Entry's "nags" & features should be documented
The "accept-if-no-alteratives-available, do-not-accept-if-alternatives-available" suggestion has an inherent problem. If we later discover a nag-free alternative, do we then remove the previous entry?
(If it's 1st entry with unique function that should be noted, too)
(Like: 'this is 1st free portable on-fly partitioner we found')
(like Car & Driver says: '1st car without pistons, we've seen')
When better alternatives appear, they're also described
Users can clearly see which programs are superior
Like, PSPad is much better than many more limited programs
We don't remove the less useful programs
Users see the accurate descriptions & decide what's best
Side Note:
there could be topical-guides to choosing programs
like PC-World/CNet has editor's picks
Users can vote for "Best App for.." (like best text editor)
Users could suggest packs of programs they recommend
(like: "Program-Coding on-the-go" pack)
(like: "Emergency Sys Retore" pack)
Users could vote on "Best User Packages for.."
(got idea from thread about: Favorite Portable Apps)
Andrew Lee wrote:
Sorry, was vague in wordingFurthermore, how to determine whether it is an alternative? What if it covers only 75% of the functionality? Then someone can argue that it is not an alternative, since there are some functions missing. Therefore, I think any rule that we come up with must have minimal coupling with other apps.
should say: 1st UNIQUE functionality
intended there to be full program coupling
Meaning program is not UNIQUELY Functional if:
it can do functions A, B & C as seperate operations
& functions A, B & C already done in seperate programs
Like:
grammar button in PSPad NOT unique, if grammar check programs exist
grammar check as you type, would be unique though
(since seperate grammar check program can't do that)
Like:
this map program NOT uniquely functional IF:
HTTrack can accept location-info to download map-images
And downloaded images can automatically be fused in GIMP
(If you know a way to do this, PLEASE let us know)
(introducing batch programs to do it, would be great)
(It would be more useful than this program)
( ..because we could do it on any map-server)
(so it solves the problem of getting England maps, too)
On USAGE-PATTERNs:
Andrew's correct: specialist's have different uses for stuff
(like some people install windows on networks 30x/day)
Should use: average expert/frequent computer user, as guide
rationale: they're probably majority of demanding-users, here
(as they would be in the general population)
On Range of views on NAGs:
ALL, so far, agree Start/End splash screen type nag ok
(this map application's inclusion is unopposed)
ALL agree on how to deal with everyday-use programs
(only Start/End spalsh type nag ok, on everyday-use programs)
Disagreement is on rare-use programs
Andrew described the jist of perspectives shared so far
mudie: document all nags, then clarified reject inter-operation nags
me: depends on app & nag; for unique, rare function <10% nag
Fluffy: All nags bad, then clarified splash-type not so bad
Andrew: some "nag" content helpful, so not such a nag
(Forgive over-simplifications, I'm trying to be very brief)
Side-Note/Rant on Advertising:
(skip down to ' muddie: ' , if desired)
I'm not sure the Anti-Virus nag was so helpful
..but what if ads were actually helpful
the idea of trade is, we all benefit..
Each side gets what they consider more valuable
(Like: I want sandwhich more, they want $3 more)
so Man's efforts all go towards something We want
works great in most of business, except advertising
In most ads, efforts are made, in endeavors, no one wanted
(..not even Co's ordering them..explained in a bit)
It's not customer driven
If restaurant run like Ads: you go in & unrequested food thrown at you
What if pay-ware software came in free altered function versions
When you want to access pay-service - it makes offers to aid you
Like:
service available online at Publisher site, with free registration, payed by ads
customer can choose "payment" method for online service:
$, answer polls, view random ads, choose ads
so, like PhotoShop is free: to use certain functions you register online
..& like how Google does, ads [even random] should relate to task
Ads can be like recipies related to current task
(like the way Campbell's gives recipies using their various products)
More Importantly:
if character of ads changed, to be scrupulously honest
so ads were like product centered articles in Consumer Reports
Co's may think that would hurt them..but it'd help a LOT
..Yes, people can be turned off by product's drawbacks
..but NOT being honest is SO MUCH worse
instead of losing one customer, you make many enemies for life
dishonest ads are like advertising omlettes & delivering helmets
at best it dissapoints customers & makes them distrust you
at worst: hungry helmeted customers unite to fight your industry
..some people want helmets, even if omlettes taste better
..Co's should sell to them, instead of shaking consumer confidence
If Co's could do this trade would dramtically increase
..because customers would less fear that they're just cheats
..increased fact distribution helps match customers with services
..fewer ticked off customers, means less law-suits/protests/complaints
more satisfaction, means more customer refferals & repeat biz
Ok, that's my rant on Advertising
muddie:
I agree that usage interruption nags suck
..& they can even undo the software function
(by disrupting user's ability to operate the funtion)
But Inter-operation nags can, rarely, be acceptable
..but they'd have to be so unique that they'd be rarely used
like for uniquely functional apps, they could be tolerable
(Like: partition program nags in progress bar while partitioning)
(isn't really disrupting our ability to operate program)
(Like: OCR for heiroglyphics nags on translating 'Nile valley' )
(ok as long as nag didn't interrupt OCR & is quick)
It's important that functions not be disrupted..
...we're compromising to get UNIQUE function
If nag robs us of that function...it's useless
On Establishing Standard:
Choosing cut-off standard can be tricky
(set too high a standard & lots of good programs are ignored)
(set too low a standard & you list mostly junk)
That's why example of car-standards, seemed good
..vehicles popularly used & have accepted technical rules
(if set too low a standard on cars, all cars would be junk)
(too high standard & only 1 car is un-bumpy enough)
seems standard today...100yrs ago car standards controversial
(..people had fist-fights over car standards & traffic rules)
so 10% standard, seemed reasonable
..since it balanced quality & availability, well, for cars
Note:
Rejected portable apps should be searchable, so NO re-submit/test
(See: my post about this at "Meta-Galactic Llama..." game poll)
