[Bug 655998] Re: Update Manager Listing should NOT use descriptions

[danstowell]

A vote from me to say: please show the names!

When update-manager pops up, the first thing I want to decide is: "Is
this update going to do anything that I wouldn't want, e.g. change any
package versions that I'm currently relying on for my data analysis?"
but the screen just says "A lightweight blah manager", "A dbus
implementation of a thing", etc.

It gives the user no real idea of what will happen if they say OK.

Please put the names somewhere in the summary table where the user can
scan them (the "technical description" is not enough because not
scannable).

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Foundations Bugs, which is subscribed to update-manager in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/655998

Title:
  Update Manager Listing should NOT use descriptions

Status in “update-manager” package in Ubuntu:
  Confirmed

Bug description:
  Binary package hint: update-manager

  The use of package descriptions (instead of package names) in the
  Update Manager package listings represents a significant and needless
  reduction in usability.

  There is no scenario in which a description of a package to be
  upgraded works better than the package name itself, followed by the
  description on the SECOND line, in smaller text.

  As a seasoned programmer who has been creating GUIs since 1993, I'd
  like to offer the following reasons why using a longer description not
  only represents a reduction in usability but also reduces Package
  Manager's effectiveness as a security and management tool:

  1) The headers are no longer bolded, which makes the heading more
  difficult to distinguish from the second line;

  2) Longer list items require the eye move from left to right (or right
  to left in some languages), which makes it far more difficult for the
  eye to scan vertically;

  3) NOBODY uses these package descriptions, making them even less
  recognisable than the (admittedly opaque) package names;

  3a) Even if their use were to become common practice, the use of
  opaque, longer descriptions instead of opaque-but-terse package names
  is STILL not an improvement;

  4) Developers don't make any effort to write succinct, useful
  descriptions (can you guess which package is the 'transaction based
  package management service'? I didn't think so);

  5) Package names, although difficult for non-technical users to
  decipher, follow long-established naming conventions, and can
  immediately be parsed by advanced and intermediate users - the very
  people to whom this information is useful;

  6) Package names are shorter (short is Good in lists);

  7) There is no explanation or description that can be made in this
  limited space (save perhaps for a link to a wikipedia page) that could
  conceivably be of any use whatsoever to beginner users. Packages and
  their importance to the system are never going to more than vaguely
  understood by beginners. Reducing the usability of an important
  security tool for advanced and intermediate users is therefore a
  misguided and ultimately unrewarding step.

  7a) The descriptions themselves are just more verbose version of the
  package name (e.g. 'tools for generating an initramfs' for 'initramfs-
  tools') - they add NO NEW information;

  To sum up: This change in the displayed values in Package Manager's
  listings adds nothing to usability for beginner users (to whom the
  listing is meaningless in any case) and make it more difficult to use
  for everyone else.

  Lest someone suggest this is unimportant: THIS IS A SERIOUS BUG.
  People judge whether and when to update their systems based on this
  listing. It MUST be as clear, succinct and useful as possible.

  Expert knowledge of the system and its components is a prerequisite
  for using this tool, no matter how dumbed down the interface gets.
  Presenting the wrong information in the listing only makes it harder
  for those of us who depend on this functionality to do our jobs.

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/update-manager/+bug/655998/+subscriptions