Randomthots wrote:
Doug Thompson wrote:
But doesn't that kind of prove the point? I mean he saw "OpenOffice.org
2.0 will automatically open the following file types.", but he
(mis)-understood it to mean "Check off which of the following you want
OOo to open."
The first time I saw it I thought it meant "Do you want OpenOffice.org
to *be able to* open the following file types?" That was wrong,
obviously now, but that's what I thought then.
Frankly, I think that the threads on this subject inevitably focus on
the wrong question. Namely, "How could this be re-worded to improve the
situation?" That and people like Mr. Thompson who seem to think that
anyone who mis-interprets the dialog is either oblivious of ignorant.
The real question we should be focusing on is "What is the benefit to
this step in the installation?", "Does it do more harm than good?", and
"Should we maybe rethink how this is handled?"
I *hate* that dialog. Not just in OOo but in any program that offers up
that sort of "helpfulness". Because if I'm trying out a program for the
first time the true answer is "Uhh... I don't know. Maybe. Maybe not.
I'll let you know in a couple weeks or a month. Let me try it out first."
Tell me, wouldn't you all rather answer a question that goes like, "I've
been using OpenOffice for a month now, and I think it's great!! BTW, how
can I make it so that it just automatically opens my MSO files when I
double click on them?", as opposed to "YOUR [EMAIL PROTECTED]&* PROGRAM ATE MY
FILES!!! I WANT THEM BACK. NOW!!!!!!"?
As long as that dialog stays the way it is, I refuse to answer a poster
with that problem. It could have been fixed a long time ago were it not
for programmers with your exact attitude. I used to answer it, I'll help
people with other things, but I won't touch that one. I'll leave that to
you Mr. Thompson.
Rod
I couldn't agree with you more than if I had written it myself. Well,
with the possible exception of the aspersions cast in my name. More on
that to come.
I freely admit that I have little use for people who are and choose to
remain what I call willfully ignorant. However, that cuts all
directions, because what is the difference between the non-geek who
avoids learning about things technical and the geek who avoids learning
about things of human behavior?
OOo is a nexus for these two groups, and it magnifies the gulf rather
than bridging it. Why? Because of installation dialogues and other
"geekisms" that are confusing to general users and are the topic of this
thread. Is there a solution? Possibly, but it would require a project
dedicated to cleaning up and clarifying the User Interface from the
programming side. Instead, the Documentation Project has the thankless
task of trying to explain in common language program features that the
developers probably have difficulty describing to one another in jargon.
Add to this complexity the fact that RTFM is the last action of the
truly desperate, and everything collapses under its own weight.
I was accused of thinking "that anyone who mis-interprets the dialog is
either oblivious of (sic) ignorant." That must be because I don't
explain some things as thoroughly as I could, but it probably doesn't
matter any more than the documentation. There is *nothing wrong* with
ignorance; it is merely the condition of lack of knowledge and can be
easily remedied by anyone who wants to make an effort. "Willful
ignorance" is eschewing learning for whatever reason (laziness, fear...)
and is the behavior I find most reprehensible. The people who are
*oblivious* are the members of the OOo developer community who
promulgate these dialogues without concern for how they will be interpreted.
I don't mind being quoted, but please be accurate and don't put your
thoughts as words out of my mouth.
Doug
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
