Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/1996/05/06/09:52:41
> Background: someone installed djgpp, had problems, sent e-mail to rms.
> RMS thinks that the bug reporting mechanism isn't obvious enough.
>
> Comments? Yes, I know a big chunk of the conversation is missing.
> I'm just interested in RMS's comment about the README files.
I just watched over the shoulder of a non-savy user which I told to go look
around and see what is needed to install. Comments:
1) 00README describes the V1 and V2 directories, but doesn't say anything
about why there are multiple directories. Which to get? The user started
looking in the V1 directories (they are listed first, etc).
2) FAQ at the top level contains some critical information, but isn't
mentioned at all in the 00README. When I pointed it out, the newbie
didn't even know what FAQ was. He suggested the text from FAQ be put
inside 00README at the top level (why get two files?)
3) The first impression of the user (after skimming and ignoring the
micro-FAQ) was to go to v2 and download those zips. I asked about getting
and reading "readme.1st" and he assumed it would be similar/identical
to the 00README. At that point, once again, the comment was why he
needed a THIRD file to download to know what to do, how about just
putting this in 00README ?
4) After reading readme.1st, the files to install is in the middle of a
paragraph in the middle of the document. The user felt a minimum install
list should be the first thing in the document, and also felt it was a
bad idea to spread the files required over multiple directories. He
likes to mget, instead of hand typing lots of names. Oh, he would also
have liked to have an install.bat to unzip the things, and suggested
it could check to see if any were missing.
That's my 10 minute install research for the week :-)
- Raw text -