Re: Interactive guide for new users

[Philip K.]

Eduardo Mercovich <eduardo@mercovich.net> writes:

> Hi Philip, thanks for your kind and fast feedback. 
>
> Sorry I replied to everyone in the thread, just wanted a slower jump
> into this pond. It looks like I'm now completely in the water. :D
>
>> An issue I can imagine is that a lot of the options that would be
>> displayed in a wizard like this wouldn't mean too much to newcomers.
>> [...] 
>
> That's why a sample step/screen is included. The options are
> (proposed to be) phrased in a way that could be understood without
> knowing emacs.
>
> I was actually doubting even to include in each a link to it's canonical
> URL (I assume that it would be the one already in the package manager).
>
> In the org-mode preferences "section" (let's call it that way because it
> may have many steps) for example, leading stars should be explained (of
> course, a screenshot would be the best):
>
> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
>
> Org-mode defines heading hierarchy with asteriscs (stars) as the 1st 
> character and arrange the left-alignment according to the heading level: 1 
> close to the left margin and other ones moving to the right.
> Some people prefer to have a simpler visual display and use only the
> alignment (and the font size and/or color) to show the heading hierarchy.
>
> Please select your option: 
>
> (1) Hide the leading stars
>
> (2) Leave visible the leading stars
>
> (9) I'd like to leave this step for now (you can always make it later).
> (0) I want to stop this wizard now.
> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
>
> In this way, the User can always choose to stop, jump this option for
> now, or take one of them. 
>
> Also, there should be a way to go back (not included in this rough
> draft).

Even with the ability to skip and go back, I still think that a total
newcomer won't be able to gain a lot from options like these. Maybe I'm
just bad, but in my case, I would skim over the text or wouldn't be too
interested in reading it in detail, to imagine what the differences
would be like. If anything, a visualisation would be needed. For example
in a separate window.

>> Without a way to test and find out what these options _mean_,
>> you would only be helping people that could already help themselves.
>
> Testing with users is one of my specialties, I would happily make a
> testing protocol before making the design, tests and development. In a
> way, it is like TDD, but with interaction design...

I'm not sure we're talking about the same testing here? I had more of a
"playground" like approach, where you can immediately or quickly see
what this option means, but I don't know if that's what you had in mind
too.

-- 
        Philip K.