On Wednesday 16 July 2008, Jérémy Bobbio wrote: > > However, I do see that this implementation is simpler and there were > > issues with the tabs, so post-Lenny for that is fine. > > The tabs should, IMHO, come with a wider redesign of the current > interface. Debian is going to be installed on more and more wide TFT > screens and g-i should support them in a better way that it currently > does. Agreed, at least that it can be looked into later. > I would still like to see "Yes" and "No" buttons instead of > radio buttons for single boolean questions. And I have other changes > on my list… :) Attilio did that at some point and we discussed it. Major disadvantage was the distance between the question and the buttons which made answering the question completely inintuitive. I don't have any real objection to using buttons, but IMO that issue would definitely need to be solved before we could change to using them. > Getting cdebconf-terminal ready for Lenny will allow us to offer users > of languages only supported by the graphical installer at least one way > to access a shell. And this sounds like a really desirable goal. :) Yes, absolutely. > > What I really don't like from a usability PoV is the requirement to > > type 'exit' to leave the shell and the IMO unnecessary "two-step > > exit" (first 'exit' and then 'Continue'). > > Rationale behind it is that sometimes one mistype a Ctrl+D, and going > back to the menu directly typing random letters sounded like a bad > idea. I don't think that is sufficient reason to make the normal exit so convoluted. If I type ctrl-D in a shell in konsole it also just exits. For me that is a case of "don't do that then" :-) > > Why is the Continue button needed? Could an active <Go back> button > > be shown instead of the Continue that (after a warning) just kills > > the plug-in if it is clicked (the mouse is still active after all)? > > I need to think of a proper way to display a warning, but it sounds > like a better idea. I had intended for the warning to be optional. I mainly feel that a graphical alternative to typing "exit" would be useful, and certainly more useful than a Continue button which only means "you have exited, please confirm that you've already exited and we'll return to the installer proper" (exaggerated). > > I fail to see the point in the "End of shell process." message, even > > if the two-step exit is technically unavoidable. If you do want to > > keep some message, then I'd suggest a simple "Click Continue to > > proceed." which is much more helpful. > > One can reach the "Continue" button using the keyboard, that's why I Only after you've already exited, which IMO makes it redundant anyway. > avoided such message. The various situations where such a shell could > have been called also made me pounder about something like "proceed". > > But maybe it should just be avoided. Yes :-) > > Most important issue: position of "Execute a shell" in the menu is > > incorrect after anna (before partman instead of after > > finish-install). […] > > I did no changes to the actual code for "Execute a shell" or rescue > mode options except that removing the tests which removed these options > when DEBIAN_FRONTEND was "gtk". So if di-utils-shell position is wrong > when rescue-mode is put on the initrd, normal builds once the patch > will have been applied will not be affected. You must have something different as in the normal rescue case it does work correctly. I doubt including rescue in the initrd makes any difference, although I have not checked that. If you'd like help with this I'm willing to take a closer look, but I won't unless you ask. > > Other issues/suggestions: [...] > > - if possible repeat the "type 'exit' to close the shell and return > > to the installer" info somewhere on the screen while the plug-in is > > running; looks like there's little room for this though > > I can make this message configurable through a variable, as the "View > system log" option you were asking previously will not need "exit" but > "Ctrl-C". More strings, angrier Christian… This was low priority anyway and is less needed if there is a <Go back> option. Cheers, FJP
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.