.fdi files and HAL

[Nick Penwarden]

Owen Fraser-Green wrote:

>I think in the ideal world, the user should plug the camera in, then
>something pops some kind of "New hardware found" wizard. If it's obvious
>what the hardware is exactly (which could be either from the properties
>of the hardware itself or because of extra information contained in
>installed fdi files) then the wizard would advise what it found and give
>the user the chance to accept or alter.
>
That would be ok, but I think in the ideal world it would be better if 
the system told the user nothing and just prepared to use the device. 
E.G. if it thinks its a storage device the system automatically mounts 
it and displays it's contents. The system should only prompt the user 
when it's not sure what to do. If the system is sure it knows what it's 
doing, but it's wrong, then the user should open up some sort of device 
management program and make the changes then.

>If the latter's chosen then the
>effect would be the same as the hardware not really being recognized and
>the user could be asked if the on-line database should be searched. If
>the user chooses "no" or the hardware isn't found in the database then
>the user is prompted to choose the capabilities and any other
>appropriate settings. From this an fdi can be generated which can then
>be automatically submitted to the on-line database.
>  
>
That would be great.

>The problem occurs when a user disagrees with that returned from the
>database (e.g. if someone supplied incorrect information). The client
>tool should presumably allow the user to not accept this choice, enter
>their own values, generate a new fdi and then what?
>
>Well, some kind of scoring system on the server side probably helps to
>separate wheat from chaff.
>  
>
That sounds like a good idea.

-Nick Penwarden


_______________________________________________
hal mailing list
hal at freedesktop.org
http://freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/hal