> Michael Talbot-Wilson wrote:
>
> > Isn't that the kind of office practice that belongs to a different class
> > of operating system?
>
> Well, who cares what stands on the screen at the yearly reboot? :)
>
> > But do they scare the user? Isn't a fright like that easy to recover
> > from? Can't the user be reassured that it's not dangerous, and really get
> > used to the fact that it is not?
>
> Well, that leads to an interesting idea: Why not write the messages in a way
> that doesn't sound dangerous until it actually is meant that way. This means no
> acronyms, no too-technical details:
>
> "Your computer has support for Advanced Power Management(tm)."
>
> IMHO sounds better than
>
> "APM BIOS version 1.2 Flags 0x03 (Driver version 1.2)
> Entry f000:76bc cseg16 f000 dseg fdaa cseg len e6ff, dseg len 22a
> Connection version 1.1
> AC on line, battery status unknown, battery life unknown
> battery flag 0x80, battery life unknown"
>
> doesn't it? "Oh my god, the battery is damaged!"
>
> This way, the messages could still be informational (we could even include some
> technical stuff, like network addresses, io ports and irqs, as long as we tell
> the user that this is alright) and would not scare users.
>
> CU
> Simon
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
I've just gotta say that, you may possibly have a good idea here, but the example
you showed is in no way informational. In fact, the person probably already knows
they have Advanced Power Management. It would need to be somewhat more technical
than just that, but the battery unknown thing could cause someone to think
something is wrong. It could be refined a little, and still be technical without
scaring people.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu