new look installer... why?

[Ari Torhamo]

ti, 2005-02-08 kello 19:56 -0500, Travis Newman kirjoitti:
> > I can't for the life of me see why it's even an issue for an installer.
> > Installation is basically a once only affair, and if pretty graphics are
> > going to create a good operating system, we should all stick to Windows.
> > Personally, I like the "down-to-business" look of the Ubuntu/Debian
> > installers.
> 
> Agreed. The problem is that a lot of people will see that they can't
> use the mouse and get scared, when in reality, it's much easier than
> most graphical installers I've used. Most people are used to the
> paperclip telling them how to use Word, so having to do ANYTHING that
> even looks complicated will make them run away. I don't think Ubuntu
> needs a graphical installer, because I don't care how many people use
> Ubuntu really. I love it, I know it's great software, and I think that
> the bottom line should be keeping the quality, not attracting users.
> It all comes down to how you define "success." People say that Firefox
> will never succeed until they get their product bundled with new
> computers, but they're thinking commercial success. The developers of
> Firefox set out to make a good, standards-compliant browser, and
> they've succeeded. THAT's the kind of success we should focus on, I
> think.


What bad would follow from letting people to use mouse during the
installation, if they feel more comfortable doing so? You would still be
able to use your keyboard - I haven't heard anyone suggesting that this
should be removed. I don't think that graphical has to mean more
complicated or more cluttered. Isn't this a matter of design. I think
that Gnome, for example, shows that graphical, intuitive and simple can
be combined.

Think of a person who comes from the Windows world and wants to give
Linux a try. He might have never in his life hit "Enter" to accept
anything - he has always clicked "OK" with the mouse. The only thing he
ever uses Enter for may be starting a new paragraph in a text document.
The only thing he ever uses "Tab" for may be to set a tab stop. Think of
this person installing Ubuntu. This may be the first time for him to
install an operating system. He is stressed and afraid of doing
something wrong - he knows that even a thing so innocent and trivial as
opening an e-mail attachement or choosing wrong when asked an
imcomprihensible question during a desktop session can be stoopid and
may lead to trouble - what might happen if he does a mistake when
installing an operating system. He's not in a creative state of mind,
but in one of not making mistakes. This is not a moment to make him to
adapt to a different user interface. This is a moment to give him what
he is used to. He should have his clickable "OK" and "Cancel" or "Back"
buttons and be able to select and open things with a mouse click or two.
It's good to teach people to use the keyboard to navigate on their
screen, but any other moment would be better to teach them than the
process of installation.

The reason why some people want to keep the installer non-graphical
seems so small to me compared with the reason why inexperienced people
should have the graphical interface. Why not to see the graphical
installer as a friendly and helping hand welcoming new users to Ubuntu.
Why not make Ubuntu famous for how easy it is to install - even for
those who are installing for the first time.

Regards,

Ari