You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com> on 2013/08/15 12:00:09 UTC
Poor user experience with update of extensions
Hi,
I clicked today on the available extensions update that bothers me since
some days ;-) And I clicked to install the update for the English
dictionary.
I noticed a changed workflow compared to former days and I am redirected
now to the webpage where I can download the extension. I can understand
the reason behind this but I believe it is not the intended and wanted
workflow from a user perspective. I would very much prefer an invisible
download in the background and a direct installation as the button
"install" suggested.
Any opinions on this?
Juergen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Poor user experience with update of extensions
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.
On 8/20/13 11:27 PM, Roberto Galoppini wrote:
> 2013/8/20 Juergen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>
>
>> Am Dienstag, 20. August 2013 um 21:39 schrieb Roberto Galoppini:
>>> 2013/8/20 Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Jürgen Schmidt <
>> jogischmidt@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> sorry for top posting
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to continue the discussion on this topic because the
>> user
>>>>> experience is quite important here.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do others think and would it be possible to change it into a
>> direct
>>>>> download instead of the extension web page.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If we can do it over SSL then a direct update of extensions would work
>>>> well. But I think that unsecured HTTP would lead to troubles. It
>>>> would enable the same vulnerability we patched in AOO 4.0 related to
>>>> updates of the main application.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe we should allow it to work either way: Extension author can
>>>> specify a URL of an OXT which is installed directly, or a URL which is
>>>> shown in the browser?
>>>>
>>>> Also, we need to remember that SourceForge is making this bandwidth
>>>> available for free to extension authors who host their extensions on
>>>> SF. Their business model is to have landing pages with advertising.
>>>> They need to cover their expenses. That is essentially the
>>>> arrangement between 3rd part extension authors and SF. But if an
>>>> extension author hosts their extension elsewhere, then allowing direct
>>>> download, via HTTPS, sounds good.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Let me try to tap into the conversation without my SourceForge hat on. I
>>> wonder if we should pursue an indirect download strategy only for people
>>> who needs to update bundled extensions and take the opportunity to tell
>>> them about all the other extensions.
>>>
>>> I believe many AOO users don't know much about all those extensions and
>> it
>>> would be good to craft an indirect download page aimed at educating them.
>>>
>>> Another interesting possibility could be to provide end-users with
>>> information about other extensions they could be interested into. Over
>> the
>>> last months we have been providing end-users with recommendations and the
>>> results are definitely encouraging.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>> that are all good ideas but not really new.
>>
>
> No, neither I pretended them to be! :)
>
> Seriously, I'm talking about things SourceForge could do in a relatively
> small period of time, since we'd be building on top of already existing
> features. I can surely commit to do this for the project if it helps.
>
> Roberto
>
I understand what you and back to my main concern, for me the current
behaviour is a step back. For simple updates of installed extensions I
don't want to be redirected to a web page. At least not from the
official extension repo.
Well it's always possible that extensions developers make use of this
feature and insert the Url directly. But as default I don't like this.
If we believe we have to promote extensions better that we should think
about it. But redirecting on the web page of the already installed
extension is a useless step and not necessary.
Again I understand the reason behind it but I don't support it, the cost
of less user experience is too high for me in this context.
Juergen
>
>
>>
>> I would prefer an even closer integration in the office. For example a
>> news feed on the start center presenting the highest rated extensions, the
>> most downloaded one of the last 24h or based on some other selection.
>> Further on allow the users to browse directly over available extensions.
>> Well I know this is a completely different approach but I am more
>> interested in the best user experience.
>>
>> Https versus http is a technical detail and can be solved easy. To
>> increase security I would like to see digital signatures implemented but
>> that is a different topic of course.
>>>
>>> Roberto
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> -Rob
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 8/16/13 10:05 AM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 16.08.2013 09:34, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/15/13 9:10 PM, Roberto Galoppini wrote:
>>>>>>>> 2013/8/15 Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 15.08.2013 12:00, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I noticed a changed workflow compared to former days and
>> I am
>>>>>>>>>>> redirected
>>>>>>>>>>> now to the webpage where I can download the extension.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The update of an extension should work like the update of
>> the
>>>>>>>>>> extension
>>>>>>>>>> "Watching Window" from 0.4.4 to 0.5.0. ...
>>>>>>>>>> For the English dictionary I need to download manually the
>> new
>>>>>>>>>> extension. Then I need to install it manually.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The exception here is "Watching Window", that uses custom
>> updates.
>>>> The
>>>>>>>>> English dictionary behaves like virtually all other
>> extensions. I
>>>>>>>>> give some
>>>>>>>>> more details for those who are unfamiliar with the extensions
>>>>>>>>> packaging.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Whoever packaged the English dictionary back in 2010 made
>> the (right)
>>>>>>>>> choice to leave to the Extensions site the responsibility to
>> manage
>>>>>>>>> updates. "Watching Window", instead, specifies its own
>> update feed,
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> lives on Github; but this is a more fragile setup; for
>> example, I've
>>>>>>>>> seen
>>>>>>>>> countless mentions of this problem (for the OxygenOffice
>> gallery
>>>>>>>>> extension,
>>>>>>>>> that specified its own update feed but then moved it...)
>> over the
>>>>>>>>> years:
>>>>>>>>>
>> http://forum.openoffice.org/**en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=**31360<
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=31360>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you specify (and host) your own update feed, you can
>> choose the
>>>>>>>>> update
>>>>>>>>> policy (direct or indirect download); if you don't, the
>> Extensions
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> site
>>>>>>>>> manages everything for you and you, as the extension
>> maintainer,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> can't
>>>>>>>>> choose between direct and indirect download.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So what is under discussion here is not whether the 2010
>> maintainer
>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>> English dictionary made the right choice in relying on the
>> generic
>>>>>>>>> update
>>>>>>>>> feed (he did; otherwise I wouldn't have been able to
>> republish his
>>>>>>>>> extension and push updates), but is that the generic update
>> feed on
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> Extensions site is configured to serve updates as indirect
>> downloads
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> not as direct downloads.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The indirect download approach could be used to communicate
>> with
>>>>>>>> end-users
>>>>>>>> through the landing pages. May be this is something we might
>> want to
>>>>>>>> explore to outreach our user base.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> could be but I think it is not wanted in this specific context.
>> The
>>>> user
>>>>>>> simply want the already installed and used extension get updated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree here with Jürgen.
>>>>>> The user was/is already in contact with the extension website -
>>>>>> otherwise she had no had the to-be-updated extension. We have the
>> link
>>>>>> to the extension website in the Start Center. This could be
>> extended by
>>>>>> something like 'news about your installed extensions' or 'other
>> useful
>>>>>> extensions'.
>>>>>> But, here the user just wants to update an installed extension -
>> having
>>>>>> it 'indirectly' - as currently implemented - is a hurdle. Keep in
>> mind
>>>>>> that a user has typically more than one extension installed which
>> is
>>>>>> using the 'standard' update mechanism from the extension website
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> service.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best regards, Oliver.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A useful enhancement to the whole managing of extensions is
>> indeed the
>>>>>>> possibility to browse extension online. That was planned from the
>>>>>>> beginning but never realized because of some reasons that are no
>> longer
>>>>>>> relevant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The same for templates, allow easy access to the online available
>>>>>>> templates, allow to mark favorites, allow offline usage of them
>> etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And
>>>>>>> most important make it configurable that it can be redirected to
>> an
>>>>>>> internal template or extension repository. Many companies want
>> more
>>>>>>> control about the things users can install or not
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Taking such design into account from the beginning and
>> everything is
>>>> fine
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Roberto
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> Andrea.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>>>>>>>> dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org<
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Poor user experience with update of extensions
Posted by Roberto Galoppini <ro...@gmail.com>.
2013/8/20 Juergen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>
> Am Dienstag, 20. August 2013 um 21:39 schrieb Roberto Galoppini:
> > 2013/8/20 Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>
> >
> > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Jürgen Schmidt <
> jogischmidt@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > sorry for top posting
> > > >
> > > > I would like to continue the discussion on this topic because the
> user
> > > > experience is quite important here.
> > > >
> > > > What do others think and would it be possible to change it into a
> direct
> > > > download instead of the extension web page.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > If we can do it over SSL then a direct update of extensions would work
> > > well. But I think that unsecured HTTP would lead to troubles. It
> > > would enable the same vulnerability we patched in AOO 4.0 related to
> > > updates of the main application.
> > >
> > > Maybe we should allow it to work either way: Extension author can
> > > specify a URL of an OXT which is installed directly, or a URL which is
> > > shown in the browser?
> > >
> > > Also, we need to remember that SourceForge is making this bandwidth
> > > available for free to extension authors who host their extensions on
> > > SF. Their business model is to have landing pages with advertising.
> > > They need to cover their expenses. That is essentially the
> > > arrangement between 3rd part extension authors and SF. But if an
> > > extension author hosts their extension elsewhere, then allowing direct
> > > download, via HTTPS, sounds good.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Let me try to tap into the conversation without my SourceForge hat on. I
> > wonder if we should pursue an indirect download strategy only for people
> > who needs to update bundled extensions and take the opportunity to tell
> > them about all the other extensions.
> >
> > I believe many AOO users don't know much about all those extensions and
> it
> > would be good to craft an indirect download page aimed at educating them.
> >
> > Another interesting possibility could be to provide end-users with
> > information about other extensions they could be interested into. Over
> the
> > last months we have been providing end-users with recommendations and the
> > results are definitely encouraging.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> that are all good ideas but not really new.
>
No, neither I pretended them to be! :)
Seriously, I'm talking about things SourceForge could do in a relatively
small period of time, since we'd be building on top of already existing
features. I can surely commit to do this for the project if it helps.
Roberto
>
> I would prefer an even closer integration in the office. For example a
> news feed on the start center presenting the highest rated extensions, the
> most downloaded one of the last 24h or based on some other selection.
> Further on allow the users to browse directly over available extensions.
> Well I know this is a completely different approach but I am more
> interested in the best user experience.
>
> Https versus http is a technical detail and can be solved easy. To
> increase security I would like to see digital signatures implemented but
> that is a different topic of course.
> >
> > Roberto
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > -Rob
> > >
> > >
> > > > Juergen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 8/16/13 10:05 AM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > On 16.08.2013 09:34, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> > > > > > On 8/15/13 9:10 PM, Roberto Galoppini wrote:
> > > > > > > 2013/8/15 Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 15.08.2013 12:00, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I noticed a changed workflow compared to former days and
> I am
> > > > > > > > > > redirected
> > > > > > > > > > now to the webpage where I can download the extension.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The update of an extension should work like the update of
> the
> > > > > > > > > extension
> > > > > > > > > "Watching Window" from 0.4.4 to 0.5.0. ...
> > > > > > > > > For the English dictionary I need to download manually the
> new
> > > > > > > > > extension. Then I need to install it manually.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The exception here is "Watching Window", that uses custom
> updates.
> > > The
> > > > > > > > English dictionary behaves like virtually all other
> extensions. I
> > > > > > > > give some
> > > > > > > > more details for those who are unfamiliar with the extensions
> > > > > > > > packaging.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Whoever packaged the English dictionary back in 2010 made
> the (right)
> > > > > > > > choice to leave to the Extensions site the responsibility to
> manage
> > > > > > > > updates. "Watching Window", instead, specifies its own
> update feed,
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > lives on Github; but this is a more fragile setup; for
> example, I've
> > > > > > > > seen
> > > > > > > > countless mentions of this problem (for the OxygenOffice
> gallery
> > > > > > > > extension,
> > > > > > > > that specified its own update feed but then moved it...)
> over the
> > > > > > > > years:
> > > > > > > >
> http://forum.openoffice.org/**en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=**31360<
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > http://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=31360>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If you specify (and host) your own update feed, you can
> choose the
> > > > > > > > update
> > > > > > > > policy (direct or indirect download); if you don't, the
> Extensions
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > site
> > > > > > > > manages everything for you and you, as the extension
> maintainer,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > can't
> > > > > > > > choose between direct and indirect download.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So what is under discussion here is not whether the 2010
> maintainer
> > > > > > > > of the
> > > > > > > > English dictionary made the right choice in relying on the
> generic
> > > > > > > > update
> > > > > > > > feed (he did; otherwise I wouldn't have been able to
> republish his
> > > > > > > > extension and push updates), but is that the generic update
> feed on
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > the
> > > > > > > > Extensions site is configured to serve updates as indirect
> downloads
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > not as direct downloads.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The indirect download approach could be used to communicate
> with
> > > > > > > end-users
> > > > > > > through the landing pages. May be this is something we might
> want to
> > > > > > > explore to outreach our user base.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > could be but I think it is not wanted in this specific context.
> The
> > > user
> > > > > > simply want the already installed and used extension get updated.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree here with Jürgen.
> > > > > The user was/is already in contact with the extension website -
> > > > > otherwise she had no had the to-be-updated extension. We have the
> link
> > > > > to the extension website in the Start Center. This could be
> extended by
> > > > > something like 'news about your installed extensions' or 'other
> useful
> > > > > extensions'.
> > > > > But, here the user just wants to update an installed extension -
> having
> > > > > it 'indirectly' - as currently implemented - is a hurdle. Keep in
> mind
> > > > > that a user has typically more than one extension installed which
> is
> > > > > using the 'standard' update mechanism from the extension website
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > service.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Best regards, Oliver.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A useful enhancement to the whole managing of extensions is
> indeed the
> > > > > > possibility to browse extension online. That was planned from the
> > > > > > beginning but never realized because of some reasons that are no
> longer
> > > > > > relevant.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The same for templates, allow easy access to the online available
> > > > > > templates, allow to mark favorites, allow offline usage of them
> etc.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > And
> > > > > > most important make it configurable that it can be redirected to
> an
> > > > > > internal template or extension repository. Many companies want
> more
> > > > > > control about the things users can install or not
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Taking such design into account from the beginning and
> everything is
> > > fine
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Juergen
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Roberto
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > Andrea.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > > > > > > dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org<
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
Re: Poor user experience with update of extensions
Posted by Juergen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.
Am Dienstag, 20. August 2013 um 21:39 schrieb Roberto Galoppini:
> 2013/8/20 Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>
>
> > On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > sorry for top posting
> > >
> > > I would like to continue the discussion on this topic because the user
> > > experience is quite important here.
> > >
> > > What do others think and would it be possible to change it into a direct
> > > download instead of the extension web page.
> > >
> >
> >
> > If we can do it over SSL then a direct update of extensions would work
> > well. But I think that unsecured HTTP would lead to troubles. It
> > would enable the same vulnerability we patched in AOO 4.0 related to
> > updates of the main application.
> >
> > Maybe we should allow it to work either way: Extension author can
> > specify a URL of an OXT which is installed directly, or a URL which is
> > shown in the browser?
> >
> > Also, we need to remember that SourceForge is making this bandwidth
> > available for free to extension authors who host their extensions on
> > SF. Their business model is to have landing pages with advertising.
> > They need to cover their expenses. That is essentially the
> > arrangement between 3rd part extension authors and SF. But if an
> > extension author hosts their extension elsewhere, then allowing direct
> > download, via HTTPS, sounds good.
> >
>
>
> Let me try to tap into the conversation without my SourceForge hat on. I
> wonder if we should pursue an indirect download strategy only for people
> who needs to update bundled extensions and take the opportunity to tell
> them about all the other extensions.
>
> I believe many AOO users don't know much about all those extensions and it
> would be good to craft an indirect download page aimed at educating them.
>
> Another interesting possibility could be to provide end-users with
> information about other extensions they could be interested into. Over the
> last months we have been providing end-users with recommendations and the
> results are definitely encouraging.
>
> Thoughts?
that are all good ideas but not really new.
I would prefer an even closer integration in the office. For example a news feed on the start center presenting the highest rated extensions, the most downloaded one of the last 24h or based on some other selection.
Further on allow the users to browse directly over available extensions.
Well I know this is a completely different approach but I am more interested in the best user experience.
Https versus http is a technical detail and can be solved easy. To increase security I would like to see digital signatures implemented but that is a different topic of course.
>
> Roberto
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > -Rob
> >
> >
> > > Juergen
> > >
> > >
> > > On 8/16/13 10:05 AM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > On 16.08.2013 09:34, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> > > > > On 8/15/13 9:10 PM, Roberto Galoppini wrote:
> > > > > > 2013/8/15 Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 15.08.2013 12:00, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I noticed a changed workflow compared to former days and I am
> > > > > > > > > redirected
> > > > > > > > > now to the webpage where I can download the extension.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The update of an extension should work like the update of the
> > > > > > > > extension
> > > > > > > > "Watching Window" from 0.4.4 to 0.5.0. ...
> > > > > > > > For the English dictionary I need to download manually the new
> > > > > > > > extension. Then I need to install it manually.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The exception here is "Watching Window", that uses custom updates.
> > The
> > > > > > > English dictionary behaves like virtually all other extensions. I
> > > > > > > give some
> > > > > > > more details for those who are unfamiliar with the extensions
> > > > > > > packaging.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Whoever packaged the English dictionary back in 2010 made the (right)
> > > > > > > choice to leave to the Extensions site the responsibility to manage
> > > > > > > updates. "Watching Window", instead, specifies its own update feed,
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > lives on Github; but this is a more fragile setup; for example, I've
> > > > > > > seen
> > > > > > > countless mentions of this problem (for the OxygenOffice gallery
> > > > > > > extension,
> > > > > > > that specified its own update feed but then moved it...) over the
> > > > > > > years:
> > > > > > > http://forum.openoffice.org/**en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=**31360<
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > http://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=31360>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you specify (and host) your own update feed, you can choose the
> > > > > > > update
> > > > > > > policy (direct or indirect download); if you don't, the Extensions
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > site
> > > > > > > manages everything for you and you, as the extension maintainer,
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > can't
> > > > > > > choose between direct and indirect download.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So what is under discussion here is not whether the 2010 maintainer
> > > > > > > of the
> > > > > > > English dictionary made the right choice in relying on the generic
> > > > > > > update
> > > > > > > feed (he did; otherwise I wouldn't have been able to republish his
> > > > > > > extension and push updates), but is that the generic update feed on
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > the
> > > > > > > Extensions site is configured to serve updates as indirect downloads
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > not as direct downloads.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The indirect download approach could be used to communicate with
> > > > > > end-users
> > > > > > through the landing pages. May be this is something we might want to
> > > > > > explore to outreach our user base.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > could be but I think it is not wanted in this specific context. The
> > user
> > > > > simply want the already installed and used extension get updated.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I agree here with Jürgen.
> > > > The user was/is already in contact with the extension website -
> > > > otherwise she had no had the to-be-updated extension. We have the link
> > > > to the extension website in the Start Center. This could be extended by
> > > > something like 'news about your installed extensions' or 'other useful
> > > > extensions'.
> > > > But, here the user just wants to update an installed extension - having
> > > > it 'indirectly' - as currently implemented - is a hurdle. Keep in mind
> > > > that a user has typically more than one extension installed which is
> > > > using the 'standard' update mechanism from the extension website
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > service.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Best regards, Oliver.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > A useful enhancement to the whole managing of extensions is indeed the
> > > > > possibility to browse extension online. That was planned from the
> > > > > beginning but never realized because of some reasons that are no longer
> > > > > relevant.
> > > > >
> > > > > The same for templates, allow easy access to the online available
> > > > > templates, allow to mark favorites, allow offline usage of them etc.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > And
> > > > > most important make it configurable that it can be redirected to an
> > > > > internal template or extension repository. Many companies want more
> > > > > control about the things users can install or not
> > > > >
> > > > > Taking such design into account from the beginning and everything is
> > fine
> > > > >
> > > > > Juergen
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Roberto
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > Andrea.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > > > > > dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org<
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> > >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >
>
>
>
Re: Poor user experience with update of extensions
Posted by Roberto Galoppini <ro...@gmail.com>.
2013/8/20 Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > sorry for top posting
> >
> > I would like to continue the discussion on this topic because the user
> > experience is quite important here.
> >
> > What do others think and would it be possible to change it into a direct
> > download instead of the extension web page.
> >
>
> If we can do it over SSL then a direct update of extensions would work
> well. But I think that unsecured HTTP would lead to troubles. It
> would enable the same vulnerability we patched in AOO 4.0 related to
> updates of the main application.
>
> Maybe we should allow it to work either way: Extension author can
> specify a URL of an OXT which is installed directly, or a URL which is
> shown in the browser?
>
> Also, we need to remember that SourceForge is making this bandwidth
> available for free to extension authors who host their extensions on
> SF. Their business model is to have landing pages with advertising.
> They need to cover their expenses. That is essentially the
> arrangement between 3rd part extension authors and SF. But if an
> extension author hosts their extension elsewhere, then allowing direct
> download, via HTTPS, sounds good.
>
Let me try to tap into the conversation without my SourceForge hat on. I
wonder if we should pursue an indirect download strategy only for people
who needs to update bundled extensions and take the opportunity to tell
them about all the other extensions.
I believe many AOO users don't know much about all those extensions and it
would be good to craft an indirect download page aimed at educating them.
Another interesting possibility could be to provide end-users with
information about other extensions they could be interested into. Over the
last months we have been providing end-users with recommendations and the
results are definitely encouraging.
Thoughts?
Roberto
>
> Regards,
>
> -Rob
>
>
> > Juergen
> >
> >
> > On 8/16/13 10:05 AM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On 16.08.2013 09:34, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> >>> On 8/15/13 9:10 PM, Roberto Galoppini wrote:
> >>>> 2013/8/15 Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 15.08.2013 12:00, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I noticed a changed workflow compared to former days and I am
> >>>>>>> redirected
> >>>>>>> now to the webpage where I can download the extension.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> The update of an extension should work like the update of the
> >>>>>> extension
> >>>>>> "Watching Window" from 0.4.4 to 0.5.0. ...
> >>>>>> For the English dictionary I need to download manually the new
> >>>>>> extension. Then I need to install it manually.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The exception here is "Watching Window", that uses custom updates.
> The
> >>>>> English dictionary behaves like virtually all other extensions. I
> >>>>> give some
> >>>>> more details for those who are unfamiliar with the extensions
> >>>>> packaging.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Whoever packaged the English dictionary back in 2010 made the (right)
> >>>>> choice to leave to the Extensions site the responsibility to manage
> >>>>> updates. "Watching Window", instead, specifies its own update feed,
> >>>>> that
> >>>>> lives on Github; but this is a more fragile setup; for example, I've
> >>>>> seen
> >>>>> countless mentions of this problem (for the OxygenOffice gallery
> >>>>> extension,
> >>>>> that specified its own update feed but then moved it...) over the
> >>>>> years:
> >>>>> http://forum.openoffice.org/**en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=**31360<
> http://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=31360>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If you specify (and host) your own update feed, you can choose the
> >>>>> update
> >>>>> policy (direct or indirect download); if you don't, the Extensions
> site
> >>>>> manages everything for you and you, as the extension maintainer,
> can't
> >>>>> choose between direct and indirect download.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So what is under discussion here is not whether the 2010 maintainer
> >>>>> of the
> >>>>> English dictionary made the right choice in relying on the generic
> >>>>> update
> >>>>> feed (he did; otherwise I wouldn't have been able to republish his
> >>>>> extension and push updates), but is that the generic update feed on
> the
> >>>>> Extensions site is configured to serve updates as indirect downloads
> >>>>> and
> >>>>> not as direct downloads.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The indirect download approach could be used to communicate with
> >>>> end-users
> >>>> through the landing pages. May be this is something we might want to
> >>>> explore to outreach our user base.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> could be but I think it is not wanted in this specific context. The
> user
> >>> simply want the already installed and used extension get updated.
> >>
> >> I agree here with Jürgen.
> >> The user was/is already in contact with the extension website -
> >> otherwise she had no had the to-be-updated extension. We have the link
> >> to the extension website in the Start Center. This could be extended by
> >> something like 'news about your installed extensions' or 'other useful
> >> extensions'.
> >> But, here the user just wants to update an installed extension - having
> >> it 'indirectly' - as currently implemented - is a hurdle. Keep in mind
> >> that a user has typically more than one extension installed which is
> >> using the 'standard' update mechanism from the extension website
> service.
> >>
> >>
> >> Best regards, Oliver.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> A useful enhancement to the whole managing of extensions is indeed the
> >>> possibility to browse extension online. That was planned from the
> >>> beginning but never realized because of some reasons that are no longer
> >>> relevant.
> >>>
> >>> The same for templates, allow easy access to the online available
> >>> templates, allow to mark favorites, allow offline usage of them etc.
> And
> >>> most important make it configurable that it can be redirected to an
> >>> internal template or extension repository. Many companies want more
> >>> control about the things users can install or not
> >>>
> >>> Taking such design into account from the beginning and everything is
> fine
> >>>
> >>> Juergen
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Roberto
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Regards,
> >>>>> Andrea.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> >>>>>
> >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> >>>>> dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org<
> dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >>>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >>
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: Poor user experience with update of extensions
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> sorry for top posting
>
> I would like to continue the discussion on this topic because the user
> experience is quite important here.
>
> What do others think and would it be possible to change it into a direct
> download instead of the extension web page.
>
If we can do it over SSL then a direct update of extensions would work
well. But I think that unsecured HTTP would lead to troubles. It
would enable the same vulnerability we patched in AOO 4.0 related to
updates of the main application.
Maybe we should allow it to work either way: Extension author can
specify a URL of an OXT which is installed directly, or a URL which is
shown in the browser?
Also, we need to remember that SourceForge is making this bandwidth
available for free to extension authors who host their extensions on
SF. Their business model is to have landing pages with advertising.
They need to cover their expenses. That is essentially the
arrangement between 3rd part extension authors and SF. But if an
extension author hosts their extension elsewhere, then allowing direct
download, via HTTPS, sounds good.
Regards,
-Rob
> Juergen
>
>
> On 8/16/13 10:05 AM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 16.08.2013 09:34, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>> On 8/15/13 9:10 PM, Roberto Galoppini wrote:
>>>> 2013/8/15 Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>
>>>>
>>>>> Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 15.08.2013 12:00, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I noticed a changed workflow compared to former days and I am
>>>>>>> redirected
>>>>>>> now to the webpage where I can download the extension.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The update of an extension should work like the update of the
>>>>>> extension
>>>>>> "Watching Window" from 0.4.4 to 0.5.0. ...
>>>>>> For the English dictionary I need to download manually the new
>>>>>> extension. Then I need to install it manually.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The exception here is "Watching Window", that uses custom updates. The
>>>>> English dictionary behaves like virtually all other extensions. I
>>>>> give some
>>>>> more details for those who are unfamiliar with the extensions
>>>>> packaging.
>>>>>
>>>>> Whoever packaged the English dictionary back in 2010 made the (right)
>>>>> choice to leave to the Extensions site the responsibility to manage
>>>>> updates. "Watching Window", instead, specifies its own update feed,
>>>>> that
>>>>> lives on Github; but this is a more fragile setup; for example, I've
>>>>> seen
>>>>> countless mentions of this problem (for the OxygenOffice gallery
>>>>> extension,
>>>>> that specified its own update feed but then moved it...) over the
>>>>> years:
>>>>> http://forum.openoffice.org/**en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=**31360<http://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=31360>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you specify (and host) your own update feed, you can choose the
>>>>> update
>>>>> policy (direct or indirect download); if you don't, the Extensions site
>>>>> manages everything for you and you, as the extension maintainer, can't
>>>>> choose between direct and indirect download.
>>>>>
>>>>> So what is under discussion here is not whether the 2010 maintainer
>>>>> of the
>>>>> English dictionary made the right choice in relying on the generic
>>>>> update
>>>>> feed (he did; otherwise I wouldn't have been able to republish his
>>>>> extension and push updates), but is that the generic update feed on the
>>>>> Extensions site is configured to serve updates as indirect downloads
>>>>> and
>>>>> not as direct downloads.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The indirect download approach could be used to communicate with
>>>> end-users
>>>> through the landing pages. May be this is something we might want to
>>>> explore to outreach our user base.
>>>>
>>>
>>> could be but I think it is not wanted in this specific context. The user
>>> simply want the already installed and used extension get updated.
>>
>> I agree here with Jürgen.
>> The user was/is already in contact with the extension website -
>> otherwise she had no had the to-be-updated extension. We have the link
>> to the extension website in the Start Center. This could be extended by
>> something like 'news about your installed extensions' or 'other useful
>> extensions'.
>> But, here the user just wants to update an installed extension - having
>> it 'indirectly' - as currently implemented - is a hurdle. Keep in mind
>> that a user has typically more than one extension installed which is
>> using the 'standard' update mechanism from the extension website service.
>>
>>
>> Best regards, Oliver.
>>
>>>
>>> A useful enhancement to the whole managing of extensions is indeed the
>>> possibility to browse extension online. That was planned from the
>>> beginning but never realized because of some reasons that are no longer
>>> relevant.
>>>
>>> The same for templates, allow easy access to the online available
>>> templates, allow to mark favorites, allow offline usage of them etc. And
>>> most important make it configurable that it can be redirected to an
>>> internal template or extension repository. Many companies want more
>>> control about the things users can install or not
>>>
>>> Taking such design into account from the beginning and everything is fine
>>>
>>> Juergen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Roberto
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Andrea.
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
>>>>>
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>>>> dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org<de...@openoffice.apache.org>
>>>>>
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Poor user experience with update of extensions
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.
sorry for top posting
I would like to continue the discussion on this topic because the user
experience is quite important here.
What do others think and would it be possible to change it into a direct
download instead of the extension web page.
Juergen
On 8/16/13 10:05 AM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 16.08.2013 09:34, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>> On 8/15/13 9:10 PM, Roberto Galoppini wrote:
>>> 2013/8/15 Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>
>>>
>>>> Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 15.08.2013 12:00, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I noticed a changed workflow compared to former days and I am
>>>>>> redirected
>>>>>> now to the webpage where I can download the extension.
>>>>>>
>>>>> The update of an extension should work like the update of the
>>>>> extension
>>>>> "Watching Window" from 0.4.4 to 0.5.0. ...
>>>>> For the English dictionary I need to download manually the new
>>>>> extension. Then I need to install it manually.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The exception here is "Watching Window", that uses custom updates. The
>>>> English dictionary behaves like virtually all other extensions. I
>>>> give some
>>>> more details for those who are unfamiliar with the extensions
>>>> packaging.
>>>>
>>>> Whoever packaged the English dictionary back in 2010 made the (right)
>>>> choice to leave to the Extensions site the responsibility to manage
>>>> updates. "Watching Window", instead, specifies its own update feed,
>>>> that
>>>> lives on Github; but this is a more fragile setup; for example, I've
>>>> seen
>>>> countless mentions of this problem (for the OxygenOffice gallery
>>>> extension,
>>>> that specified its own update feed but then moved it...) over the
>>>> years:
>>>> http://forum.openoffice.org/**en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=**31360<http://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=31360>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you specify (and host) your own update feed, you can choose the
>>>> update
>>>> policy (direct or indirect download); if you don't, the Extensions site
>>>> manages everything for you and you, as the extension maintainer, can't
>>>> choose between direct and indirect download.
>>>>
>>>> So what is under discussion here is not whether the 2010 maintainer
>>>> of the
>>>> English dictionary made the right choice in relying on the generic
>>>> update
>>>> feed (he did; otherwise I wouldn't have been able to republish his
>>>> extension and push updates), but is that the generic update feed on the
>>>> Extensions site is configured to serve updates as indirect downloads
>>>> and
>>>> not as direct downloads.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The indirect download approach could be used to communicate with
>>> end-users
>>> through the landing pages. May be this is something we might want to
>>> explore to outreach our user base.
>>>
>>
>> could be but I think it is not wanted in this specific context. The user
>> simply want the already installed and used extension get updated.
>
> I agree here with Jürgen.
> The user was/is already in contact with the extension website -
> otherwise she had no had the to-be-updated extension. We have the link
> to the extension website in the Start Center. This could be extended by
> something like 'news about your installed extensions' or 'other useful
> extensions'.
> But, here the user just wants to update an installed extension - having
> it 'indirectly' - as currently implemented - is a hurdle. Keep in mind
> that a user has typically more than one extension installed which is
> using the 'standard' update mechanism from the extension website service.
>
>
> Best regards, Oliver.
>
>>
>> A useful enhancement to the whole managing of extensions is indeed the
>> possibility to browse extension online. That was planned from the
>> beginning but never realized because of some reasons that are no longer
>> relevant.
>>
>> The same for templates, allow easy access to the online available
>> templates, allow to mark favorites, allow offline usage of them etc. And
>> most important make it configurable that it can be redirected to an
>> internal template or extension repository. Many companies want more
>> control about the things users can install or not
>>
>> Taking such design into account from the beginning and everything is fine
>>
>> Juergen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Roberto
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Andrea.
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
>>>>
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>>> dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org<de...@openoffice.apache.org>
>>>>
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Poor user experience with update of extensions
Posted by Oliver-Rainer Wittmann <or...@googlemail.com>.
Hi,
On 16.08.2013 09:34, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 8/15/13 9:10 PM, Roberto Galoppini wrote:
>> 2013/8/15 Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>
>>
>>> Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 15.08.2013 12:00, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I noticed a changed workflow compared to former days and I am redirected
>>>>> now to the webpage where I can download the extension.
>>>>>
>>>> The update of an extension should work like the update of the extension
>>>> "Watching Window" from 0.4.4 to 0.5.0. ...
>>>> For the English dictionary I need to download manually the new
>>>> extension. Then I need to install it manually.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The exception here is "Watching Window", that uses custom updates. The
>>> English dictionary behaves like virtually all other extensions. I give some
>>> more details for those who are unfamiliar with the extensions packaging.
>>>
>>> Whoever packaged the English dictionary back in 2010 made the (right)
>>> choice to leave to the Extensions site the responsibility to manage
>>> updates. "Watching Window", instead, specifies its own update feed, that
>>> lives on Github; but this is a more fragile setup; for example, I've seen
>>> countless mentions of this problem (for the OxygenOffice gallery extension,
>>> that specified its own update feed but then moved it...) over the years:
>>> http://forum.openoffice.org/**en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=**31360<http://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=31360>
>>>
>>> If you specify (and host) your own update feed, you can choose the update
>>> policy (direct or indirect download); if you don't, the Extensions site
>>> manages everything for you and you, as the extension maintainer, can't
>>> choose between direct and indirect download.
>>>
>>> So what is under discussion here is not whether the 2010 maintainer of the
>>> English dictionary made the right choice in relying on the generic update
>>> feed (he did; otherwise I wouldn't have been able to republish his
>>> extension and push updates), but is that the generic update feed on the
>>> Extensions site is configured to serve updates as indirect downloads and
>>> not as direct downloads.
>>>
>>
>> The indirect download approach could be used to communicate with end-users
>> through the landing pages. May be this is something we might want to
>> explore to outreach our user base.
>>
>
> could be but I think it is not wanted in this specific context. The user
> simply want the already installed and used extension get updated.
I agree here with Jürgen.
The user was/is already in contact with the extension website -
otherwise she had no had the to-be-updated extension. We have the link
to the extension website in the Start Center. This could be extended by
something like 'news about your installed extensions' or 'other useful
extensions'.
But, here the user just wants to update an installed extension - having
it 'indirectly' - as currently implemented - is a hurdle. Keep in mind
that a user has typically more than one extension installed which is
using the 'standard' update mechanism from the extension website service.
Best regards, Oliver.
>
> A useful enhancement to the whole managing of extensions is indeed the
> possibility to browse extension online. That was planned from the
> beginning but never realized because of some reasons that are no longer
> relevant.
>
> The same for templates, allow easy access to the online available
> templates, allow to mark favorites, allow offline usage of them etc. And
> most important make it configurable that it can be redirected to an
> internal template or extension repository. Many companies want more
> control about the things users can install or not
>
> Taking such design into account from the beginning and everything is fine
>
> Juergen
>
>
>
>
>> Roberto
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Andrea.
>>>
>>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org<de...@openoffice.apache.org>
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Poor user experience with update of extensions
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.
On 8/15/13 9:10 PM, Roberto Galoppini wrote:
> 2013/8/15 Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>
>
>> Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
>>
>>> On 15.08.2013 12:00, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>
>>>> I noticed a changed workflow compared to former days and I am redirected
>>>> now to the webpage where I can download the extension.
>>>>
>>> The update of an extension should work like the update of the extension
>>> "Watching Window" from 0.4.4 to 0.5.0. ...
>>> For the English dictionary I need to download manually the new
>>> extension. Then I need to install it manually.
>>>
>>
>> The exception here is "Watching Window", that uses custom updates. The
>> English dictionary behaves like virtually all other extensions. I give some
>> more details for those who are unfamiliar with the extensions packaging.
>>
>> Whoever packaged the English dictionary back in 2010 made the (right)
>> choice to leave to the Extensions site the responsibility to manage
>> updates. "Watching Window", instead, specifies its own update feed, that
>> lives on Github; but this is a more fragile setup; for example, I've seen
>> countless mentions of this problem (for the OxygenOffice gallery extension,
>> that specified its own update feed but then moved it...) over the years:
>> http://forum.openoffice.org/**en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=**31360<http://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=31360>
>>
>> If you specify (and host) your own update feed, you can choose the update
>> policy (direct or indirect download); if you don't, the Extensions site
>> manages everything for you and you, as the extension maintainer, can't
>> choose between direct and indirect download.
>>
>> So what is under discussion here is not whether the 2010 maintainer of the
>> English dictionary made the right choice in relying on the generic update
>> feed (he did; otherwise I wouldn't have been able to republish his
>> extension and push updates), but is that the generic update feed on the
>> Extensions site is configured to serve updates as indirect downloads and
>> not as direct downloads.
>>
>
> The indirect download approach could be used to communicate with end-users
> through the landing pages. May be this is something we might want to
> explore to outreach our user base.
>
could be but I think it is not wanted in this specific context. The user
simply want the already installed and used extension get updated.
A useful enhancement to the whole managing of extensions is indeed the
possibility to browse extension online. That was planned from the
beginning but never realized because of some reasons that are no longer
relevant.
The same for templates, allow easy access to the online available
templates, allow to mark favorites, allow offline usage of them etc. And
most important make it configurable that it can be redirected to an
internal template or extension repository. Many companies want more
control about the things users can install or not
Taking such design into account from the beginning and everything is fine
Juergen
> Roberto
>
>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Andrea.
>>
>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org<de...@openoffice.apache.org>
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Poor user experience with update of extensions
Posted by Roberto Galoppini <ro...@gmail.com>.
2013/8/15 Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>
> Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
>
>> On 15.08.2013 12:00, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>
>>> I noticed a changed workflow compared to former days and I am redirected
>>> now to the webpage where I can download the extension.
>>>
>> The update of an extension should work like the update of the extension
>> "Watching Window" from 0.4.4 to 0.5.0. ...
>> For the English dictionary I need to download manually the new
>> extension. Then I need to install it manually.
>>
>
> The exception here is "Watching Window", that uses custom updates. The
> English dictionary behaves like virtually all other extensions. I give some
> more details for those who are unfamiliar with the extensions packaging.
>
> Whoever packaged the English dictionary back in 2010 made the (right)
> choice to leave to the Extensions site the responsibility to manage
> updates. "Watching Window", instead, specifies its own update feed, that
> lives on Github; but this is a more fragile setup; for example, I've seen
> countless mentions of this problem (for the OxygenOffice gallery extension,
> that specified its own update feed but then moved it...) over the years:
> http://forum.openoffice.org/**en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=**31360<http://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=31360>
>
> If you specify (and host) your own update feed, you can choose the update
> policy (direct or indirect download); if you don't, the Extensions site
> manages everything for you and you, as the extension maintainer, can't
> choose between direct and indirect download.
>
> So what is under discussion here is not whether the 2010 maintainer of the
> English dictionary made the right choice in relying on the generic update
> feed (he did; otherwise I wouldn't have been able to republish his
> extension and push updates), but is that the generic update feed on the
> Extensions site is configured to serve updates as indirect downloads and
> not as direct downloads.
>
The indirect download approach could be used to communicate with end-users
through the landing pages. May be this is something we might want to
explore to outreach our user base.
Roberto
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
>
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org<de...@openoffice.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: Poor user experience with update of extensions
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
> On 15.08.2013 12:00, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>> I noticed a changed workflow compared to former days and I am redirected
>> now to the webpage where I can download the extension.
> The update of an extension should work like the update of the extension
> "Watching Window" from 0.4.4 to 0.5.0. ...
> For the English dictionary I need to download manually the new
> extension. Then I need to install it manually.
The exception here is "Watching Window", that uses custom updates. The
English dictionary behaves like virtually all other extensions. I give
some more details for those who are unfamiliar with the extensions
packaging.
Whoever packaged the English dictionary back in 2010 made the (right)
choice to leave to the Extensions site the responsibility to manage
updates. "Watching Window", instead, specifies its own update feed, that
lives on Github; but this is a more fragile setup; for example, I've
seen countless mentions of this problem (for the OxygenOffice gallery
extension, that specified its own update feed but then moved it...) over
the years: http://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=31360
If you specify (and host) your own update feed, you can choose the
update policy (direct or indirect download); if you don't, the
Extensions site manages everything for you and you, as the extension
maintainer, can't choose between direct and indirect download.
So what is under discussion here is not whether the 2010 maintainer of
the English dictionary made the right choice in relying on the generic
update feed (he did; otherwise I wouldn't have been able to republish
his extension and push updates), but is that the generic update feed on
the Extensions site is configured to serve updates as indirect downloads
and not as direct downloads.
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Poor user experience with update of extensions
Posted by Oliver-Rainer Wittmann <or...@googlemail.com>.
Hi,
On 15.08.2013 12:00, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I clicked today on the available extensions update that bothers me since
> some days ;-) And I clicked to install the update for the English
> dictionary.
>
> I noticed a changed workflow compared to former days and I am redirected
> now to the webpage where I can download the extension. I can understand
> the reason behind this but I believe it is not the intended and wanted
> workflow from a user perspective. I would very much prefer an invisible
> download in the background and a direct installation as the button
> "install" suggested.
>
> Any opinions on this?
>
I agree.
The update of an extension should work like the update of the extension
"Watching Window" from 0.4.4 to 0.5.0. When updating this extension I
got the window telling me that the new extension version is downloaded
and then installed without error.
--> expected user experience.
For the English dictionary I need to download manually the new
extension. Then I need to install it manually. During its installation I
need to confirm that I want to replace its former version.
--> really unexpected user experience.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Poor user experience with update of extensions
Posted by Alexandro Colorado <jz...@oooes.org>.
There used to be a dictionary wizard that allow users to select and
use their locale. This was written by Lauren Godard and since the
extentions came through, the development was IMO droped after a drupal
site.
I did suggest to use Drupal REST/XMLRPC to make the calls to retrieve
the extentions of the contnent on a similar fashion to KDE's "Get Hot
new Stuff"
http://dot.kde.org/2005/03/13/kde-technologies-get-hot-new-stuff
There was a GSOC project by Tijana Milanovich that introduce a patch
to make go-OO/libreoffice use OpenClipart to intrgrate, patch is here:
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/build/commit/?id=f3a517b005a31607b373393600ac41237a55b1f4
The code includes a class that consume clipart webservice to read the
feed and retrieve the Openclipart metadata and image to install.
as you can see here:
++public:
++ OnlineGalleryThemeEntry() {}
++ ~OnlineGalleryThemeEntry();
++ OnlineGalleryThemeEntry(const rtl::OUString& keyword,
++ bool bIsUserSearch = TRUE,
++ INetURLObject aBaseURL =
INetURLObject("http://www.openclipart.org/media/feed/rss/") );
++ SgaObject* GetSgaObject( GalleryObject* pEntry);
The code of course is clipart centric, but OpenClipart as well as our
extensions uses Drupal on it's back end, so the feed would be the same
process, only the installation would be a more dedicated process than
import and registering new cliparts on the gallery.
On 8/15/13, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 6:00 AM, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I clicked today on the available extensions update that bothers me since
>> some days ;-) And I clicked to install the update for the English
>> dictionary.
>>
>> I noticed a changed workflow compared to former days and I am redirected
>> now to the webpage where I can download the extension. I can understand
>> the reason behind this but I believe it is not the intended and wanted
>> workflow from a user perspective. I would very much prefer an invisible
>> download in the background and a direct installation as the button
>> "install" suggested.
>>
>> Any opinions on this?
>>
>
> Another opinion on this from a user on Facebook today:
>
> https://www.facebook.com/ApacheOO/posts/572230669502481
>
> -Rob
>
>
>> Juergen
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
--
Alexandro Colorado
Apache OpenOffice Contributor
http://www.openoffice.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Poor user experience with update of extensions
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 6:00 AM, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I clicked today on the available extensions update that bothers me since
> some days ;-) And I clicked to install the update for the English
> dictionary.
>
> I noticed a changed workflow compared to former days and I am redirected
> now to the webpage where I can download the extension. I can understand
> the reason behind this but I believe it is not the intended and wanted
> workflow from a user perspective. I would very much prefer an invisible
> download in the background and a direct installation as the button
> "install" suggested.
>
> Any opinions on this?
>
Another opinion on this from a user on Facebook today:
https://www.facebook.com/ApacheOO/posts/572230669502481
-Rob
> Juergen
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org