<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 5:46 AM, Andrew Sayers <<a href="mailto:andrew-ubuntu-devel@pileofstuff.org" target="_blank">andrew-ubuntu-devel@pileofstuff.org</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> I think the model we're heading towards with the signpost is that the wiki page contains questions that have been asked before, while IRC and the wiki discussion page are for new questions. </blockquote><div> Makes sense to me. Add the forums to the "new questions" section. </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> If it works, I think #ubuntu might want to look at the signpost model. Being able to click "I have a problem with my hardware -> video card -> NVidia card -> unsupported NVidia card" would satisfy a bunch of users without needing direct support, and would make it easier to direct people towards the "level 2 tech support" channels. Done right, a signpost-like model could also ensure that level 2 support requests are well formulated. Leaf nodes for unknown problems might look like this: BEGIN WIKITEXT === Modern NVidia card with no known issues === Your problem is not covered by this guide. Go to #ubuntu-video and say "I have a problem with my modern NVidia card (TYPE). This card has no known issues. My problem is: PROBLEM". Make sure to replace "TYPE" and "PROBLEM" with the type of card you have and the problem you're having with it. END WIKITEXT </blockquote><div> This gave me an idea for a small application (probably PyGTK) that could be included in Ubuntu under System>Help somewhere. It would collect all the various help docs currently available in System>Help, as well as all the wiki pages that are applicable (/Support/<release>/... or whatever structure is decided on) and provide a signpost menu based on those. Additionally, if the user gets to the bottom of the signpost and their problem isn't solved or they have additional questions, there could be an option "Get live help". This would collect useful information first, and then run a script which automagically launches an irc client with everything set up, and into the right level 2 channel. As example, if user Bob is having trouble with no sound, he goes to this application. He gets shown a page (scraped from the wiki) on checking volume levels, and other common problems. He then clicks on the "My problem isn't solved, get live help" button. It would use apport-collect and stick a folder on the Desktop with useful information, then connect him to irc on the #ubuntu-sound channel. This way the signpost can be automated, the user doesn't have to understand IRC beyond "type message and hit enter", and the user already has a collection of useful information available for the helper to peruse. </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> About people asking already-answered questions - As I half-suggested in another post, I think the second-order problem here is that many approaches make it easier to post than to search. I would recommend forums drowning in deja vu to try putting roadblocks between the user and the "send message" button. Preferably, these roadblocks should be in the form of search buttons :) </blockquote><div> Agreed. The easiest way to get help should be to DIY. Preferably we would make DIY easier, rather than making live help harder. </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> I also think there's a third-order problem here: developers don't have to-the-eyeball strategies for delivering their content. Expecting users to trawl through old posts seems intuitively reasonable, but the evidence is that it doesn't work that way. Here's a nice demonstration that convinced me of the need for software to deliver information right into the user's eyeball. It doesn't work unless you actually do it, so please have a go - I promise it's not a trick. BEGIN DEMONSTRATION For this demonstration, you'll need a thumb and a digital watch. Hold your thumb at arm's length and stare at your thumbnail for a moment. Then place your watch over your thumb, such that the "seconds" counter is over your thumbnail. With your thumb still at arm's length, stare at your thumbnail and count the seconds going by. You should be able to count the seconds easily. Now place your watch to the left of your thumb, such that the "seconds" counter is jammed against the side of your thumbnail. With your thumb at arm's length, stare at your thumb and try to count the seconds go by. You might be able to detect when there's a change, but will be completely unable to read the numbers. 90% of the rod and cone cells in your entire eye are pointed at an area about the size of your thumbnail. So information just one thumbwidth away from the point you're focussing on is almost impossible to take in. END DEMONSTRATION To solve the third-order problem, I recommend putting the above demonstration in front of developers' eyeballs :)</blockquote><div> Trawling through old posts is problematic simply because there are so many which are irrelevant or unsolved. It's really annoying to search the forum for a problem, see that the third or fourth hit is *exactly* what's happening to you, and then find out that nobody ever answered the post. Ideally there would be a way to convert a forum post marked as [SOVLED] into a wiki article. In a perfect world this would happen automatically, and these wiki articles would show up in the forum duplicate-post auto-search. </div></div>