widely supported on Ubuntu 
and popular cellphones, etc?  And certainly to avoid the private use areas?
How will authors know where the (moving) boundary is?

Or to avoid unnecessary graphics, especially when they involve such Unicode 
characters?

Cheers,

Neal McBurnett http://neal.mcburnett.org/

On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 07:24:29AM -0400, Thomas Ward wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Jun 18, 2014, at 7:17, Alberto Salvia Novella  
> > wrote:
> > 
> >> On 18/06/14 09:25, Robert Park wrote:
> >> Maybe if this wiki was *only* for phone users then we could have Emojis,
> >> but the vast majority of Ubuntu users are on the desktop & server, so
> >> Emoji aren't a good fit.
> > 
> > Sorry, I don't understand that. Do you mean there's some further reasons 
> > than emojis not being displayed properly?
> > 
> > And, for clarifying: why shall I expect other Ubuntu users not to see 
> > emojis properly in their systems when I can seen them in mine?
> > 
> > Regards.
> 
> Perhaps you're missing the point of emoji.  In phones they use some symbols 
> in the ASCII/UTF-8 as the underlying symbols.  And while the emoji render 
> correctly on phones a LOT of systems, 12.04 stock and 14.04 stock included 
> (and I have tested this) don't display the graphics and only display the 
> symbols.  Lubuntu does no rendering of them as images at all.
> 
> That prevents the emoji from "working".  I agree the use of graphics is 
> sound, but not Emoji.  Actual small sized pictures, understandable, but Emoji 
> make no sense since not everything renders them as pictures.
> 
> -- 
> Ubuntu-bugsquad mailing list
> ubuntu-bugsq...@lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugsquad

-- 
Ubuntu-quality mailing list
Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality

Re: Common situations where a bug isn't real

[Alberto Salvia Novella]

On 18/06/14 13:24, Thomas Ward wrote:

That prevents the emoji from "working".  I agree the use of graphics is sound, 
but not Emoji.  Actual small sized pictures, understandable, but Emoji make no sense 
since not everything renders them as pictures.


Okay, understood: bad standard. So I'm removing it.

Thank you.



--
Ubuntu-quality mailing list
Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality

Re: Common situations where a bug isn't real

[Thomas Ward]

> On Jun 18, 2014, at 7:17, Alberto Salvia Novella  
> wrote:
> 
>> On 18/06/14 09:25, Robert Park wrote:
>> Maybe if this wiki was *only* for phone users then we could have Emojis,
>> but the vast majority of Ubuntu users are on the desktop & server, so
>> Emoji aren't a good fit.
> 
> Sorry, I don't understand that. Do you mean there's some further reasons than 
> emojis not being displayed properly?
> 
> And, for clarifying: why shall I expect other Ubuntu users not to see emojis 
> properly in their systems when I can seen them in mine?
> 
> Regards.

Perhaps you're missing the point of emoji.  In phones they use some symbols in 
the ASCII/UTF-8 as the underlying symbols.  And while the emoji render 
correctly on phones a LOT of systems, 12.04 stock and 14.04 stock included (and 
I have tested this) don't display the graphics and only display the symbols.  
Lubuntu does no rendering of them as images at all.

That prevents the emoji from "working".  I agree the use of graphics is sound, 
but not Emoji.  Actual small sized pictures, understandable, but Emoji make no 
sense since not everything renders them as pictures.

-- 
Ubuntu-quality mailing list
Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality

Re: Common situations where a bug isn't real

[Alberto Salvia Novella]

On 18/06/14 09:25, Robert Park wrote:

Maybe if this wiki was *only* for phone users then we could have Emojis,
but the vast majority of Ubuntu users are on the desktop & server, so
Emoji aren't a good fit.


Sorry, I don't understand that. Do you mean there's some further reasons 
than emojis not being displayed properly?


And, for clarifying: why shall I expect other Ubuntu users not to see 
emojis properly in their systems when I can seen them in mine?


Regards.



--
Ubuntu-quality mailing list
Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality

Re: Common situations where a bug isn't real

[Robert Park]

On Jun 17, 2014 5:49 PM, "Alberto Salvia Novella" 
wrote:
> > And desktops are displaying the emoji exactly as desired?
> >
> > http://i.imgur.com/1jOLWTo.png
>
> Just for curiosity, which is that desktop?


That's Firefox in utopic.


> I will remove emojis when I have a break, after getting some sleep.


Thanks. I think i speak for everybody when I say, we don't disagree with
you about the effectiveness of images in conveying information. Just that
Emoji are not the right way to put images in a website that's meant for
everybody. Maybe if this wiki was *only* for phone users then we could have
Emojis, but the vast majority of Ubuntu users are on the desktop & server,
so Emoji aren't a good fit.
-- 
Ubuntu-quality mailing list
Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality

Re: Common situations where a bug isn't real

[Robert Park]

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Alberto Salvia Novella
 wrote:
> If I agreed not to use emojis in email it is because Android phones show
> them improperly, making the message to look very awkward. And this is not
> the case on wikis.

And desktops are displaying the emoji exactly as desired?

http://i.imgur.com/1jOLWTo.png

Please. Emoji are for texting your girlfriend, they are not for a
serious wiki page.

> Removing emojis, in the way they are used in these wikis, and leaving plain
> text only is the same as removing icons in applications and leaving their
> names only.

So put in some image tags depicting the icons you want, if you're so
insistent on having icons. Emojis are not icons, they are BROKEN.

-- 
Ubuntu-quality mailing list
Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality

Re: Common situations where a bug isn't real

[Nio Wiklund]

2014-06-18 02:06, Alberto Salvia Novella skrev:

> Nio Wiklund:
>> 'Such problems are not bugs in any Ubuntu package'
> 
> Does the following correction fit what your mean?:
> 
> "Its software hasn't been packaged by Ubuntu, but by a third party."

Yes, it is better.


-- 
Ubuntu-quality mailing list
Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality

Re: Common situations where a bug isn't real

[Alberto Salvia Novella]

Robert Park:

Emojis are not icons, they are BROKEN.


Oh hell, you're right! holy crab! (no squid then)


Robert Park:
> And desktops are displaying the emoji exactly as desired?
>
> http://i.imgur.com/1jOLWTo.png

Just for curiosity, which is that desktop?


I will remove emojis when I have a break, after getting some sleep.

Bye bye ;)



--
Ubuntu-quality mailing list
Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality

Re: Common situations where a bug isn't real

[Alberto Salvia Novella]

On 17/06/14 00:02, Brian Murray wrote:
> The language "isn't real" is likely to aggravate people and rightfully
> so.

So changing "isn't real" for "isn't fixable by Ubuntu".

I'm also changing the page's ubication to 




On 16/06/14 23:08, C de-Avillez wrote:

Be careful with #1 (it is not open source) -- it may have been
packaged by Debian (or Ubuntu), and it may be a packaging issue.


Nio Wiklund:

'Such problems are not bugs in any Ubuntu package'


Does the following correction fit what your mean?:

"Its software hasn't been packaged by Ubuntu, but by a third party."


C de-Avillez:

Being an idea for a new feature can be closed and the OP redirected to
upstream to propose it. In the cases where Ubuntu is the upstream, the
bug can be kept open, and an upstream task opened.


I have rewritten it as:

"It is an idea for a new feature in a software developed outside Launchpad."

I think that, with this redaction, the idea of suggesting upstream is 
understood implicitly.



C de-Avillez:

The last one is just a particular case of system misconfiguration.


I have tested making this a subpoint of system misconfiguration, but it 
looked easier to read if every point was in the same level as the rest; 
specially being only five items there.



Cory Baudier:
> - The users system files have become misconfigured.
>
> - The users "/etc/apt/sources.list" file has become corrupted.
>

Cory Baudier:
> As much as I hate to say his system, I realize more and more users are
> becoming female so I figured "users" would fit better in this context.


Stephen M. Webb:
> note that it's still a bug if the system was automatically 
misconfigured by a software package


I have rewritten them like this:

- The user misconfigured the system.
- The user mangled the "/etc/apt/sources.list" file.

So it looks like fitting both requirements.


On 17/06/14 00:58, Cory Baudier wrote:
> Alberto, I believe you are one of the most active folks and contribute a
> great deal, so keep em coming and great work.

Thank you :)


On 16/06/14 23:31, José Antonio Rey wrote:

I do not thing it's good we use Emojis
on Wiki pages, specially when most users browse from a Desktop

environment.

The reason why I have included emojis is not for making the page more 
eye candy, but specially for making it faster to read while navigating 
through wiki pages.


I think there's a myth in thinking that as more wordy a content is the 
more precise and formal it is. While reality is very different:


- The most productive corporations in the world manage people visually 
(http://tinyurl.com/q26y4jo).


- Visual processing is 65000 times faster, more meaningful and much more 
easy to remember to the human brain than words or sounds. So the perfect 
way to assist fast reading.


- In fact, there's a hole widely accepted philosophy around productivity 
in making signalizing more graphic, called Visual Management 
(http://youtu.be/I0FCrp28wbM).



Thomas Ward:

+1 from me as well, emoji don't belong on wiki pages, just like they

don't belong on emails.

If I agreed not to use emojis in email it is because Android phones show 
them improperly, making the message to look very awkward. And this is 
not the case on wikis.


Removing emojis, in the way they are used in these wikis, and leaving 
plain text only is the same as removing icons in applications and 
leaving their names only.


This makes the experience dull, hard and falsely formal. It's like 
giving a Terminal to an employee saying that it's more enterprise like.


Just people got very used to it when spending so much years at school: 
people filling a room full of nothingness to learn, rather than words 
written in a blackboard and some sheets of paper. Only very nerdy people 
like this, and even engineers hate it when it has nothing to do with 
what exactly they want!


Average person will wisely avoid at all cost to deal with such 
environments. And will look for something more natural to learn, like 
what you can actually see and touch yourself.


Surely this is why YouTube is so popular these days, because it 
eliminates layers of abstraction (words). You rarely read the free 
Wikiversity; but Coursera, with its paid video courses, is growing 
amazingly fast.


We should imitate what actually works; not what actually demonstrates 
not to work, worldwide.


As example: natural physical environments is what emojis and pictures 
simulate in the One Hundred Papercuts project; making some of the most 
delightful, enjoyable and easy to understand documentation you can have 
(https://wiki.ubuntu.com/One%20Hundred%20Papercuts).


Surely you enjoyed less all this explanation than the following squid <コ:彡


Regards.

--
Ubuntu-quality mailing list
Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality

Re: Common situations where a bug isn't real

[Thomas Ward]

> On Jun 17, 2014, at 8:28, Javier Domingo Cansino  wrote:
> 
> 2014-06-16 23:31 GMT+02:00 José Antonio Rey :
>> Is it possible to remove Emojis? I do not thing it's good we use Emojis
>> on Wiki pages, specially when most users browse from a Desktop environment.
> 
> +1
> 
> Javier Domingo Cansino

+1 from me as well, emoji don't belong on wiki pages, just like they don't 
belong on emails.

--
Thomas
LP: ~teward
-- 
Ubuntu-quality mailing list
Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality

Re: Common situations where a bug isn't real

[Javier Domingo Cansino]

2014-06-16 23:31 GMT+02:00 José Antonio Rey :
> Is it possible to remove Emojis? I do not thing it's good we use Emojis
> on Wiki pages, specially when most users browse from a Desktop environment.

+1

Javier Domingo Cansino

-- 
Ubuntu-quality mailing list
Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality

Re: Common situations where a bug isn't real

[José Antonio Rey]

Is it possible to remove Emojis? I do not thing it's good we use Emojis
on Wiki pages, specially when most users browse from a Desktop environment.

On 06/16/2014 04:08 PM, C de-Avillez wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Alberto Salvia Novella
>  wrote:
>> I've been writing a list of common situations where a bug isn't real:
>>
>> <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/One%20Hundred%20Papercuts/Work-flow/Triage/Real>
>>
>> Do you know of some other?
> 
> Just a few comments:
> 
> Be careful with #1 (it is not open source) -- it may have been
> packaged by Debian (or Ubuntu), and it may be a packaging issue.
> 
> Being an idea for a new feature can be closed and the OP redirected to
> upstream to propose it. In the cases where Ubuntu is the upstream, the
> bug can be kept open, and an upstream task opened.
> 
> The last one is just a particular case of system misconfiguration.
> 
> Cheers,
> 

-- 
José Antonio Rey

-- 
Ubuntu-quality mailing list
Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality

Re: Common situations where a bug isn't real

[Cory Baudier]

I agree with where you are headed Alberto. I would use a slightly different
tact to get there.

*Common situations* where a bug is not a supported triage-able or Ubuntu
bug:

   -

   🔏 The software package
   <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/One%20Hundred%20Papercuts/Software%20packages>
   being installed is not open source <http://opensource.org/osd>.
   -

   💾 The software package
   <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/One%20Hundred%20Papercuts/Software%20packages>
   has not been installed from the *officially provided* Ubuntu
   repositories.
   -

   💡 It is an *idea* for a new feature.
   -

   🔦 It is a *support request*.
   -

   🔧 The users system files have become *misconfigured*.
   -

   🔪 The users "*/etc/apt/sources.list*" file has become corrupted.


As much as I am a fan of calling it like I see it, similar to your page,
with today’s everyone gets a ribbon attitude; I would think the above
approach would fit more. This is especially true as eyes are being moved to
distributions such as Ubuntu more and more. As much as I hate to say his
system, I realize more and more users are becoming female so I figured
"users" would fit beter in this context. Alberto, I believe you are one of
the most active folks and contribute a great deal, so keep em coming and
great work. Feel free to change whatever you like this was a scrape from
your page, nothing was changed on the page.


On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Brian Murray  wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 09:57:08PM +0200, Alberto Salvia Novella wrote:
> > I've been writing a list of common situations where a bug isn't real:
> >
> > <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/One%20Hundred%20Papercuts/Work-flow/Triage/Real
> >
>
> I don't like the phrase "isn't real". Even if the bug report is not a
> bug that developers of Ubuntu are going to fix doesn't mean it isn't a
> real issue affecting the user of an Ubuntu system. This is particularly
> true with the following points:
>
> "Its software package isn't open source"
> "Its software package has been installed from elsewhere"
> "The misconfigured their system" (notice the grammar change)
>
> The language "isn't real" is likely to aggravate people and rightfully
> so.
>
> --
> Brian Murray
> Ubuntu Bug Master
>
> --
> Ubuntu-bugsquad mailing list
> ubuntu-bugsq...@lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugsquad
>
>


-- 
Cory Baudier
-- 
Ubuntu-quality mailing list
Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality

Re: Common situations where a bug isn't real

[Nio Wiklund]

2014-06-16 21:57, Alberto Salvia Novella skrev:
> I've been writing a list of common situations where a bug isn't real:
> 
> <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/One%20Hundred%20Papercuts/Work-flow/Triage/Real>
> 
> Do you know of some other?
> 
> Regards.
> 
>
Hi Alberto,

Quote from the link:

- Its software package isn't open source.

- Its software package has been installed from elsewhere than those
officially provided by Ubuntu.

I do not agree with these two points. Such bugs can be very real, but
they may not be Ubuntu bugs, rather bugs in the particular software
package or lack of compatibility. Maybe you should state something like:

'Such problems are not bugs in any Ubuntu package'

Best regards
Nio



-- 
Ubuntu-quality mailing list
Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality

Re: Common situations where a bug isn't real

[Brian Murray]

On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 09:57:08PM +0200, Alberto Salvia Novella wrote:
> I've been writing a list of common situations where a bug isn't real:
> 
> <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/One%20Hundred%20Papercuts/Work-flow/Triage/Real>

I don't like the phrase "isn't real". Even if the bug report is not a
bug that developers of Ubuntu are going to fix doesn't mean it isn't a
real issue affecting the user of an Ubuntu system. This is particularly
true with the following points:

"Its software package isn't open source"
"Its software package has been installed from elsewhere"
"The misconfigured their system" (notice the grammar change)

The language "isn't real" is likely to aggravate people and rightfully
so.

--
Brian Murray
Ubuntu Bug Master


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- 
Ubuntu-quality mailing list
Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality

Re: Common situations where a bug isn't real

[C de-Avillez]

On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Alberto Salvia Novella
 wrote:
> I've been writing a list of common situations where a bug isn't real:
>
> <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/One%20Hundred%20Papercuts/Work-flow/Triage/Real>
>
> Do you know of some other?

Just a few comments:

Be careful with #1 (it is not open source) -- it may have been
packaged by Debian (or Ubuntu), and it may be a packaging issue.

Being an idea for a new feature can be closed and the OP redirected to
upstream to propose it. In the cases where Ubuntu is the upstream, the
bug can be kept open, and an upstream task opened.

The last one is just a particular case of system misconfiguration.

Cheers,

-- 
..hggdh..

-- 
Ubuntu-quality mailing list
Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality

Common situations where a bug isn't real

[Alberto Salvia Novella]

I've been writing a list of common situations where a bug isn't real:

<https://wiki.ubuntu.com/One%20Hundred%20Papercuts/Work-flow/Triage/Real>

Do you know of some other?

Regards.


--
Ubuntu-quality mailing list
Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality