Version: 0.9~svn1075616-0ubuntu1 (using Devel) OS: Linux Installed from: Compiled sources I am currently testing KNetworkManager on current Kubuntu Lucid Snapshots. Maybe the bug I am describing might not apply to the current development-version anymore. If one wants to connect to a Wireless network, a panel with a lot of options will be displayed. Many of them are not necessary and are very confusing to unexperienced users. The whole tab “Wireless“ is unneeded in 99% of all cases: * SSID: <SSID of selected Network> [Scan-Button] “SSID“ is a) a very technical term and most average users will not know its meaning. b) The user already selected a network by its SSID and will NEVER want to change it at this point. * Mode: <Combo-Box: Infrastructure/Ad-Hoc> If the user already selected a network, he/she already chose the type. * BSSID: <__:__:__:__:__:__> Same as SSID. Nearly nobody wants to change this * Restrict to Interface: <Combo-Box: Any/Wireless 802.11> What does this mean? * MTU: Again a very technical term and nearly nobody changes it. All of this options are only relevant for experts and experts probably use iwconfig ore similar tools. For 99% of the users these options are confusing. The third tab “IP Address“ is also not needed for most cases. This one should go to a special menu. So only the content of the second Tab, “Wireless Security“ should be visible to the user at this point. I will attach screenshots which present the problematic dialog.
Created attachment 40268 [details] The “Wireless“ Tab
Created attachment 40269 [details] The “Wireless Security“ Tab
Created attachment 40270 [details] The “IP Address“ Tab
(Just a few comments from a power user with a different view on the matter, nothing personal) I think you should rephrase one of the sentences in your report for it to be correct: "Many of them are not necessary and are very confusing to unexperienced users" should be "Many of them are not necessary and very confusing to unexperienced users." A subtle but extremely important difference made by the lack of the second "are". That is, those options are indeed not necessary to an unexperienced user but you should not claim that they are not necessary at all. Moreover, you should not "relieve" other people from stating what they use and for what purpose. You know, some experts like the convenience of a powerful UI that hasn't been dumbed down. In particular, NM is pretty good at restoring the connection if it goes down (radio interference etc.), while a manual configuration by iwconfig will not do this on most hardware, making low-signal networks annoying to use without NM for everyone, whatever their experience level. Finally, I'd recommend against using phrases like "99%" when discussing anything on professional grounds with technical people - such phrases are somewhere between silly and dismissive and will not help in getting your point across, to say the least. Especially when this "1%" you'd apparently like to dismiss is themselves. You're right, of course, in that a simplified dialog to be displayed when connecting to a secured network chosen from the scan results (where almost all settings can be inferred from the results themselves) could be a good thing for the overall usability of KNetworkManager, for power users (who will just invoke the advanced dialog should the need arise, and possibly enjoy the time they save with the simple version) as well as unexperienced users you're concerned about. I'd just like to point out that you could've phrased it differently ("a simpler default dialog for quick, convenient configuration please" instead of "this is too much and useless for everybody and experts have their own trinkets anyway"), even for the better response you're likely to get from the developers, if nothing else.
Hi Remigiusz, > I think you should rephrase one of the sentences in your report for it to be > correct: "Many of them are not necessary and are very confusing to > unexperienced users" should be "Many of them are not necessary and very > confusing to unexperienced users." A subtle but extremely important difference > made by the lack of the second "are". That is, those options are indeed not > necessary to an unexperienced user but you should not claim that they are not > necessary at all. It took some for me to find the difference :) But you are right, there might be users or potential users of KNetworkManager who appreciate those options. > Moreover, you should not "relieve" other people from stating what they use and > for what purpose. You know, some experts like the convenience of a powerful UI > that hasn't been dumbed down. In particular, NM is pretty good at restoring the > connection if it goes down (radio interference etc.), while a manual > configuration by iwconfig will not do this on most hardware, making low-signal > networks annoying to use without NM for everyone, whatever their experience > level. > > Finally, I'd recommend against using phrases like "99%" when discussing > anything on professional grounds with technical people - such phrases are > somewhere between silly and dismissive and will not help in getting your point > across, to say the least. Especially when this "1%" you'd apparently like to > dismiss is themselves. > > You're right, of course, in that a simplified dialog to be displayed when > connecting to a secured network chosen from the scan results (where almost all > settings can be inferred from the results themselves) could be a good thing for > the overall usability of KNetworkManager, for power users (who will just invoke > the advanced dialog should the need arise, and possibly enjoy the time they > save with the simple version) as well as unexperienced users you're concerned > about. I'd just like to point out that you could've phrased it differently ("a > simpler default dialog for quick, convenient configuration please" instead of > "this is too much and useless for everybody and experts have their own trinkets > anyway"), even for the better response you're likely to get from the > developers, if nothing else. Reading my bug report again I think your criticism is absolutely justified and I should have phrased this differently (I probably had a bad day..) I did not want to tell anyone how to do his/her work but rather motivate a discussion about KNetworkManager's usability. So thanks for your comments :)
*** Bug 131221 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 255222 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
+1 to what Remigiusz Marcinkiewicz said, please don't make the same mistakes GNOME is making, removing options which some users need just because most don't. Experts don't "use iwconfig or similar tools", they use the same GUI tools everyone else uses, and if they're dumbed down, they have to work around it (maybe by using iwconfig, but that will then interoperate very poorly at best with NetworkManager, which is a core component of modern distributions and cannot just be replaced by "iwconfig or similar tools"). E.g. the ONLY way WPA is supported in Fedora is through NetworkManager, the legacy network scripts didn't get support for it because they're deprecated (in fact, a patch was submitted and rejected by the maintainer, because no new features are being added to the legacy network scripts). So please don't make the mistake of thinking NM is only for unexperienced users.
> +1 to what Remigiusz Marcinkiewicz said, please don't make the same mistakes > GNOME is making, removing options which some users need just because most > don't. This bug report is not about removing stuff, just about confusing people by showing configuration options which must not be configured in common scenarios. Also about labels which might be not as good as they could be. I propose to emphasize in the UI that these parameters must not be modified except the user really wants to. > Experts don't "use iwconfig or similar tools", they use the same GUI tools > everyone else uses, and if they're dumbed down, they have to work around it > (maybe by using iwconfig, but that will then interoperate very poorly at best > with NetworkManager, which is a core component of modern distributions and > cannot just be replaced by "iwconfig or similar tools"). E.g. the ONLY way WPA > is supported in Fedora is through NetworkManager, the legacy network scripts > didn't get support for it because they're deprecated (in fact, a patch was > submitted and rejected by the maintainer, because no new features are being > added to the legacy network scripts). So please don't make the mistake of > thinking NM is only for unexperienced users. Yes, you are right.
Reassign Network Management bugs to new maintainer. Have a lot of fun, Lamarque!
Now when you click on a network name you just need to type the password (if needed) and then in the connect button.