Re: OS questions draft, III

[Roger Dingledine <arma@mit.edu>]

In message <35CDD490.F6711E6F@iname.com>, pete_st_onge@iname.com writes:
>The survey has really been developing over the last few weeks. I tried
>to expand the issues Roger flagged in his email.

Woah. Actually, I flagged those as newly-changed, rather than needing-
help. But you put some good thought into them nonetheless, and they will
end up much better for it. Thanks.

>I've updated the survey to Roger's last email, and we're now at v.0x004.
>I'll update the page on Wednesday night, and pledge to update the page
>on subsequent Wednesdays, and Sundays if the traffic warrants it.
>
>!* ability to act as servers for email, web pages, file access,
>!  telnet, file  transfer, etc.
>> !  [was: ability to run servers for email, web pages, file access, telnet, f
>ile
>> !   transfer, etc.]
>>   [was: running servers (mail, httpd, samba, telnetd, ftpd, etc)]
>> ![should this be 'server' or 'servers'?]
>
>I would suggest separating these somewhat:
>
>* Being able to use your computer to be a mail server, web page server.

how about "as a mail server or web page server"

>* Being able to use your computer to share files over the network (file
>  server) or over the internet (file transfer (FTP) server)

how about "over a local network" rather than "over the network"
maybe "over a local or company network"

>* Being able to connect to your computer from another computer (telnet)

this is the same question as is asked later, under "connecting to your
computer remotely"

These three rewrites look good, tho. I say keep em.

>> !* ISP support for technical questions
>> !  [was: Adequate ISP support for technical questions]
>>   [was: ISP support]
>
>* Having sufficient technical support from your internet service
>  provider to resolve difficult technical problems ('difficult'
>  from the perspective of the computerphobe).

first of all, 'sufficient' needs to go, for reasons Kimboo was talking
about earlier. I want to communicate what we're trying to ask as
efficiently and clearly as possible. Otherwise we waste the surveyee's
time.
Do we really need 'difficult' in there? Who's to judge 'difficult'?
Wait, you just answered that one. :) But if 'difficult' is from the
perspective of the computerphobe, wouldn't most any technical question
be 'difficult', and thus we can throw the word out?

>> !* usergroup support for technical questions
>> ! [was: Adequate usergroup support for technical questions]
>>   [was: usergroup support]
>(See below *1*)
>
>!* ability to integrate computer with communications devices
>!  (telephone, video conferencing, etc)
>> ! [was: telephony (integrating computers and communications) [needs help]]
>
>[This is pretty broad. What if we tease these out a little bit more]
>
>* Being able to use your computer to:
> - dial the telephone for a voice call
> - send and receive faxes
> - answer calls (answering machine)
> - voice mail for several people
> - fax-on-demand

Are these last two as important as the first three? (I can see 'fax-on-demand'
being as important I guess (but I want a short argument first :), but voice
mail for several people?)

>* Being able to use your computer to communicate / conference with
>  others using audio / and video?

how about "audio and/or video"?

>* Being able to use your computer for speech to text transcription
>  (ie. NaturallySpeaking or ViaVoice-type stuff)?

This is getting pretty esoteric. I'd like to keep most of the questions
in the realm of 'what people already do in at least one OS'. Er, people
already do this in Windows, don't they. There goes my argument. Can we
broaded the question slightly, into asking both speech->text and
text->speech?

>> !* multimedia: ability to integrate computer with audio/visual devices (CD p
>layer, foo)
>> ![i want to come up with another example here. 'television' came to mind, bu
>t perhaps that's more confusing than useful.]
>> !  [was: multimedia (integrating computers and audio/video) [needs help]]
>
>* Being able to use your computer to use and control audiovisual
>  equipment, like CD player, DVD, television, radio)?

should it be "audio/visual" or "audiovisual"? this sounds like a good
rewrite.

>> [games, graphics manipulation, sound - Should this be split further? Or is i
>t
>> already covered in earlier "what do you want to use your computer for"
>> sections?]
>> ![this should be elaborated for some usertypes and ignored for others, if we
>> ! decide to have user-type-specific questions]
>
>     Suggest that we make this a broad question as possible, then give
>the user the option of filling out questionaires specific to the
>application types later or separately?
>
>
>> * being able to use (read/write/convert) files saved in industry standard wo
>rd
>>   processing file formats
>>   [was: being able to use (read/write/convert) industry standard word proces
>sing file
>>   formats]
>> * being able to use (read/write/convert) files saved in industry standard gr
>aphics
>>   file formats
>>   [was: being able to use (read/write/convert) industry standard graphics fi
>le
>>   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]
>
>Suggest add: being able to use (read/write/convert) files saved in
>industry standard work processing file formats.

'work processing'? like what?

>!* Access to OS source code (for modification, configuring, etc.).
>* Source code contains all of the computer instructions for a given
>  operating system or application. How important is being able to
>  customize the OS source code for configuration or modification so
>  as to optimize the basic OS for your computer system or to improve
>  the OS for your needs?

Aiee. This question is really long. It also introduces ideas (like
whether they would want the source code to optimize or improve it)
that I'm not sure I wanted involved in the original question. People
know what source code is, right? How much do we have to explain?

How about
* Access to operating system (OS) source code (for reading or customizing)

>!* Access to application source code (for modification, configuring,
>   etc.)
>> ! [was: 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]
>> !* Freedom to redistribute OS/application source code and modifications
>> !  [was: ability to read/redistribute the os/application source]
>>   [was: being able to read/redistribute the os/application source]
>> ![note question reorder]
>
>* How important is being able to have access to the source code for
>  the software packages you use so that you may customize the
>  application for your own needs or optimize the application for your
>  computer system?

Why do we need to provide a reason-for-wanting-the-source in the question?
Will that look like it's leading them into answering a certain way?

>> * being able to transparently encrypt data going to and from your computer
>>   via the network.
>> * being able to transparently encrypt data stored on your computer
>>   [was: encryption]
>> ["transparently" probably needs some help here]
>> !['transparently' means that it's happening without the user's direct
>> ! intervention. That is, everything works the same way as it would if
>> ! there weren't encryption happening, and the user doesn't have to
>>   care.]
>
>* How important is being able to have data encrypted on the computer
>  so that other cannot access your data, while being able to use your
>  own data as easily as if it were not encrypted.

I see now that this is two questions. the first is ability to have
encryption at all, the second is making it easy to use. i think the first
is an appropriate question, and the second is too specific. that's why we're
having trouble getting a good description of 'transparently' in a concise
question. How about
'being able to easily encrypt data going to and from your computer
via the network'? perhaps 'easily'->'conveniently'? Or just leave the
adverb out entirely?

>!* Operating system (OS) stability (computer runs without crashing or
>!  requiring restart)
>!  [was: computer stability (computer runs without crashing or
>!  requiring restart)]
>
>* How important is using an operating system which is stable, running
>  for a long (weeks, months, years) without crashing or requiring a
>  restart.

does the appended clause gain us anything?

>> * application stability (applications run without crashing or
>>   requiring restart)
>>   [was: stability (computer and applications run without crashing or
>>    requiring restart)
>
>* How important is being able to use applications which are stable,
>  and can run without crashing or requiring a restart?

we have an assumed "How important is" in front of each question. So we
shouldn't add it to any of the actual questions. That's why so many of
our questions have started with participles so far. :)

>> * prompt bugfixes
>> [proposal to nuke this question. opinions?]
>> ![kimboo: by 'prompt bugfixes', I mean that when the people in charge
>> ! of the OS (or applications, I guess) get told about a bug, they
>> ! provide a bugfix for it in a short amount of time. I had assumed
>> ! that the actual patching of the bug would be automated. Nobody
>> ! would accept it if it weren't fully automated.]
>
>Adequate software support? (I rant a bit about this down below)
>
>!* Documentation on the internet that can be downloaded and/or printed
>!  [was: printed docs from the internet (and a directory of said docs)]
>
>* How important is being able to find documentation for your software
>  which you can download, copy and print for your personal use?

I'd like to keep the mention of the internet in this question

>> !* Availability of printed documentation/guides at book stores
>> !  [was:printed docs available at book stores]
>
>* How important is being able to find good books dealing with the
>  operating system and the programs you use at book stores?

'good' is pretty useless there. 'suitable' or 'appropriate' or the like
might make more sense, tho. hrm.

>* How important is the price of these books to your purchasing
>  decisions?
>
>
>!* Software tutorials that interactively teach you how to use your
>!  computer and applications
>!  [was: having the os send each new user an email containing 'how
>!  to use MAN, APROPOS; where to find docs, how to read docs etc.']
>
>* Having a set of interactive software tutorials to help you learn the
>  basics of how to use your computer and its applications (General
>  orientation to OS and software in order to access basic OS/ App
>  functionality)?

do they just teach 'the basics'? i think i'd prefer to ask what my question
is asking -- it's more broad, rather than more specific. I see that you're
trying to break the tutorial question into two -- basic and intermediate.
But I'm thinking maybe it should stay one question, and then the intermediate
help issue be separate?

>* Having an intuitive way to find detailed information quickly for a
>  given operating system or software feature (Specific information to
>  access intermediate advanced OS / App functionality)?

this is a good question to ask

>!* accessability of support over the Internet
>!  [was: accessability of support over the Internet or www]
>* Being able to ask technical questions about specific operating system 
>  or application problems in an open forum over the Internet or the
>  Web?
>
>> !* software brand reputation (good or bad)
>> !* hardware brand reputation (good or bad)
>> !  [was: brand reputation (good or bad)]
>>   [was: corporate reputation]
>     I think I see where you're going here. If the software has no
>brand on it (like most open source software), will the user still
>want to use it? I mean, you know if you get a shrink wrap box from
>Corel, Red Hat, Netscape, etc that it should really work. Now what
>about the open source stuff that doesn't have the name of a
>corporation on it, or if the app has a 'strange' name (all lower case,
>sometimes not intuitively pronouncable for a newless cluebie), will
>the same implicit trust of the user still be there? Given the pride

yes, yes exactly

>that the community has in producing lots of very usable software for
>free, perhaps this has to be impressed on the potential user community
>a bit more.
>
>* How important is obtaining software from a reputable corporate
>  source?
>* If the software was appropriate to your needs, would you consider
>  obtaining non-commercial (sometimes called 'freeware' or 'open
>  source') software build by a group of reputable programmers?
>
>(*1* There's a lot of good stuff out there - stating reputable
> programmers means for me that the programmers provide at least some
> level of support, bug fixes, etc., or that these services are
> provided by the community - ie. Andrew Tridgewell (sp?) and SAMBA).
>
>* How important is obtaining hardware from a reputable computer
>  reseller (IBM, Dell, Compaq, etc)?
>* How important is obtaining brand-type hardware from a respectable
>  computer reseller - like a SoundBlaster sound card vs. generic sound
>  card, 3Com network card vs. generic network card?

these sound like a very good start. it's closing on 4am, so i'm going to
let them slide from my scrutiny for now. but i'll give that a go tomorrow
if I'm got time, I promise. :)

>*Whew* Lots has been happening with the survey. I've been reading the
> email as they came in, and I noticed a few trends. First one seeming
> to me that we're getting away from application functionality to focus
> on the OS and UI. Given the size of the task, this is quite logical.

yep

> If at some point we want to focus on the apps later, we should keep
> some broad app questions in the survey (like we're doing now), and
> perhaps bring up some secondary surveys for later work. What do folks
> think?

I think that subsequent surveys make a lot of sense. However, they will
have to be pretty good (broad? important?) surveys, to get enough people
to take them to make them worthwhile. But I think that can be pulled off.
Our goal here is to get as many questions as we feel we will want on the
OS issue into this survey, because making a new or updated version of it
after a lot of people have already taken it will seriously screw with our
statistics.
Also, once we've gotten this survey under our belt, we'll have a lot
better of an idea how to do real surveys that work (hopefully). On the
other hand, I'm probably going to be too busy then to put priority on
another survey. But I'd be happy to keep this forum open for people to
discuss all sorts of brilliant new survey ideas. But let's leave the
distant future to itself for now, eh? :)

>I've been laid up for a couple of weeks with my supervisor breathing
> down my neck (wants me to finish my thesis asap). Of course, the RSI
> in both wrists didn't help much either, so heretofore I haven't been
> doing too much typing anyways. All this to say that I'm back and
> feeling much better. And I will be keeping the survey more up to date, 
> please accept my appologies for the lapse.

I'm sorry to hear about the wrists. I've been trying to deal with that
as well. MIT has horrible furniture...you'd think they'd take better care
of us.

Anyway, thanks for your feedback on this. We're getting a lot closer
to having some polished questions here.

--Roger